Sitting of 30 June 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitioners for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords].
Poole Harbour Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Gas Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Lurgan Gas and Electricity Bill,
Order [11th May] that the Lurgan Gas and Electricity Bill be committed, read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Fifty-eighth Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
JUSTICES' CLERKS' FEES AND SALARIES.
Copy presented of Report of a Conference invited by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider certain questions relating to Justices' Clerks' Fees and Salaries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5,317 and 5,318 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Copies presented of Ninety-second Report of the Commissioner, dated 30th June, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report for 1913–14 on the Administration of National Health Insurance [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING, TOWN-PLANNING, ETC., ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Draft Order of the Local Government Board approving, with modifications, the Ruislip-Northwood Town-Planning Scheme, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

UNITED KINGDOM (TRADE, COMMERCE, AND CONDITION OF PEOPLE).
Return ordered "for the United Kingdom for each of the years 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, and 1913, showing the following particulars so far as available:—(1) Population (millions); (2) Death Rate per Thousand; (3) Birth Rate per Thousand; (4) Paupers, total average number, Indoor and Outdoor; (5) Number of Paupers per 10,000 of the Population; (6) Total Cost

181
of Poor Relief; (7) Net Passenger Movement outwards to Places out of Europe; (8) Average Gazette Price per Quarter of Wheat, Barley, and Oats; (9) Average Price of Beef at the Metropolitan Cattle Market; (10) Total Value of the Imports of Grain, Corn, and Flour; (11) Total Value of the Imports of Meat, Alive and Dead; (12) Total Value of the Imports of Food and Drink (exclusive of Tobacco); (13) Total Value of the Imports of Food and Drink (exclusive of Tobacco) from British Colonies and Possessions; (14) Total Value of the Imports of Food and Drink (exclusive of Tobacco) per Head of Population; (15) Total quantity of Home-grown and Imported Wheat and Wheat-flour retained for Home Consumption; (16) Consumption of Wheat and Wheat-flour per Head of Population; (17) Value of Fish of British Taking landed on the Coasts of the United Kingdom; (18) Net Imports of Merchandise (deducting Re-exports), Total Value and Value per Head of Population; (19) Exports of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom, Total Value and Value per Head of Population; (20) Imports of Bullion and Specie; (21) Exports of Bullion and Specie; (22) Income Tax, Yield of each Penny; (23) Gross Income brought under Income Tax; (24) Amount standing to Credit of Depositors in Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks; (25) Consumption of Pig Iron per Head of Population; (26) Total Registered Tonnage of British Shipping; (27) Tonnage of British Shipping entered and cleared in the Foreign Trade at Ports in the United Kingdom; (28) Tonnage of Foreign Shipping entered and cleared in the Foreign Trade at Ports in the United Kingdom; and (29) Total Clearings at the London Bankers' Clearing House (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 248, of Session 1913)."—[Sir Walter Essex.]

EAST INDIA (RAILWAY AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
Return ordered, "showing the estimated position, as regards capital expenditure of the several Railways and Irrigation Works under construction in India on the 31st day of March, 1914, and the proposed expenditure thereon during 1914–15 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 143, of Session 1913)."—[Sir Robert Price.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Opium Traffic (China).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the provinces, of China, after thorough examination by representatives of Great Britain, have been found free from the production of opium, and accordingly declared free from compulsion to permit the purchase of Indian opium in accordance with the Anglo-Chinese Agreement of 1911, together with the dates when such freedom came into operation?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): Manchuria, Shansi, and Szechuan were closed to the import of Indian opium on 11th September, 1911; Chihli and Kuangsi on 1st March, 1913; Anhui, Hunan and Shantung on 15th June, 1913; Fukien on 1st May, 1914; Hupeh on 1st June, 1914; and Chekiang and Honan on 16th June, 1914.
  Mr. T. C. TAYLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman happen to know whether there has been an examination made at Shantung?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. T. C. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the central and provincial governments of China are steadily pursuing their policy of drastic suppression of the production and consumption of opium; whether in several provinces the Chinese Government is still under compulsion to permit its subjects to purchase opium; and whether, under the circumstances, the time has arrived when we should grant full freedom to China to prohibit once for all the importation of this drug?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand from reports that have reached me that strong measures are being taken in most provinces to check the production and illicit consumption of opium in China. There remain, however, seven provinces in respect of which evidence of the cessation of production has not yet been forthcoming, and which have consequently not yet been included amongst the provinces into which the importation of Indian opium is prohibited, though no opium is imported into four of them. I cannot add more than what I said in the House last night.

  Portuguese West Africa (Arrest of Rev. J. S. Bowskill).
  Mr. HOAREasked whether the Portuguese Government have yet formulated any charges against the Rev. J. S. Bowskill or stated when a trial will take place?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon has recently reported by telegraph that he had been informed by the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs that there were no charges against Mr. Bowskill. His Excellency added that at present, and until Lieutenant Crato had finished his inquiry, it was impossible to say whether there would be any or whether Mr. Bowskill would be brought to trial.
  Mr. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now four months since Mr. Bowskill was arrested, and does he not think that the time has come when the House should be placed in possession of some definite particulars?
  Sir E. GREY: I am expecting the final report of our own Consul on the subject, and when I receive it there will be no objection to giving the House full details.
  Mr. HOARE: When is that report expected?
  Sir E. GREY: It is very difficult to say, because the country is exceedingly disturbed, and it is very difficult to fix a time. I will make inquiries. I desire to get it as soon as possible. Meanwhile Mr. Bowskill is under no restraint at all.

  Dardanelles.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the general Treaty of Paris and the Convention respecting the Dardanelles, signed on 30th March, 1856, by which Russian warships are prevented from passing through the Dardanelles, are still in force; and whether any negotiations have lately taken place with the view of giving Russia the right to bring warships to and fro between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean?
  Sir E. GREY: The Treaty of Paris, subject to such modifications as arise from the Treaty of London of 1871, and the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, and the Convention of March 30th, 1856, which relates to the warships of all nations, are in force. The question of the conditions in which the Straits might be opened to ships of war has sometimes been discussed with his
  184
  Majesty's Government, but it has not been discussed or been a subject of negotiation, with Russia during the last five years. It is, of course, a matter on which Turkey and all the Powers parties to treaties concerning the Straits would be consulted before any new agreement was come to.

  INDIA.

    POLICE AND CIVIL SERVICE.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the most highly paid appointments in the Indian Police, that of inspectors-general of police, are, except in the Punjab and the United Provinces, permanently reserved for members of the Indian Civil Service; is he aware that these civilian inspectors-general have no practical experience of police work, that they only hold these appointments for three or five years as stepping-stones to higher appointments, and that they supersede officers of twenty-five to thirty years' practical experience in the police services; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. C. Roberts): The hon. Member is mistaken, as all local Governments have full discretion to fill the post of inspector-general either from the Indian Civil Service or from the police, as may seem most expedient. He will find this ruling, and the reasons for it, in Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 2478 of 1905.
    Mr. SYKES: Is it not in practice found that these appointments are confined to Civil servants?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Numerically at the present time there are more Indian Civil servants, but there is full discretion in the matter in the hands of the local Government.
    Mr. SYKES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is general dissatisfaction among police officers, because they are under the impression that they are not getting their fair share?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot interfere with the discretion of the local Government in a matter of the kind.

    RANGE-FINDERS.
    Colonel YATEasked when funds will become available to commence the issue of one-man range-finders to the Army in India, and when it is anticipated that each

    185
    battalion, both British and Indian, will be equipped with five of these range-finders, the number authorised for the Expeditionary Force in this country?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I regret that I am unable to give the hon. Member the information he desires. It rests with the Government of India to allocate funds for this and other special military requirements within the amount provided in the Budget for special or schedule expenditure.

    BRITISH SERVICE OFFICERS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can now make any statement regarding the granting to British service officers serving in India of an increase of pay corresponding to that granted to officers serving at Home and in the Colonies?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: An announcement regarding the improvement of pay for British service officers serving in India was made in India on the occasion of His Majesty's birthday. I am circulating a statement with the Votes. [See Written Answers this date.]

    Townhead Street Public School, Stonehouse.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now considered the petition of certain ratepayers in the parish of Stonehouse, anent the appointment of a headmaster to Town-head Street public school, Stonehouse; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have considered the petition and have also been in communication with the school board on the subject. As a result I see no reason to depart from the view which I expressed in answer to a previous question on the subject, namely, that the appointment and promotion of teachers is one for the discretion of the school board, who in this matter are responsible to their constituents, and I do not feel called upon to express any opinion as to the merits of the question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the objection urged as to the breach of Standing Order No. 2 of the Standing Orders of the Board?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I really think that it is a matter for the school board. I do not think that it is a matter in which I am called on to interfere. Of course, the school board deny the allegation.

    Industrial Schools (Scotland).
    Mr. WATTasked how many in spectorships of industrial schools there are in Scotland; how many Englishmen have been appointed to these posts in the last ten years; how many holding the offices at the present time have received their training in England; and whether it is intended to continue the policy of appointing men trained in ether countries to such inspectorships?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The earlier portions of my hon. Friend's question are founded upon a misapprehension. There are no separate Scottish inspectorships of industrial schools, but one inspectorate for Great Britain under a chief inspector, who reports to the Secretary for Scotland on all matters relating to reformatory and industrial schools in Scotland. A Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools is now sitting, and the inspection of these schools is one of the subjects upon which the Committee has been asked to report.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why is it that there is not a separate inspectorate for Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know that it has been so. For a long time the Committee has been considering whether it is desirable to make a change.

    Fruit Markets (Edinburgh and Glasgow).
    Major HOPEasked what steps the Board of Agriculture for Scotland are taking to inspect fruit and vegetables exposed for sale in Edinburgh and Glasgow markets, and to report any cases of American gooseberry mildew or other notifiable disease; whether there is a daily inspection; and whether this inspection takes place in the early hours of the morning when produce is first sold?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The inspectors of the Board visit these markets at an early hour from time to time to inspect the fruit and vegetables exposed for sale. Arrangements are also made with the authorities of these markets to report immediately to the Board the presence, or apparent presence, of any diseased fruit in the market.

    Diseased Fruit (Scotland).
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will say what steps the Board of Agriculture for Scotland are taking to secure that fruit and vegetables which are imported from abroad and distributed through the country without being exposed for sale in markets are not infected with American gooseberry mildew or other notifiable disease?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Board of Agriculture for Scotland do not consider that the risk of the disease being spread by imported fruit and vegetables is as great as that of its being spread from infected gardens and nurseries in this country. The efforts of the staff at the disposal of the Board are therefore concentrated principally upon the inspection of gardens and nurseries.
    Major HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Report of the Scottish Board of Agriculture there is a statement that disease was found in a jam factory in Perthshire of the fruit imported from abroad?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That may be, but I do not think it likely that it caused the spread of the disease.
    Major HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman not take some steps to protect Scottish producers from imported diseased fruit?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We did take steps, as I have described in the answer to the question.

    Fishery Cruisers.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will take the necessary steps to secure pensions for long and meritorious service for officers and men of the crews of His Majesty's fishery cruisers in Scottish waters, having in view the nature of the duties assigned to them?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The matter to which the hon. and gallant Member refers has not been lost sight of, but I am not in a position at present to add to the replies which were given to his questions on the same subject on the 2nd and 17th July last.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when he will be able to answer this question? I have asked it for at least the last three years.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have had it in mind for the last two years. The question of money has to be considered, but perhaps we will get over that difficulty soon.

    Education Grants.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Secretary for Scotland if, in view of the fact that the proposal to pay Grants by instalments is a controversial one and that the opinion of school boards is divided, he can state definitely that the Education Department will make no alteration in the existing system for the current year?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In terms of the footnote to Article 13 of the day school code, the introduction of the system of payment of Grants by instalments is deferred until 1st March, 1915, in any case. Its introduction thereafter will be duly considered with reference to the financial circumstances of the time.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Does that mean definitely that no question can possibly arise during the present Session?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Nothing can arise until March, 1915.

    Fishing Industry.
    Mr. R. HARCOURTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will say what recommendations, if any, of the Scottish Departmental Committee on the Fishing Industry he is prepared to adopt?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not prepared to make any statement in regard to the recommendations of the Committee's Report at present.
    Mr. R. HARCOURTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state when the minutes of evidence of the Scottish Departmental Committee on Sea Fisheries will be printed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The volume to which my hon. Friend refers was presented to Parliament yesterday and will. I am informed, be issued to-morrow.
    Mr. R. HARCOURTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the statement of the Departmental Committee on Inshore Fisheries [Cd. 7373] that there seems to be little doubt that destruction of undersized fish on a large scale is being caused by trawlers; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation for the prevention of

    189
    the sale, marketing, or exposure for sale of undersized fish as recommended by the Committee?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The inquiry of the Departmental Committee to which my hon. Friend refers extended only to the inshore fisheries of England and Wales, but I have taken note of the statement which he mentions so far as it has a bearing on Scottish fishery questions. As to legislation, I would refer him to the reply given to his question yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: May we understand that the two Departments are in close consultation as to policy?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly, they will consult as to policy before proceeding with legislation. It is rather an international question.
    Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Fisheries Commission has obtained all the information required for the purpose of framing its Report; and, if so, when the Report may be expected?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Inter-departmental Committee on Fisheries hopes to be in possession of the necessary information for framing its Report very shortly.

    House of Commons (Members' Accommodation).
    Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether a large upper room in this House is now vacant; if so, whether he will consider the desirability of making it available for the use of hon. Members; and whether he will have it fitted up as a newspaper room, in which files of important papers for a few back weeks might be kept and thus made available for Members?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Yes, Sir. It is hoped that several large rooms on the Upper Committee Room floor will shortly be acquired for the use of Members. These rooms can easily be reached by the new lift. The First Commissioner would be glad to know to what use Members would wish them put.
    Mr. KING: Will it be possible to reach these rooms easily by means of the lift?
    Mr. BENN: I have just said so.
    Mr. KING: I have another question. I should like to know whether these rooms will be quiet and secluded, so as to offer a resort to hon. Members who want to prepare their speeches?
    Mr. BENN: The rooms will be accessible by the new lift.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Member say how he proposes to get the opinion of the hon. Members as to the use to which these rooms are going to be put? Those who have ascended in the lift have found that one of the rooms is already being used by one of the parties in this House, and I am perfectly certain that none of us knew about it.
    Mr. BENN: The intention, in the first place, was that hon. Members should communicate their wishes to the First Commissioner of Works.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that a file of foreign newspapers is put in one of those rooms?
    Mr. BENN: The supply of newspapers is not the concern of the Office of Works.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Are there going to be some attendants to look after these particular rooms?
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman arrange for separate writing tables in one of those rooms?
    Mr. BENN: Oh, yes. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to communicate with my hon. Friends, so that the wishes of hon. Members may be met.

    Royal Courts of Justice.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if any persons employed at the Royal Courts of Justice were deprived of their pay in consequence of the closing of the Courts on the occasion of the celebration of His Majesty's birthday; and, if so, will he state the number affected and the total amount of pay involved?
    Mr. BENN: No employés of the Office of Works at the Royal Courts of Justice lost their pay in consequence of the King's birthday.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    CHEMISTS' TARIFF (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether the tariff paid to chemists in Scotland under the National Insurance Act is the same as that paid to chemists in England; and whether the chemists in Scotland have shown the necessity, be cause of the different circumstances existing there, of having a Scottish tariff of prices instituted?
    Mr. BENN: The tariffs in force in England were the subject of local negotiations in the various areas, and they afford no ground for a comparison of the circumstances of England as a whole with those of Scotland.

    Hurdstone Church School (Macclesfield).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Board in 1904 instructed the managers of the Hurdstone Church of England school, Macclesfield, to alter a dangerous staircase and in 1908 threatened to withdraw the Grant; whether the various representations made from 1904 to the the present time have been followed by the required alteration on the part of the managers; and, if not, what action he proposes to take?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Board have pressed for the reconstruction of this staircase on several occasions and threatened a deduction of Grant in 1910. Improvements of a temporary nature were effected in the staircase last year, but its reconstruction in a permanently satisfactory manner has been postponed, along with the other improvements required in the premises, mainly in consequence of the prolonged negotiations for the sale of the premises to the local education authority. As the negotiations have proved abortive, the Authority now propose to make other provision.
    Mr. KING: In giving larger Grants than have been previously given, will the right hon. Gentleman provide that a school of this class, which has defied the authority for nine years, shall not share equally with schools brought up to date?
    Mr. PEASE: I shall endeavour to do my best to bring any authorities who are behind up to a reasonable standard of efficiency.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman use these new Grants for that purpose?
    Mr. PEASE: It is only by making deductions from the Grants that I have any power to put pressure on the authorities.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether the premises in Trinity Square used as part of the Hurdstone Church of England school, Macclesfield, were closed in January last as dangerous; whether it is intended that they shall remain closed; what was their recognised accommodation; and whether suitable provision has been or will be made for the children displaced?
    Mr. PEASE: The premises, which provided accommodation for 239 girls and 185 infants, were closed as stated, and it appears unlikely that they will be reopened. The displaced children have been accommodated temporarily in other public elementary schools, and the local education authority are finding a site for a new school, notices of which have been issued and have expired.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the Department knew that those schools were in a dangerous condition before they were closed?
    Mr. PEASE: I think in 1910, and I believe, in one or two cases, back to 1903.

    Elementary Schools, Liverpool.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a report from an inspector of the Board on the elementary schools in Liverpool in which fees are charged; and, if so, whether any action will be taken arising from facts revealed in this report?
    Mr. PEASE: The information obtained from His Majesty's inspector was incorporated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's question on 18th May. I do not think it was such as to call for any action by the Board.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to see the full reply, and not only those of the experts, which were given to me on that occasion?
    Mr. PEASE: I will consider it.

  FINANCE BILL.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the expenditure entailed by bankers, trustees, limited liability companies, and

    193
    others in refunding the excess amount deducted for Income Tax on the 1s. 4d. rate will be met by the Government?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. and learned Member for York.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state why, in spite of repeated pledges given by him, no provision is made in either the Finance Bill or the Revenue Bill for amending the law relating to the collection and assessment of Income Tax on the incomes of husband and wife; why the necessary Resolutions for this purpose were not obtained, notwithstanding that it was pointed out on the 4th May, 1914, that such Resolutions were necessary; when he proposes to move the Resolutions for this purpose; and whether, in considering this, he will bear in mind that he specifically promised to deal with this matter early during the present Session?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement on this subject which I made yesterday.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon Gentleman see his way to table the Resolution a few days before it is taken, as the subject is one raising certain questions of difficulty?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; I do not see any reason why that should not be done. I will consult my advisers on the subject. I think it might be desirable.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give any estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the relief from Income Tax to persons in respect of the deduction in each year in arriving at the balance of his profits or gains for the purpose of assessment under Schedule D of a sum proportionate to the cost of, or to the premium paid for, any lease of premises used solely for the carrying on of any trade, business, or profession?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I understand the hon. Member to ask for an estimate of the cost of allowing a trader who holds his business premises on lease to deduct, in arriving at his assessable profits, a part (proportionate to the length of the lease)
    194
    of the capital cost of the lease. I fear it is impossible to give any estimate of the cost of allowance on these lines.

    EDUCATION BLOCK GRANT.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in order to secure and extend the elementary education of England and Wales being free of fees, he will insert an Amendment in the Finance Bill and thus provide that the new Block Grant of 36s. a unit shall be given in full only to schools charging no fees, but shall be given in respect of fee schools subject to a deduction equal to the amount of the fees charged?
    Mr. PEASE: If the Block Grant is calculated, as at present proposed, on the net expenditure of each authority, any fees received by the authority will reduce this sum, and therefore reduce the Block Grant to the extent of two-fifths of the amount so received. I do not think the matter can be dealt with in the way proposed by the hon. Member, but I am considering whether any amendment can be made to render the law relating to fees more satisfactory.

    GRANTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that more time will be available for dealing with Grants to local authorities if the Finance Bill is divided, as indicated by the President of the Local Government Board, and in view of the result of the Division on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, he will reconsider the decision of the Government not to make temporary Grants to local authorities this year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can add nothing to the statements on this subject I have already made in this House.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the case that when the Clauses dealing with the local Grants are free from the time limit of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act the House has more time?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Undoubtedly.

    School Children (Weighing and Measuring).
    Sir HARRY VERNEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board require systematic weighing and measuring of all children entering and leaving public elementary

    195
    schools (apart from the frequent weighing of certain delicate children) as part of routine medical inspection; whether the practical results obtained justify the expenditure of time, energy, and money required for the fulfilment of this condition; whether the Board have refused to pay Grant at the maximum rate under the medical Grant regulations because any authority has not been convinced as to the necessity for such weighing and measuring; and whether, in view of the decision of this House when considering the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill, 1907, not to impose by Statute upon the rates the burden of making provision for such periodic weighing and measuring, he will explain why the Board uses the power of the purse to compel an authority to make such provision?
    Mr. PEASE: The Board have not regarded the weighing and measuring of children as essential to the performance of the minimum statutory duty of a local education authority; but they have always included the child's height and weight in their "model" inspection schedule, since they hold that no child can be considered properly examined medically so long as the medical officer remains in ignorance of its height and weight. In assessing the Grant the Board have, therefore, felt bound to take this circumstance into consideration. As regards the second part of the question, experience justifies me in answering it in the affirmative. I assume that in the last question the hon. Baronet is referring to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the University of London on the 12th August, 1907, the purpose of which was to give authorities power to institute a system of periodic measurement mainly with a view to the collection of anthropometric data. The Board do not regard provision for the periodic weighing and measuring of children with the view to the collection of anthropometric data as an essential part of an efficient school medical service.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the establishment of a proper medical standard and medical inspection?
    Mr. PEASE: We are putting pressure in that direction, and I am endeavouring to do what I can to secure proper regard to the heights and weights of school children.

    London University.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether the donations announced last year by the Lord Chancellor as offered towards the acquisition of a permanent site for London University buildings are still available; and whether these donations were made contingent upon the purchase of the Duke of Bedford's site in Bloomsbury?
    Mr. PEASE: I am not able to answer these questions which relate to matters of which I have no official cognisance.

    Customs Preventive Officers.
    Mr. DIXONasked the Secretary to the Treasury why payment by merchants to Custom House preventive officers for overtime work has been disallowed?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The old system of direct payment by merchants to Water-guard officers has been discontinued, because it gave rise to anomalies, and frequently operated inequitably as between one officer and another. Under the new system all officers are treated alike, overtime being paid direct to them by the Board.
    Mr. DIXON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware there is very great dissatisfaction at having this right taken away, and will he allow the overtime to be paid?
    Mr. MONTAGU: They get overtime paid under the contract.
    Mr. DIXON: Is it not a fact that you only allow that after forty-eight hours' work? They are ingenious regulations. You cheat them out of it.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The men's scale of overtime is working more equitably between the different officers than the old system.
    Mr. DIXON: They do not think so themselves.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IMPORTATION OF ARMS.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give any estimate of the number of rifles and rounds of ammunition that have been introduced into Ireland since the Proclamation prohibiting such importation was first issued?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir.

    NATIONAL VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. FELLasked the Chief Secretary if he will state the number of the Nationalist Volunteers in Ireland according to the latest information in his possession?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The number of Irish Volunteers according to latest information is estimated at 114,000.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that a farmer motor-cycling home from Londonderry recently was set upon by National Volunteer pickets and seriously injured; if the man was rescued by the local police, who were also assaulted and besieged in barracks; and if proceedings have been instituted against those concerned in the outrage?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that Mr. Robert Mooney was stopped while riding a motor cycle through Londonderry on the night of the 19th June and was assaulted, but not seriously injured. Two constables who were on duty in the vicinity took Mooney to the police station and subsequently escorted him outside the city. The crowd attempted to follow Mooney, but were kept back by the police and some Irish Volunteers, who gave useful assistance. None of the police were assaulted on the occasion. The matter has been fully investigated by the police, and every effort made to obtain evidence of identification against the offenders, but without success.
    Mr. F. HALL: Have they been successful in obtaining evidence of identification?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I say that every effort has been made to obtain evidence of identification against the offenders, but without success.

    Metropolitan Police (Sunday Duty).
    Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the hours of labour of Metropolitan police constables on Sunday day duty, and what time is allowed them between the hour of commencing duty and the hour of finishing duty, in order that they may get refreshments to eat and drink?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The hours of day duty on Sundays are eight, and mainly to meet the wishes of
    198
    the men they are allowed to perform this duty in one tour, whereby they secure a longer period of uninterrupted leisure. The men carry their own food with them, and are instructed to take it as opportunity presents itself. It would not be practicable to provide temporary relief on Sunday, since it is the practice to allow as large a number of men as possible to avail themselves of the leave due to them on that day. Any alteration of the existing practice would, I believe, be unpopular with the great majority of the men.

    Kent Coal-field.
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has official information to the effect that the coal under a tract of 4,000 acres in the Kentish coalfield has just been acquired by a French firm of ironmasters, and that two groups of Belgian capitalists are also negotiating for large areas of coal-land in Kent; and, if so, can he state the total acreage which is now controlled by foreign companies or firms?
    Mr. McKENNA: The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to this question. The Home Office has no official information on the subject, but in accordance with the promise I gave to the hon. Member when replying to his previous question of the 12th of March, I made some inquiries, which went to show that foreign companies or syndicates had acquired leases of about 16,000 acres of the Kentish coal-field, and negotiations for the lease of 2,000 more were in progress.
    Mr. FELL: Does that 16,000 acres include the 4,000 acres which has just been taken by a French firm?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not say. I have given the hon. Member all the information I have on the subject.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it not the fact that part of this acreage is quite adjacent to Dover and on the coast from Dover to Deal, and has he taken into consideration the possible danger in time of war from having a large tract of coal land so near important defensive stations owned in that way?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no power in the matter, but perhaps the Noble Lord would make representations to the owner of the coal to refrain from selling.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman not the power under the

    199
    Official Secrets Act to prohibit coal being worked within a certain distance of a dock?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no powers of that kind.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MR. YEXLEY.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has at any time conferred directly or indirectly with Mr. Yexley, the editor of the "Fleet," against whom Captain Kemp has recently obtained heavy damages for libel, with regard to the drawing up of Regulations for the revised pay of seamen?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir, I consulted Mr. Yexley and a good many other persons directly and indirectly on the subject of the recent increases in the pay of the Fleet, and received much information that was of value.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is Mr. Yexley still confidential adviser to the Admiralty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware that he has ever occupied that position.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the House to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he has paid no attention to the instructions or to the advice that has been tendered by Mr. Yexley?
    There being no reply,
    Mr. F. HALL: Then the House is to draw its own conclusion.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. F. HALLasked if arrangements had yet been made for the construction of the battleships and battleship cruisers included in the 1914–15 building programme; how many of these will be built in the Admiralty yards and how many under contract; and which of the ships will be constructed for the use of oil fuel?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The proposed allocation of the battleships of this year's programme is shown on pages 234 and 238 of the current Navy Estimates issued in March last. As I informed the House on the 21st May last, orders for the two contract-built ships have already been placed. It is not the practice of this or any other country to publish the details of battleship designs at so early a stage of their construction.

    OIL FUEL (UNITED KINGDOM).
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Admiralty are in possession of evidence showing the commercial possibility of obtaining oil fuel at remunerative rates from coal within the Home area, he is prepared to consider the advisability of rendering assistance to undertakings of financial soundness operating within the United Kingdom on principles similar to those upon which assistance has been or is to be given to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am not able at present to add to the statements I have made on this subject both in Committee and in answer to questions.
    Mr. S. WALSH: Are the Admiralty in possession of the evidence to which I refer in the first part of the question—that oil fuel can be obtained at remunerative rates in the Home area?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I dealt with this point in my answer some days ago. I pointed out that the difficulty of producing oil at home is not so much the chemical and technical process as the difficulty of disposing of the by-products—the residue. I cannot add anything to the full answer that I then gave.

    Holt Committee Report.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Postmaster-General by what method he proposes that the Post Office staff should select the two representatives for the proposed Committee to deal with the Holt Report, seeing that there are a number of different grades, each having its own association, which to some extent are independent of one another?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The National Joint Committee of Postal and Telegraph Associations has recommended to me the names of two representatives, who are the secretary of the Postmen's Federation and a telegraphist respectively. As the National Joint Committee represents considerably over 50 per cent. of the total number of postal servants affected by the Holt Report, and has secured the adhesion of some classes who do not usually belong to that organisation, it may be assumed that any selection by a vote would only

    201
    result in the same persons being selected, and I am inclined, therefore, to accept the names of Mr. Stuart and Mr. Young.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mary Sullivan (née Kelly), Breahig, near Waterville, has applied for an old age pension; that she has been married forty-nine years, her eldest son being now forty-seven years of age; and whether, in view of the fact that she was married at the age of twenty-four, he will state why she has not yet been granted a pension?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Mary Sullivan (née Kelly) was married on the 17th April, 1866, but there is no evidence to show what her age was at the date of her marriage. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence the Local Government Board decided that she was not entitled to a pension.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the date upon which the agreements between the owner and the tenants on the W. J. Talbot estate at Mount Talbot, Roscommon, were lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and whether he will give any idea when the vesting orders will be issued?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale by the vendor direct to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and purchase agreements at prices agreed upon between the parties were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in February, 1908. The estate is not in priority on the principal register of direct sales (all cash) for payment during the current financial year, but it is anticipated that, provided the Commissioners' requirements are complied with, the holdings will be vested in the purchasing tenants before the end of the next financial year.

    Children (Employment and School Attendance) Bill.
    Mr. HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether he will give facilities for the further progress of the Children (Employment and School Attendance) Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this
    202
    question. With the existing heavy demands on Government time and the serious opposition which has manifested itself against the Bill, my right hon. Friend is afraid it is impossible to grant facilities for the Bill this Session.
    Mr. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain of the reforms proposed in this Bill are long overdue and to some of them there is very little opposition, and would he give time to see if we could proceed with the less contentious part of the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will put that point to the Prime Minister. There is, no doubt, very serious opposition to the leading feature of the Bill.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider that a measure on these lines was promised in the King's Speech last year and that all the important parts of the Bill have been already passed through a number of stages by the House at one time or another?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree, but there is the question of time. I am afraid the Government could not afford the time, and the House would not remain.
    Mr. BECK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that portion of this Bill, not a very contentious portion, has passed through each House of Parliament in different Sessions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like to look into that to see what part is non-contentious and if my hon. Friend calls my attention to that I will put it before my right hon. Friend.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE).
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the total enrolled number of officers and men of the Infantry Territorial battalions of Lancashire and Cheshire attended their annual camp this year in the Whitsuntide holidays, indicating what percentage attended for one week and what for the whole period, and giving comparative figures for the same battalions of their attendance at last year's annual camp?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): In the battalions

    203
    indicated 8.9 of the strength attended for less than the whole period, and 85.1 for the whole period. The corresponding percentages for last year were 19 per cent. and 71.V per cent.
    Mr. SYKES: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that extra attendance was due to the pound bounty that has been given for the first time this year?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is impossible to give an answer yet as we have not had sufficient experience. I should not wonder if that had something to do with the result.

    CAVALRY REGIMENTS (SERVICE IN INDIA).
    Mr. WHELERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, as there is now a larger number of Cavalry regiments stationed in Great Britain and available for service in India than formerly, the term of service of those British Cavalry regiments serving in India will be shortened?
    Mr. TENNANT: No change is contemplated.
    Mr. WHELER: Is it not the case that some regiments may be in India for shorter periods than others?
    Mr. TENNANT: No. I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I think they will all be there for the same period.

    Income Tax Commissioners.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will in future appoint as Special Commissioners of Income Tax persons other than surveyors of taxes or other persons who have been in the service of the Crown?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend sees no reason to depart from the present policy under which some of these appointments are filled from persons who have previously been in the service of the Crown and some from persons who have not.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that one can get an impartial tribunal when that tribunal is composed of Government officials?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is a very extraordinary doctrine to assume that Government officials cannot be impartial.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are they not more likely to take the part of the Crown in any dispute between the Crown and a private subject?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think so. I think that they act very judicially and impartially.

    Land Valuation (Scotland).
    Major HOPEasked how many valuations under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 have now been finally completed in Scotland; and how many remain to be made or finally adjusted?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have stated in reply to similar questions relating to England and Wales and Ireland, the only figures at present available are those of the number of valuations served and remaining to be served. The respective figures for Scotland are 273,720 and 134,109, but in some 11,000 cases included in the latter figure the preliminary work has been completed.

    National Schools (Ireland).
    Mr. JOHN WALSHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the year 1899 there were in Irish national schools 91 assistant teachers in first-of-first class, 277 assistant teachers in second-of-first class, and 1,553 assistant teachers in second class; that these assistants were promoted to these classes on the same conditions as principal teachers; and that, under existing rules, six consecutive very good reports in the last six years of twelve or more years' service are required for promotion of assistants, whereas only three good reports are required by principal teachers; if so, will he explain why the Commissioners require a higher standard of qualification for assistants' promotion than for principals'; and whether, seeing that it is not the fault of experienced assistants that they remain assistants, and that the Commissioners have neglected to frame rules which would insist on vacant principalships being filled by these experienced assistants, he will say what steps the Commissioners intend taking in future for the promotion at a more rapid rate of Irish assistant teachers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the numbers and classes of teachers in 1899 were as stated in the question.

    205
    Assistant teachers were at that time promoted in classification on the same conditions as principal teachers, but such promotion generally speaking brought no corresponding increase of salary. No comparison such as is made in the question between the number of Reports necessary for promotion of the two classes of teachers is equitable without a consideration of all the other aspects of the question. The promotions of principals are regulated by rule, the promotions of assistants are exceptions to a rule, and to justify the exception in the case of the latter, very high qualifications are expected. The Commissioners have had the question of the promotion of assistant teachers under consideration for some time, and they have given facilities for the more rapid promotion of these officers in certain cases. The question is, however, being still considered with a view to an increase of these facilities for promotion, if possible.

    Albania (Arrest of Mr. Dell).
    Mr. JOHN HODGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given private notice: Whether he has received any further information as to the safety or otherwise of Mr. Anthony Dell, correspondent of the "Daily Citizen," who has been taken prisoner by the insurgents in Albania; and whether he will make strong representations for the immediate release of Mr. Dell and his safe passage to this country?
    Sir E. GREY: I have heard nothing since yesterday, when the British delegate on the International Commission in Albania informed me by telegraph that a letter had been received from Mr. Dell, stating that he was well and in no danger, and would probably shortly be released. The newspaper was informed of this at once by telephone. Mr. Lamb will, of course, do all he can to help Mr. Dell.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the Prime Minister say what business will be taken on Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Supply (Post Office Vote).
Mr. J. HOGGE: What item will be put first?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will consider that.
Mr. J. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the suggestion made before—that two days have already been given to the Post Office Vote, while no Scottish business at all has been considered, and also that no big general question should be allowed to occupy the whole day?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will bear that in mind.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Charles Thomas-Stanford, esquire, for the Borough of Brighton.

DOGS BILL.
Reported, so far as amended, from Standing Committee A.
Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read;
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]
Minutes of the Procedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 313.]

PRIVATE BILLS.
Skegness Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Ellesmere Port and Whitby Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
(Group J),
Mr. Mooney reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills: That the parties promoting the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill had stated that the evidence of Albert Edward Wonnacott, General Secretary of the Plymouth Mutual Co-operative and Industrial Society, Frankfort Street, Plymouth, and A. W. C. Stanbury was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Albert Edward Wonnacott and A. W. C. Stanbury do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock, and that the said Albert Edward Wonnacott do bring with him the minute book and balance sheets of the Plymouth Mutual Co-operative and Industrial Society.
Ordered, That Albert Edward Wonnacott and A. W. C. Stanbury do attend the Committee on Group J of Private Bills Tomorrow, at Eleven of the clock, and that Albert Edward Wonnacott do bring with him the minute book and balance sheets of the Plymouth Mutual Co-operative and Industrial Society.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Gas Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  PEDLARS' ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Pedlars' Act, 1871, as regards persons for whom certificates shall not be required." Presented by Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES; supported by Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Long, and Mr. William Redmond; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 14th July, and to be printed. [Bill 298.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  "To give increased powers to local authorities with regard to Electric Lighting, and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES; supported by Mr. Cave, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Hamar Greenwood, Sir William Priestley, Mr. Pointer, and Sir John Tudor Walters; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 14th July, and to be printed. [Bill 299.]

ASSASSINATION OF ARCHDUKE FRANCIS FERDINAND AND HIS CONSORT.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I rise, Sir, to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the indignation and deep concern with which this House has learned of the assassination of His Imperial and Royal Highness the Archduke Francis Ferdinand and of his Consort, and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Imperial and Royal Majesty the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary on the part of this House, his faithful Commons, their abhorrence of the crime and their

215
profound sympathy with the Imperial and Royal Family and with the Governments and peoples of the Dual Monarchy."
Mr. Speaker, we are once more confronted with one of those incredible crimes which almost make us despair of the progress of mankind. The victims, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his Consort, were within the last few months the guests of our King. They left behind them, among all here who had the privilege of seeing and knowing them, a gracious and an unfading memory. Our thoughts and hearts turn to the illustrious Sovereign, the Emperor of Austria, who has for the better part of seventy years sustained on his own shoulders an almost unexampled burden of care and responsibility. Called to the throne of a vast Empire before most of us here were born, he has set an example to the rulers of the world of patient assiduity and devoted self-sacrifice in the pursuit of duty to which there have been few parallels in our own or any other time. Tried by the most exacting standard during the better part of the lifetime of two generations, he has never failed to attain the highest ideal of what, under the imperious stress of new and ever-shifting conditions, Kingship can be made to be. In sunshine and in storm, whether fortune smiled or frowned, he has been the unperturbed, sagacious, and heroic head of a mighty State, rich in splendid traditions, and associated with us in this country in some of the most moving and treasured chapters of our common history. Around few figures in the history of Europe has it pleased Providence to gather and concentrate such a pitiless, and, to the human eye, such an unmerited succession of dark and wounding experiences. He and his people have always been our friends, and in the name of the Commons, of the nation, of this United Kingdom, and in the presence of this last and most inscrutable affliction, we respectfully tender to him and to the great family of nations of which he is the venerable and venerated head, our heartfelt and our most affectionate sympathy.
Mr. BONAR LAW: In seconding the Motion which has just been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, in language so eloquent and so appropriate, I desire to join with him in expressing our abhorrence of the crime and our sympathy with the Austrian people and their ruler in the calamity which we deplore. This crime, as the right hon. Gentleman has truly said, is one of those which, of all others, seems the most objectless. It has struck down the Archduke in the prime of life at the post of duty, it has struck down the wife whom he dearly loved, and who tried in vain to save him, and it has made their little children orphans, not because of any offence which he has committed, but as an act of revenge against conditions and against a system for which he was not responsible, and which such crimes can never alter. As the Prime Minister has shown us, the heart of the whole world is turned to-day in sorrow and in pity to the lonely desolate figure of the aged Emperor. Well might he exclaim, as he is reported to have exclaimed: "I am to be spared no sorrow." He had already drained almost to its dregs the cup of human suffering, and on the rack of this tough world he is stretched out still. What changes he has seen! In what changes has he taken part during the almost seventy years since he ascended the throne! Amidst all these changes—some of them world-wide—which have altered the political centre of gravity of Europe, there is one which is not least important, and which to him may perhaps be most gratifying. When he first assumed his crown in the year of revolution he maintained his position by force and force alone. All that is changed! His steadfast devotion to duty—as he saw it!—during a period which has covered two generations of men, has had its reward, until now it is, I think, true to say that there is no Sovereign in the world who enjoys in fuller measure than he the respect, confidence, and love of his people.
Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

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

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

  TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.—(Class II.)

    PRIME MINISTER'S SALARY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £63,263, 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 other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896." [Note.—£45,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: "I beg to move, "That Item A (Salary of the First Lord of the Treasury) be reduced by £1,000."
    After the moving words of the Prime Minister, which come home to me with special force, because I have an intimate knowledge of the theatre of the crime which he has just denounced, I feel reluctance in bringing forward an Amendment which has the appearance of a personal attack upon himself. But I think before I have done he will see that it is only as a matter of Parliamentary technique that his name is coupled with the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I move the Amendment standing in my name to reduce the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury on account of his failure to take steps proper to his office, and I think necessary, in view of recent circumstances, to take effective action to ensure the maintenance of a high standard of single-minded disinterestedness in the public service of this country. Indeed, I am well aware that a purely party interpretation may be put upon this Amendment, and that it may be ascribed to a desire to gain a party advantage. I say, if that be so, it is in the power of the Prime Minister to deprive us of any party advantage that might follow from it. If we are able to make out a case that action has not been taken to meet the growing danger to the public service
    218
    of this country, and if the Prime Minister acknowledges that and takes the necessary steps, he will at once and by one speech deprive us of any party advantage we might make out of this matter. If, on the other hand, he refuses to meet us in what I hope to be able to prove to be necessary, then, of course, we have a public right to comment upon his refusal, and to draw such inferences from it as the facts suggest. I want to again refer to questions I put to the Prime Minister in the course of last month. The first was:—
    "Whether the Prime Minister is prepared to issue a Treasury Minute with regard to speculation by officials embodying, with or without qualification, the recommendations of a recent Select Committee of the House of Lords?"
    And the right hon. Gentleman's answer was:—
    "I am not aware that any occasion has arisen since my speech on 19th June last year which requires that public servants should be reminded of their obligations in this respect."
    I then asked him:—
    "May I take it that the view of the Government is that no rule need to be laid down as to the right of Ministers and other salaried officials to speculate at will?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the speech I have referred to I laid down the rules myself"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1914, col. 1705, Vol. LXII.]
    I further questioned him whether he was prepared to take action to enforce the rules he himself laid down. I asked him on May 21st:—
    "Whether he is prepared to issue a Treasury Minute embodying the principles laid down by himself last year with regard to investment and speculation by the holders of public office?
    The Prime Minister: In my statement of 19th June, 1913, to which the hon. Members refers, I expressed doubt as to whether it was practicable to lay down a code of rules of conduct for Ministers and persons in official positions with regard to these matters, although I was able to lay down certain principles governing typical cases. I think it is sufficient that I should now reaffirm those principles for the guidance of the Departments, and I see no necessity for, or advantage in, issuing a Treasury Minute on the subject.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1914, col. 2131, Vol. LXII.]
    The whole case I wish to lay before the Committee is that that is necessary, and that it would be an advantage in dealing with these matters that the right hon. Gentleman, as First Lord of the Treasury, should deal with them by Treasury Minute. I must begin by referring the Committee to a document published on the 1st May last in the newspapers of this country. It was a Report signed by five peers who had been investigating certain charges made against one of their own order.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Members at this early stage, as I already explained to the hon. Member for

    219
    Sheffield himself, that the responsibility as I understand it of the First Lord of the Treasury upon this Vote is confined to the power to issue a minute dealing with Civil servants. Anything beyond that comes within the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, and therefore must be dealt with in the House and not in Committee of Supply. So that on this occasion we are limited to the question of dealing with the case of Civil servants.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Yes, but the body whose views I am about to quote made a recommendation in which they laid down that is was necessary that a general law applicable to the whole public service should be passed, and before laying down that they referred to certain circumstances that led them to that conclusion. I, therefore, when I come to the recommendations, shall confine myself strictly to the action that the right hon. Gentleman as First Lord should take. My purpose in referring to the Committee was only to illustrate the need which had arisen. It is necessary to say a word about the personality of the five peers who signed this Report. Two of them had served the office of Lord Chancellor, one had served the office of Public Prosecutor, another was a prominent head of one of the great Civil Departments of the public service, and, although I do not know whether it is relevant, but I may mention that three out of the five—the majority of the Committee—were known to be supporters of the Liberal party. If there be any tribunal from which there might be expected a sound conclusion on complicated evidence, I submit it was such a tribunal as that which came to the conclusions I am now about to allude to. The subject of their investigations had been charges made against another Nobleman who held high public office, and it is fair to say that on some of the points charged against him he obtained an absolute and honourable acquittal. But he was convicted of grave error. He was shown to have put himself in a position of temptation, namely, that his public duty might be biassed by his private interests—
    The CHAIRMAN: That may or may not be so; but certainly we here do not raise matters affecting a Member of another House who is not here to reply or deal with the question, and I only suggest to the hon. Member not to read anything of
    220
    his own into a report in reference to a Member of another House of Parliament who has no opportunity, and is not competent to deal with if in this House at all.
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Whitley, whether your attention was called to the fact that a question was allowed in this House by Mr. Speaker in reference to Lord Londonderry? Do we understand your ruling to be that no question can be raised reflecting upon the conduct of a Member of the other House?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not know what the Noble Lord is referring to, but it seems to me to be a matter of common practice in this House, and the hon. Member for Sheffield is aware of it, and I only wish to guard against reading something into a certain Report which might be open to be challenged. He is entitled, I think, in support of his argument to give any relevant matter from the Report of the Committee.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: The hon. Member was referring to certain charges which have been brought against Lord Murray as to whether they were well founded or not. Would it be in order to review matters of that kind as to whether these charges were well founded or not upon this Vote?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is why I suggest that for the purpose of the hon. Member's arguments, he should only deal with what the Committee said.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I accept that ruling and I do not believe what I said went one inch beyond what the Committee did find. I will confine myself to what the Committee did find. They said that this Nobleman disregarded
    "what he ought to have remembered, that he might have to procure as Chief Whip the ratification of the contract between the British Government and the English company, which would favourably affect the value of the American and all other Marconi shares. He now recognizes that he ought not to have bought these shares."
    That is what I meant when I said that this Nobleman put himself in a position of temptation in which his public duty and private interests might be in conflict, and that is not a word more than was said by the Committee. It is true the Committee found that Lord Murray put himself in that false position as a matter of inadvertence rather than

    221
    design, and they acquitted him on the ground of inadvertence of dishonourable conduct. They further found that he had shown a most unwise reticence, but he is not alone in this matter. There were other Ministers concerned, and all that was said of this Nobleman applies to one other Minister, who had an interest in the same company which he acquired at the same time and on the same information.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into a matter which does not concern the Committee of Supply. That may be a proper matter for the consideration of the House, and I think it is a matter which has already been dealt with by the House and may be dealt with again, but it does not concern the First Lord of the Treasury in his capacity as First Lord. In this discussion we must confine ourselves to the duties of the right hon. Gentleman connected with the Civil Service, and not with Ministers. There are other occasions on which those matters can very properly be dealt with.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was about to argue that we could deal with this matter in connection with the Civil Service on the ground that the Ministers concerned are those who control a Department of the Civil Service.
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, and that is why I allowed the hon. Member to go so far as he has done, but he cannot raise other matters which do not properly come before the Committee of Supply. The hon. Member can argue from one to the other, but he must not proceed to develop the one which is out of order.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to a certain Minister in consequence of what you had said because that Minister was not here to defend himself, and I was afraid I might be taunted with want of courage if I neglected to say the same thing about a Minister who was here and could defend himself. With regard to an ex-Minister who is not here, obviously I cannot say anything, and all I would say—
    The CHAIRMAN: May I put it this way to the hon. Member? I was asked by certain right hon. Gentlemen whether they would be entitled to address the Committee on this subject, and I said, "Certainly not." Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that I must not allow matters to be raised in regard to which I said I could not allow a reply.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think if you had allowed me to finish my sentence you would have seen that there is nothing out of order. All I said was that I do not want to go out of my way to make any racial attack. Efforts have been made to that end. If there is one thing I have a hatred for it is the spirit of anti-semitism, which may be excused by the circumstances of some countries, but can never be justified here. That is really all I have to say on that subject. [Laughter.] Why that remark should lead to hilarity is not a matter which is easy to understand. I will now come to the conclusion to which this body came. They said:—
    "We think it is within our province to express our strong opinion that there should be henceforth an inflexible rule to preclude those who hold any public office from entering into any speculative transactions in stocks or shares in any circumstances whatsoever, and that this rule should be by them inculcated on their subordinates both by precept and example. The evils that may arise from a violation of this principle are incalculable."
    The object of my Motion is to appeal to the Prime Minister to take some steps in his capacity as First Lord of the Treasury to inculcate that rule authoritatively on the Civil Service of this country. I do not think there can be any question as to the need of this and the dangers that might arise. I have known the case of an officer in the Intelligence Department which came to my notice some years ago, who, at a time of a European crisis deliberately sold all the stocks and shares he possessed in order that when the war which he expected broke out he might buy them in again at a lower level. He played the part of a "bear" against the interests of peace in the time of an emergency, and I am happy to say that the result was that he had to buy in again at a very much higher price than he sold out. The same question arises in every department of the public service. Supposing some official of the Irish Office, from information which came to him officially, came to the conclusion that it was impossible for the Home Rule Bill to pass, and that thereupon he made certain speculations. I think it would be agreed that that would be a grossly improper transaction arising out of his official information.
    4.0 P.M.
    Supposing an official of the Treasury knew that there would be some remission of indirect taxation on certain articles, and he thereupon acquired an interest in companies dealing with those articles. That is a possible and a very obvious danger. I presume the Prime Minister will say that the difficulty is as to what

    223
    practical steps can be taken. I have taken some trouble to look into what is known as the discipline of the Civil Service. I have asked questions upon the subject, and I have found it very difficult to get an answer. I find that it depends not upon Statute, but upon custom, and the custom has been that the Treasury, in the name of the First Lord, issues a document, either in the nature of a warning or injunctions known as Treasury Minutes, which, in fact and practice are binding upon the Department, the ultimate result being, I presume, dismissal by the prerogative of the Crown. I submit that this is a very proper and fitting opportunity for a Treasury Minute in this direction. I have here, though I do not suppose it is necessary for me to quote it, a Treasury Minute of Mr. Gladstone's with regard to giving away official information. It begins in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury, which he was then, and it is a strong admonition to all public officials throughout the service to be careful and reticent in imparting official information. That principle as regards military secrets afterwards crystallised, as is well known, in the Official Secrets Act, 1899, since amended in 1911. But, of course, if the Prime Minister thinks it better to proceed by other means, such as an Order in Council, that will equally satisfy the purpose I have in view. I suggest that in this Minute there should be a reaffirmation of the principles he himself laid down last year. I think it necessary to draw the attention of the Committee to what those were. I find that there were six principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman:—
    "The first and the most obvious is that Ministers ought not to enter into any transaction whereby their private pecuniary interests might, even conceivably, come into conflict with their public duty. Again, no Minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information, information that has come to him as a Minister, for his own private profit or for that of his friends. Further, no Minister ought to allow or to put himself in a position to be tempted to use his official influence in support of any scheme or in furtherance of any contract in regard to which he has an undisclosed private interest. Again, no Minister ought to accept from persons who are in negotiation with or seeking to enter into contractual or proprietary or pecuniary relations with the State any kind of favour. Fifthly, Ministers should scrupulously avoid speculative investments in securities as to which, from their position and their special means of early or confidential information, they have or may have an advantage over other people in anticipating market changes. Sixthly, Ministers should carefully avoid all transactions which can give colour or countenance to suspicion."
    224
    These were the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman last year, and, with regard to two of them, I say, and anyone who will read carefully the Report I have referred to must agree, that they were lately infringed. I suggest that the Prime Minister should issue a Treasury Minute embodying these principles, and I think that he ought to go further. I think that he ought to say something as to actual speculation itself. After all, it is a very weighty recommendation of the Committee that under no circumstances should speculation be allowed. Of course, he will say that there is a difficulty in defining speculation. Take it at its narrowest. Take it as it is understood by experts—that is, either buying what you cannot pay for or selling what you have not got. If he would go even on those narrow grounds and embody that in a Treasury Minute with a reaffirmation of his own principles laid down last year, it would go far in issuing a warning against dangers which are certain to arise in the public service. Naturally, I do not wish to be dogmatic on a point like this. All I say is that the Government, and the First Lord of the Treasury in particular, ought to take this recommendation into account and promulgate it in the most authoritative way possible. It is not to be supposed that up and down the Civil Service the members, unless reminded, will remember the words he spoke in this House on 19th June, 1913. If they remember the transactions at all which arose at that time they will have a vague idea in their minds that certain persons in high places were guilty of grave indiscretions, but that the whole matter blew over and no principle was authoritatively affirmed, either by this House or by the Government, to prevent a repetition of such indiscretions. There is a difference between these dangers and any that have arisen—at any rate for a long time in the past. I have read up the history of similar cognate controversies to this, and they turn on such matters as using influence in favour of friends or constituents or retaining situations or investments or directorships which might produce a conflict with their public duty, but there have not been to my knowledge for a very long time a case of anyone in a high public station putting himself—inadvertently it may be: inadvertently as the Committee found—in a false position in which his private and public interests were in conflict. I believe that for generations past the tone and temper of the Civil Service—
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: On a point of Order. I understood you to rule that it was not permissible to discuss the investments of Ministers, on the ground that Ministers had requested from you, in the Chair, the right to make a statement on the subject, and that you had refused. All I ask you—not with a view to stopping the Debate—is this: If the hon. Gentleman makes that case, will there be an opportunity for Ministers and others to discuss the matter?
    Mr. DIXON: On the point of Order. May I ask if my hon. Friend would be in order if he put his argument, and then took as an example the case of Mr. Taylor, a Post Office official, who was degraded and lost his salary for the same offence as other high persons had committed. Are we to have one law for the rich and another for the poor?
    The CHAIRMAN: I will deal with that point when it arises. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs, I have already explained to the Committee that we are not entitled on this occasion to deal with anything other than the advisability or otherwise of issuing a Minute dealing with Civil servants. That is all that comes within our purview to-day. The hon. Member at first accepted my warning, and has been trying not to depart from it.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not mind.
    The CHAIRMAN: I shall not allow matters to be raised by the mover which are not proper subjects for debate, and to which, therefore, no reply can be given.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the point of Order, I certainly am not protesting against any line taken up by the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to ask whether, if the hon. Member is allowed to pursue the line he has started, I shall be permitted, I will not say to make a defence against the suggestions he is making, but also to quote other illustrations which in my judgment are more pertinent, and which have occurred in the last twenty years under the Salisbury Administration?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is just a matter I shall certainly not allow.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Then do not allow him.
    The CHAIRMAN: My duty is to confine the Committee of Supply to the proper business, and that is to discuss the administrative action of the Department concerned in the Vote set down. The Vote we are dealing with now is that for the First Lord of the Treasury. His administrative powers in that office are very limited, but they do cover, as I understand it, the possible issuing of a Minute with regard to the conditions of the Civil Service. The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to that point.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: On the point of Order. May I ask for the purposes of this Debate whether a Minister of the Crown is to be regarded as a Civil servant? My reason for asking you this is that when I moved a Motion some years ago that Ministers of the Crown should not be public company directors the distinction was taken that Civil servants cannot hold their office and be company directors, whereas Ministers of the Crown can, and there were forty-four public servants who were company directors.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already explained that matters which come within the purview of the Prime Minister must be dealt with in the House and not in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I, with great respect, again ask you whether it is not the rule that these Treasury Minutes made by the First Lord in his capacity of First Lord of the Treasury and a Treasury official himself only apply to Members of the Civil Service as distinct and holding a different tenure from Ministers of the Crown?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what I have said more than once.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I cannot help thinking that series of points of Order came rather unfortunately, because I was saying that for generations past the Civil Service of this country has been singularly pure. Of course, if we go back some way, we shall find that was not always so; and that which took place in generations past may easily, if a watch is not kept, recur to the lasting detriment of the public life of this country. The House of Commons has a duty in this matter, but the First Lord of the Treasury has a special duty, and I think that the reform would come well from him. Whatever we may think

    227
    of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and however disastrous we may think his complaisance to rash colleagues or masterful lives, one thing we must admit, and that is that no sordid taint has ever rested on his name. We all know that from the point of view of material advantage he would have done far better had he never set his foot on the stony or miry ways of politics. He is the inheritor of the traditions of Gladstone, and, as such, I appeal to him to do something in the direction I have indicated to keep the public life of the Civil Service of this country what it has been for long past. If he responds to this appeal, it is quite true that he will, as I said at the beginning, deprive us of any party advantage which we might obtain from this Motion, but he will also have discharged a great and, as we believe, an imperative duty in securing the integrity of the public service and the purity of public life.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This is the first occasion in the nearly seven years I have held my present office on which any Motion has been made to reduce my salary, and perhaps it is about time it was done. But I must say that the ground on which the hon. Gentleman has taken this new departure is singularly subtle. You, Sir, have ruled that the only question which is relevant to our proceedings to-day is whether I or anybody else who is responsible as executive administrator of the Treasury ought or ought not to have taken some action, not in regard to my colleagues, but in regard to the Civil Service. I wish to say in the plainest, broadest terms that, in my opinion, no case whatever has been made out for the suggestion of even a suspicion that members of the Civil Service have violated any one of the rules which I laid down in this House last year, or, even in its widest or broadest interpretation, the concluding passage of the paragraph in the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords which has been read.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I never said anything of the sort.
    The PRIME MINISTER: We are dealing entirely with the Civil Service, and the hon. Gentleman is, in effect, asking the House to pass a Vote of Censure upon me because I did not do what would have been an insult to the Civil Service, whose honour I cherish just as much as I cherish my own, and because I did not go out of my way gratuitously and unwarrantably,
    228
    without any occasion of any sort or kind, to remind them of the binding force of the obligation which I believe every member of the Civil Service is perfectly prepared to observe. The attack the hon. Gentleman makes is not on me, but upon the Civil Service. His Motion is totally unnecessary and uncalled for, unless someone can suggest there has been, on the part of members of the Civil Service, some disposition to evade or violate rules, the validity and importance of which we all admit. He has produced no such case, no shadow of ground for alleging that I, as head of the Treasury, or my right hon. Friend beside me, for all practical purposes the executive head of the Treasury, ought to have gone out of our way by way of precaution to suggest that Civil servants were likely to do a thing we had no reason to believe they ever would do. That is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's Motion. He has, of course, more or less deftly woven into the texture of his speech matters which have no relavance to the Motion at all. It would have been different if it were possible for accuser and accused to meet on equal terms, but we are here in Committee of Supply.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Give us the opportunity. May I point out there has been no occasion when the persons who were accused—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chief Justice—were present here in this House during the Debate, except when he himself made a statement?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what I shall not allow in Committee of Supply. I did not allow it to begin, and I certainly will not allow it to develop.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The only charge I have to deal with is whether, in my character as executive head of the Treasury, I ought, by Minute or otherwise, to suggest to the Civil Service what I do not believe it to be in the least necessary to suggest to any one of them. I laid down last year, on a totally different matter, Rules which I thought would be applicable to persons holding public offices of this kind. Every one of these Rules I believe to be well founded in reason and experience; I adhere to them, and I have every reason to believe that they have been scrupulously observed in every branch of the service. The hon. Gentleman has called attention to the concluding paragraph of the Report of

    229
    the Committee which sat in another place, which did not deal with the Civil Service at all, and in which the Noble Lords who were parties to that Report expressed an opinion that henceforth it should be an inflexible rule to preclude those who hold any public office from entering upon any speculative transaction in stocks or shares under any circumstances whatsoever. It is not for me—nor, indeed, would this be an appropriate occasion, nor would I be in order if I took advantage of it for that purpose—to criticise language of that kind. I will only point out how difficult it is to preclude anyone indulging in any speculative transaction by laying down a rule, the exact limits and ambit of which it is almost impossible to define, and the osbervance of which, in practice, it is equally impossible to enforce. Why speculative transactions in stocks or shares alone? There are speculations in land and commodities.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: And in titles.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I very much doubt whether in practice it would be possible for us to define or enforce, with regard to Members of this House, Ministers of the Crown, soldiers and sailors, and members of the Civil Service, any rule couched in such wide and ambiguous terms. But that is not the question before us. The only question before us is whether a case has arisen in which it is the duty of the heads of the Treasury to issue to Civil servants of the Crown injunctions and rules required by some pressing public emergency or some great public scandal. As far as my knowledge of the Civil Service goes, I emphatically deny that any occasion has arisen for doing anything of the kind. I believe Civil servants in these matters regulate their transactions with as much purity of motive and regularity of practice as any set of His Majesty's subjects, and as long as I have the honour to be head of the Civil Service, I will jealously safeguard their honour from any imputations of that kind.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I venture to think the Prime Minister was scarcely well advised in trying to put upon my hon. Friend a desire to attack members of the Civil Service. No one who listened to the speech of my hon. Friend could have thought for a moment that he had any such desire as to attack members of the Civil Service, and, indeed, I do not see how the Motion can be so construed in
    230
    any sense whatever. I am quite sure of this, that on this side of the House there is no less respect for the members of the Civil Service than on that, and you will not find in any speech which has been made on this side of the House any desire to underrate or belittle the standard of honour or capacity of members of the Civil Service. That is not the purpose of this Motion, and I cannot understand why it should be made a matter of violent and heated Debate. It is really a simple, straightforward matter. Here is a very strong Committee of persons who happen to be Members of the House of Lords. They held an inquiry into a matter about which I am not going to say one single word. I have indeed already expressed my opinion upon it. They held an inquiry, and at the end they arrived at a very strong conclusion which they expressed in the strongest possible words. I will read those words once again:—
    "In conclusion, we think it is within our province to express our strong opinion that there should be henceforth an inflexible rule to preclude those who hold any public offices, from entering upon any speculative transactions in stocks or shares under any circumstances whatsoever."
    Surely that is a matter well worth the attention of this House. It is a very important recommendation made by very important people, and one that this House would not be doing its duty if it did not take it into consideration, and discuss whether something should not be done by the Prime Minister of this country to carry out the recommendation. I really do not quite understand whether the Prime Minister says it is a rule of the Civil Service or not. He began by saying it would be a gross insult to suggest that it should be made a rule of the Civil Service, and I understood him in conclusion to state it was very doubtful whether it was or could be made a rule. Evidently the two propositions cannot be true. It cannot be so clear that this has never been done, and is not worth considering, and also doubtful whether this rule ever did obtain in the Civil Service. I can quite understand the Prime Minister, considering that recommendation, might think it doubtful whether the wording of it was adequate for the purpose. I am not expressing any opinion on that, but clearly in substance no one can doubt that it is an important recommendation. It is exceedingly difficult to lay down, as the Prime Minister says, an exact rule as to what is or is not a harmful speculation in the Civil Service. I agree it is most diffi-

    231
    cult, but there is no reason whatever for doubt that certain speculations are of a very deplorable character, and will do great harm if indulged in by members of the Civil Service. The Committee were dealing with the subject matter of their inquiry. The question was whether some rule should not be laid down to prohibit speculation of that character spreading in the Civil Service. Surely it is an absurdity for the Prime Minister to get up and say that no case has been made out for raising this point, that you cannot bring any accusation against the Civil Service, and cannot, therefore, ask him to issue any Minute. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I say that that is really an absurdity, because a very important body has pronounced that some such rule ought to be made.
    I quite agree that the ruling that has just been given prevents us going into the question whether that was a proper conclusion to be arrived at at that particular inquiry. I should be very glad indeed to discuss that point if it were in order, but I wish to abide very strictly by the ruling, and I do not wish to discuss it for one moment. It may have been a right or a wrong conclusion. I do not understand the Prime Minister to quarrel with the substance of the recommendation, but his case is that it is a rule, apart from the verbal question being raised as to its ambit—which has always been observed, and now because a Committee says here that, in some circumstances which have arisen, which we do not discuss on the present occasion, and which seem to make it essential to reaffirm the rule even in a stronger form than it has ever existed, surely that is a very proper thing for this House to consider, and for my hon. Friend to bring before it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that such a rule would be unenforceable. I do not agree with him. If he means the substance of the rule, I believe it is not only enforceable, but that it ought to be enforced. The position of an ordinary Civil servant is one of very great difficulty and temptation, and it is a great thing that they are practically free from charges of this kind, for when great contracts are entered into by the Government, it is quite possible for persons interested in those contracts to make offers of advantage to the Civil servants. I believe it is perfectly well known that it is done. The advantage has very often taken the
    232
    form of a suggestion that they should speculate on the Stock Exchange on certain information. That is a matter which this Committee ought to consider and see whether some stricter rule or some extra precaution ought not to be laid down to deal with that case. As the Prime Minister has already refused to make any kind of advance to meet the case put for ward by my hon. Friend, and as he said quite broadly, for some reason at which we may guess but which we are not quite clear about from his own speech, he absolutely declines to do anything with the recommendations made by this very strong and impartial Committee, I, for one, shall vote with my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: I desire to support the Reduction moved by my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister very skilfully turned the attack, as usual, from one against himself and the Cabinet to an attack on the Civil Service. He pretended that it was an attack on the Civil Service. He knows perfectly well, and so does everyone in the Committee, that there has been no attack on the Civil Service whatever this afternoon.
    Mr. BOOTH: What is the Motion?
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: The recommendation which he was asked to embody in a Treasury Minute was one come to after very mature consideration by a Committee which consisted, among others, of two of the greatest living lawyers in England at the present time—two ex-Lord Chancellors—another distinguished lawyer and two other peers of distinguished public service and of great reputation for impartiality. In the circumstances it seems rather absurd for the Prime Minister to say that their recommendation is not to receive any attention whatever at the hands of the Government. Of course, the real reason is that if a Treasury Minute were issued embodying the recommendations it would be laughed at by the whole Civil Service and by the whole of the country, because they would know that it arose from the conduct of Ministers in their Marconi transactions. The Chairman has ruled that we are not to go, except to a very limited degree, into the question of the Marconi transactions, therefore I do not wish to do so this afternoon. But I would like to point out—I think this is in Order—that there has been a case of a Civil servant who has

    233
    been very heavily punished quite recently. I allude to the case of Mr. Taylor, a Post Office servant. Mr. Taylor bought shares in the open market. He bought only a few pounds worth of shares. He had no hints or tips, and no advice of a financial nature was conveyed to him from any contractor. He did not get these shares indirectly through a contractor at a private price, or at a price at which the public could not get them. He did not make £1,000 of unearned increment in two days.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: On a point of Order—
    The CHAIRMAN: I was about to rise on a point of Order.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is a low attack that we cannot answer.
    The CHAIRMAN: In so far as that is a question of Departmental discipline it does not arise on this Treasury Vote. As the hon. Member was developing he was clearly going on lines which I have already said we could not travel over in this Debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hitting below the belt!"]
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: I agree that in raising the question of the unearned increment I was rather trenching on the matters which you, Sir, said were out of Order. In addition, Mr. Taylor, who is a Civil servant, was not in a position to largely influence the ratification of the contract. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am giving this as an illustration of the necessity of some rules being clearly laid down for the Civil Service. [Interruption.] When this Civil servant bought these shares, no one bought the shares because he did so. He did not influence other people in making them buy shares, whereas the other transactions undoubtedly did so.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member follows that line, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. [Interruption.] I would ask hon. Members to be good enough to leave the maintenance of Order to me.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will restrain himself. I am now in the course of dealing with the point of Order, and I must dispose of that. I have told the hon. and gallant Member, and I am sure he under-
    234
    stands what the point is, that he must not further develop it outside the lines I have laid down.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Now, Sir, I have a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member turned round to hon. Gentlemen behind me and in my hearing said, "You are telling dirty lies!" I ask if that is a Parliamentary expression?
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I say that while I have been speaking several most insulting and mendacious expressions have been addressed to me both from behind me and from the benches opposite?
    The CHAIRMAN: If any such expression reaches me, from whoever it comes, I shall deal with it. [Interruption.] Again I say to hon. Members, Will they be good enough to leave the maintenance of order to me and not to intervene themselves?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I reported the matter to you immediately the moment I could.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE Major ARCHER-SHEE rose—
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Sit down, Sir!
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps both hon. Members will please resume their seats when I rise. I have dealt with that matter and it is closed.
    Sir F. BANBURY Sir F. BANBURY rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Baronet rise to a point of Order?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, Sir. I wanted to ask you, on a point of Order, whether it would be in order for me later on, or for anyone else, to refer to any instances in the Civil Service, to which I understand we are strictly limited, in which Civil servants have not, perhaps, quite conformed to the rules which I believe have been laid down by the Prime Minister, and therefore show that it is necessary that some sort of direction should be given to Civil servants?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Baronet wishes to speak, I will deal with the point of Order when his turn comes.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: At any rate, I may make this allusion to Mr. Taylor's case. He has been very heavily punished, and although now he has been reinstated he has not been refunded the

    235
    money which he would otherwise have received if he had retained his position. I only mention that case as illustrating the necessity of laying down some rules which people can clearly understand. Mr. Taylor complied with one of the rules laid down by the Prime Minister in his speech on the 19th June, 1913. He came forward and said, "I did buy these shares." That was in contrast to some others.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I rise to a point of Order. I have not raised any point of Order at all against the pursuance of the Debate on the lines which hon. Members have challenged. The only claim I have made is that if they are permitted to do so, I also shall not only be permitted to defend myself, but shall also be permitted to give other illustrations which, in my judgment—[Interruption.] I ask, as a point of Order, whether it is fair, under the cover of discussing the Civil Service, to really discuss cases which you, Sir, regard as being out of order without giving an opportunity to Ministers to defend themselves?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think I can say more on that point than I have already said. I do not intend to allow irrelevancies of Debate to take place in Committee of Supply. If the hon. and gallant Member, either by illustrations or otherwise, departs further from my ruling, I shall at once ask him to resume his seat.
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Is not a simple way out of the difficulty, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so anxious to speak, for him to rise as soon as he can catch your eye?
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: The Prime Minister has refused to issue this Treasury Minute because in his reply to my hon. Friend he said that he had laid down certain rules himself in his speech of 19th June last year. It is quite true that he laid down those rules in that speech, but Civil servants are not going to look at that speech, and in a very short time that speech no doubt will be entirely forgotten. In the case of Mr. Taylor he did comply with one of the rules laid down by the Prime Minister in that speech. He came forward and said, "I have bought these shares, and I therefore make announcement of that so that there may be no deception about it at all." Mr. Taylor was
    236
    very hardly treated in this case. He came forward; he owned the fault he had committed fully, and he ought to be given back the pay which is being withheld from him The Prime Minister, in the speech to which I have referred, laid down three rules. The first was that:—
    "Ministers ought not to enter into any transaction whereby their private and pecuniary interests might, even conceivably, come into conflict with their public duty."
    It is very important to embody that in a Treasury Minute, so that anybody may know hereafter what are the considered opinions of the Prime Minister. I doubt whether anybody knows that they are the considered opinions of the Prime Minister, in view of what has happened. As regards the second and third rules which the right hon. Gentleman laid down, they are both of extreme importance. In these days of corruption outside—we know that a very serious case is going on at the present time and is sub judice—[An HON. MEMBER: "Then do not refer to it!"]—it is very important that a very clear rule should be laid down for the Civil Service and every other service. The Prime Minister ought not to be deterred by any feeling that if he were to issue these rules it would be construed, by implication, as having some reference to the conduct of some of his own colleagues. I therefore beg to support the reduction.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I hope the Committee and the country will note the way in which the time of Parliament is being utilised. We have got, in a very heavy and busy Session, an afternoon in which the Opposition have been able to choose what Vote they please and what Debate they would like to bring before the House.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is irrelevant to deal with the conduct of business which is not a matter open for discussion in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. PONSONBY: The intention of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) and the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) was clear enough. The Noble Lord said they did not intend to make any attack on the Civil Service. Against whom was their attack made? It was perfectly clear from the speeches we have heard that they desired to attack, not by direct means, but by inference and innuendo, certain people who were unable to defend themselves here and now. They have chosen this occasion, as the course of the Debate has shown, to

    237
    rake up in the dustbins of personality and see if they could not find a little of the mud which they threw last Session.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is raising from another point of view the very question I have been deprecating all the afternoon. I think I informed the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) last week what the limitations of this discussion would be, and he quite understood and accepted them on that occasion.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: In consequence of what you have said I am sure you will allow me to say that what I understood from your ruling was that, in making suggestions and recommendations as to what ought to be done, I must confine myself as to what can be done by the First Lord of the Treasury. I never understood that you would not allow me, in quoting the recommendations of this Committee, to state the facts which led them to make those recommendations.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I regret that this attack should have been made on the Civil Service. I think it is extremely unfair that a body of public servants, who are really a model to the whole world in the way they do their business, should have been used in this matter, but the Opposition would not stop at attacking or prostituting any service, just in order to throw a stone at my right hon. Friend. That is their main object. But the more stones they throw at him the better he likes it. What I regret is that our time should be wasted in this way when we have an opportunity of discussing things of real importance.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry I was not present when the Prime Minister gave his reasons for not accepting the Motion, but I am informed that he gave as his reason the fact that, in his opinion, the Civil Service did not require any recommendation of this sort, and that it would be an insult to them to make it. I should like to assert my belief in the absolute integrity of the Civil Service, and I do not think that if the Prime Minister had followed the recommendations of such a body, in no way a partisan body as the Committee which sat in another place, the Civil Service would have taken it in any kind of way as an insult to them. Rather, it would have been taken as a clear direction to new people entering the Civil Service of what had always been the main
    238
    principle which had guided the Civil Service, which should always guide the Civil Service in the future. I think his reason for not putting into force this recommendation is of the very weakest description. There have been instances recently, I admit very few and isolated, where members of the Civil Service have violated the Rules which have always been laid down for their guidance. That is beyond question, because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel), who was at that time Postmaster-General, laid down, very rightly, what Rules should regulate the conduct of Civil servants, and he actually degraded this particular gentleman because he had done something which was outside those particular Rules. My Noble Friend said that tips were often asked for, and requests for information as to something that was going on which might lead someone to buy at a low price, instead of a high one, were often sought for. I was for a great number of years in the City, and I can assure the Prime Minister that there is a large number of people who are anxious to make money, and who are anxious to obtain from anyone they may happen to know any information which they can turn to profitable account. Therefore a Rule of this sort would be a benefit to the Civil Service, and in no way an insult. We are not all built upon the hard lines of the Prime Minister. We very often find ourselves knowing we ought to say "no," and yet not having the courage to do so.
    The Prime Minister sets himself up in the course which he ought to pursue, and pursues it without deviation, but some of us are not so strong, and it would be a very excellent thing if I happened to be a Civil Servant, and knew someone acquainted with a member of the Stock Exchange, and I was asked whether I knew that certain negotiations were going on, and whether or not they would be likely to lead to any result. If I said you must not ask me these questions I know the sort of answer I should have. "You must not say anything, but as an old friend, you might tell me." Being weak and yielding, and different from the Prime Minister, probably I should give in, feeling all the time that I was doing wrong. In how much stronger a position should I be if I was able to say, "I should like to give you every information possible, but there is a Rule which was laid down by the Prime Minister only a few days ago. If you like I will send you a copy of it, and

    239
    you will be able to see that it is impossible for me to oblige you." I should not like to presume to tell the Prime Minister anything, because I am sure he knows everything a great deal better than I do, but speaking from experience I can tell him that something of that sort is very often put into partnership deeds. It is very often put in that no individual member shall accept a Bill. That is done in order to enable weak people like myself to say to a man who comes and says, "Just back this bill for me," "I should love to do it, and I would do it, but I have an unyielding partner, like the Prime Minister, who would turn me out at once if I were to do such a thing, and, therefore, much as I should desire to do it, I cannot do it." My friend says, "Of course, I quite accept your decision."
    That is all we ask that the Prime Minister should do. For the moment I am forgetting that there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I sometimes wish I could forget it more often than I can, but for the purpose of the present Debate, I will forget all about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and deal solely with Mr. Taylor and the Prime Minister. In the interest of the Civil Service, it is essential that the Prime Minister should put into force some recommendation such as has been laid down by Lord Halsbury, and the Noble Lord who sat on that bench with him. Fortunately we are in Committee, when hon. Members can speak more than once. May I appeal to the Prime Minister to get up? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Is it because he cannot show that I am wrong? If so, I have nothing further to say. Sometimes it happens that when one Minister cannot answer another, he takes refuge in silence, but I have not noticed that that has been the habit of the Prime Minister. When he has a good case, he generally gets up and silences his opponent. I rather hope he will not rise, but unless he rises I shall feel bound to think that I have upset his argument, and that he has nothing further to say in defence of it. I rose with extreme reluctance, because I understood from an interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was going to speak, and I should not like to interfere with him. It would be interesting to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to say. He is always equal to the occasion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet did not hear the ruling that I
    240
    should not be allowed to pursue the course followed by hon. Members opposite.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have not gone out of order in any kind of way. I am talking about what ought to happen to Civil servants under certain circumstances. I want to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks ought to be done to Civil servants under these circumstances. He occupies a very responsible position, and ranks next to the Prime Minister. He is never at a loss for an argument, and does not mind getting up, if he has a bad case, and making the best of it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get up, and show me where I have been wrong, and tell me what he thinks ought to be done to Civil servants who speculate on the Stock Exchange.
    5.0 P.M.
    Colonel SEELY: I desire to protest against the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Baronet. Under a debonair air he has concealed some very shrewd thrusts at the Civil Service, and the question, the only question, is whether now is the proper time to issue a warning, a manifesto, to the Civil Service against gambling, and against improper actions. The hon. Baronet has used a number of phrases, and I take one of them. He said that human nature is frail, and the whole burden of his speech was a veiled attack upon the Civil Service implying—I speak in all seriousness, for the Civil Service feel these matters acutely—that they have been acting in some way in the past which makes it necessary to issue a new manifesto. The Prime Minister has told us that in his judgment this is not the proper time to bring up that matter, but having been connected with the Civil Service for the last six years, and knowing a great deal of the inside of the Civil Service, I do say that any suggestion on the part of any Member of the House that now is the proper time to call the Civil Service to account, and to say, "We presume that you have been acting wrongly, that your private interest has conflicted with your public duty, and that, therefore, we think it necessary just at this moment to say, under pains and penalties, that you must not act wrongly again." That is wrong and unfair to the Civil Service. It is quite easy to see what is the point, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to allow the embarrassment in which they find themselves to lead them into an attack upon the Civil Service

    241
    which, I dare say, they do not wish to make. From the course of the Debate it has been apparent in every speech, except in the case of the Mover, what the intention was. In their opinion this is the proper time to move a Vote of Censure upon Ministers of the Crown for their past action, and great was their surprise—I was surprised myself when it was found that it would be quite out of order to take any such course. That being the case, why take this opportunity of voting censure on the Civil Service who have done do wrong? It must be plain to anyone, after what has taken place, and after your very precise ruling, that any man who now votes for a reduction of the Estimate is voting censure on the Civil Service at large. I do protest against any such action. I am confident, speaking with some inside knowledge of the Civil Service, that it is as pure now as it has ever been in the past, that the standard of honour is as high as it has ever been, and that to take this opportunity of attacking them is unworthy of the House of Commons.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I make a personal explanation? I never made an attack on the Civil Service. I have stated the recommendation passed by the Lord Murray Committee, which was a good recommendation and should be written up on the entrance of every Civil Service office where anybody has any transaction to carry out in the public service. I might as well say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was making an attack upon the Army if the rules relating to mutiny were put up by him to warn soldiers. The Committee laid down an order which should be observed.
    Colonel SEELY: On the point of Order. That is not so. The point taken by the hon. Baronet is a false point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] With your permission I wish to reply to it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that the hon. Baronet rose to make a personal explanation.
    Colonel SEELY: Then, Sir, I desire to make a personal explanation. I do not wish to attack the hon. Baronet in any way unfairly, but he knows very well that this particular recommendation of the late Lord Chancellor and others was based upon the action of Ministers of the Crown, and had nothing to do with Civil servants.
    242
    The whole Inquiry had reference to the action of Ministers who cannot defend themselves to-day, and therefore any action we take to-day must be a vote of censure upon the Civil Service.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: In all the speeches we have heard on the other side of the House, and notably that of the Prime Minister, it has been assumed that this is an insult to the Civil Service, and I understand that the main ground on which we are opposed is that to warn the Civil Service is an insult. The hon and gallant Member said that they are pure, and that there is no stain upon their honour, or some language of that kind, and that is the view of hon. Members behind him. Surely hon. Members are rather austere. I agree that public servants ought not to engage in speculative transactions, and I agree that it is most unfit that a public servant should do it, but I do not share the view that it is so disgraceful a thing for a public servant to engage in a speculative transaction on the Stock Exchange that merely to warn them not to do it is an insult to the Civil Service.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Would you warn all public servants?
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Let us begin with State servants, and extend the warning in other directions. There have been times when we were afraid that the standard of public life was being lowered, but it is clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite have attained to a point of scrupulousness to which we could hardly aspire, and that they regard it as an imputation gravely dishonouring to the Civil Service so much as to warn them against doing what in fact the Lord Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done.
    The FIRST LORD Of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Very unfair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Coward!"]
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: Seeing that the Noble Lord ended up his speech with a very evident defiance of the ruling you gave, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, as a point of Order, whether you are going to sit there and do nothing, and if you have no power to protect yourself and the House against such conduct?
    The CHAIRMAN: It was not in my power to prevent the Noble Lord in the last few words of his speech departing

    243
    from the ruling I laid down. All it shows is that the whole of this Debate is disorderly. I would suggest to the Committee to dispose of it, and pass on to the next business.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: Is it not possible for us to send for Mr. Speaker and call his attention to the Noble Lord's conduct in deliberately acting in defiance of your ruling?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have been a long time here, and I think I am competent to deal with the matter.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord thought fit to make an attack upon me in the last few words of his speech. Previous to that you had, on my appeal, stated that it was impossible for me to defend myself. I should like to know if that is the case now, seeing that the Noble Lord has disobeyed your ruling.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is not necessary for me to intervene, for the reason that the Committee itself can judge as to the fairness of any transgression of order of that kind.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: If in the closing words of an otherwise orderly speech, an hon. Member disregards your ruling, and in defiance of your ruling insults a Minister who cannot protect himself in consequence of your ruling, are we to understand that the Chair has no remedy?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Chair will use his power if he thinks it is necessary to do so. But in the case of an unfair departure from my ruling the Committee is the judge of that, and it is not necesary for hon. Members to be continually taking that point.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Noble Lord before he sat down, endeavoured to justify the attack that had been made from the other side of the House, on the ground that we ought not to be too high-minded and austere in regard to members of the Civil Service doing what Ministers have done, and he thought it would not be a reflection by hon. Members on the Civil Service to pass a Resolution giving a warning. The hon. Member for Finsbury has been leading this attack to-day, and the attack is made not with a view to reducing the Prime Minister's salary, or question-
    244
    ing the Civil Service itself, but merely with the purpose of dealing with matters which you, Mr. Whitley, have ruled are entirely outside of order. Further than, that, I have never known on any previous occasion until this day that any Member of this House would take advantage of indirectly making an attack upon another Member who has no opportunity of replying to that. The House knows perfectly well that all those speeches are not addressed to the subject which is now before the Committee, but are entirely founded upon personal attacks.
    I want to divert the issue, if I may, for I have ground of complaint against the Prime Minister in respect of Treasury Minutes which I asked him to issue. This was done before there was any Marconi case to refer to. In January last year I raised the question on several occasions in this House. I had no opportunity of raising it before on the salary of the Prime Minister. I have raised the question with respect to members of the Civil Service taking positions in private firms while members of the Civil Service. I gave the Prime Minister numerous cases where Civil servants had been taken from different Departments—the Admiralty and the War Office—to fill positions in armament firms and business firms with whom, as officials, they had had business relations. The Prime Minister stated in reply to various questions that I asked him the Treasury had no legal right under existing powers to prevent the acceptance of such positions by such gentlemen who had retired from the Service. Failing to get a satisfactory reply, I continued asking questions and the Prime Minister at last said that he thought it desirable that public servants who had retired from the Service should, before accepting such positions, communicate with the Minister of the Department in which they had served.
    What I wish to ask is this: Has any Treasury Minute been sent out during this year or last year to Civil servants stating that in the opinion of the Government it is undesirable that any Civil servant should accept office or any position of trust or employment with any business firm which had a direct connection with the Department with which that Civil servant had been employed? I think it most desirable that the public servants of this country should not take from

    245
    armament firms and others very large salaries when these firms have contracts with the Department of State from which these gentlemen have retired. I am not making any charge against individuals, because I think that, in the case of some of the very eminent men who were employed by the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Government, they cannot be expected not to better their position if they had an opportunity. But that is all the more reason why the Government should pay these servants sufficient to enable them to continue their duty at the Admiralty, the War Office, the Home Office, and also the Colonial Office. It is not desirable that employés of firms having contractual relations with those offices should be taken from those offices. I trust, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us whether the Prime Minister who made the declaration to which I have referred, after saying three times that he would not make it, has caused any Treasury Minute to be issued.
    Mr. CROFT and Major ARCHER-SHEE Mr. CROFT and Major ARCHER-SHEE rose—
    The CHAIRMANcalled on Mr. Croft.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I be allowed to state—
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member rise to make a personal explanation?
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: I have been attacked and—
    Mr. CROFT: I will give way to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield has thought fit to make an attack upon me with reference to the remarks which I have made. If he will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that what I said was perfectly in order, that I was making allusion to certain public facts which were known to the House and to the country, and, for which I may remind him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. CROFT: There were one or two phrases in the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite with which anybody on this side of the House would agree. The Prime Minister based the whole of the speech on the statement that such a
    246
    Resolution as this must mean an insult to the Civil Service as a whole. If that is true, it must be equally true that when the Prime Minister, at the time of the grave difficulties which occurred in connection with the Army in Ireland, came down to the House and read out those rules for the future guidance of the Army, he was then insulting the Army as a whole. I think that if the House will look at this calmly, though I quite understand the feelings that have appeared this afternoon, it must agree that whatever the actual words may be, advice of this kind to Civil servants is on the whole good, and if anybody in his business, or the hon. Baronet in his business, was to issue a series of instructions as to what his employés were to do or not to do, how grotesque would be the suggestion that that was an insult!
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think that I should insult them the same as you do. They are honourable men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet has had his say, and I must ask him not to make remarks across the floor of the House.
    Mr. CROFT: I have said nothing which is in any way an insult to the hon. Baronet. I do not know what the feelings of his employés may be for him, but I have simply laid down that if he was to issue such instructions as I have mentioned, and to make them generally known to all his employés, I do not think that anybody would regard him as being any more insulting than anybody outside his business. But if instructions were advisable, either in connection with the Army or any other service, I do think that it is desirable that we should consider instructions in this case. I am not going to mention the name of anyone, but the House will agree that there was a Debate on this question. It was sufficiently important to have a Debate here, and to have a Committee in another place discussing the whole question. [HON. MEMBERS: "What question?"] The question as to the whole attitude of those who are employed by the State with regard to their private affairs and public engagements. The question was raised as to whether—[Interruption]. When I say something that is out of order doubtless I shall be called to order. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do not you ask the Gov-

    247
    eminent to resign?"] This House had recently to debate a question of great importance in a similar connection, and I do think that it is possible that any Civil servant in future might say to himself, "Am I quite sure what is my duty in this respect?" If the hon. Member opposite agrees with that, surely there can be no answer whatever! We are trying to lay down general rules as to the conduct of all those who are receiving payment in connection either with the Civil Service or anything else, so that at any rate there may be no misunderstanding in future in the Departments by those who serve the State.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: The Debate which has been proceeding is an extraordinary one. After my twenty-eight years' experience in this House I have never known an instance in the case of the First Lord of the Treasury nor of anyone moving to reduce his salary. Mr. Gladstone said that the duties of the First Lord of the Treasury were simply connected with Treasury purposes, and that they consisted in putting his seal to certain documents. However, the ingenuity of an hon. Member has been able to raise a very interesting and very instructive Debate on the First Lord's salary. When I listened to that Debate I recollected the story which was told in perfect seriousness some time ago. An assassin shot at a man who was supposed to be an enemy. He narrowly escaped hitting someone else, and apologised to the person whom he had narrowly escaped hitting. The hon. Members above the Gangway are apologising to the Civil servants. They wanted to hit the Prime Minister and they narrowly escaped hitting the Civil servants. This Debate has been interesting in another way. For the first time I have heard a gross, personal insult given to a judge of the High Court, notwithstanding the special rule of this House protecting him from disrespect. That has been passed unnoticed. A great many high considerations, not merely public, but personal, would prevent me in the slightest degree speaking with reference to your ruling, but I do say this, that when a horrible observation has been reported to you by me, which I heard, I think that some notice might have been taken of it.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going back on a matter with which I have dealt as closed.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Yes, you dealt with it as closed, but I hold my own view. I am delighted that, after all the heat that has characterised these proceedings, there is now a great calm; I wish to improve that calm, and to show my kindness to everyone, even to my enemies. I see that the Front Opposition Bench is deserted. Where is the great Leader of the Opposition, the chivalrous man who should in a case like this come to protect the First Lord of the Treasury? He has not done so, but may I say what he might have said? So much impressed has he been with this Debate, he might say, so thoroughly desirable does he consider it that public life in all its purity should be maintained, that public life should be, like Cæsar's wife, above suspicion, that in any future Administration he will do what has been done in the present Administration—that he will extend the system of purity according to the rule, if he gets the chance, laid down in that Treasury Minute, so that no person in any public position of the Civil Service should in any degree put himself into a position in which his public interests would conflict with his private interests. When the right hon. Gentleman does so you can expect a good time. When he does so, we can expect, if he ever gets to that Treasury Bench, a Treasury Bench as pure as that Treasury Bench is on which there is not even one guinea-pig to adorn it.
    The CHAIRMAN: As far as I can gather, the hon. and learned Member is himself now going outside what I have laid down.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I shall try to be very careful in future to avoid doing so. I ask that that Treasury Minute should be carried out, so that we shall never see, as I have seen, a Cabinet Minister, with three company directorships, promoting his own interests.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I regard this Debate as one of the most serious that have taken place during the time in which I have been in this House. An attack has been made this afternoon, through the Civil Service, on Members on the Front Bench. Obviously those who have spoken on that side have seen their danger, and every speaker who has got up has disclaimed any intention of attacking the Civil Service. But the Motion means nothing, and is utterly out of place, unless it is an attack. It is evident from the very nature

    249
    of the opinions uttered by the hon. Member for Sheffield, and the way in which he was followed by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, that they intend to suggest that now is a good time to issue this new Minute against possible speculation by members of the Civil Service against which they thought it necessary to guard, and I am certain that that great and exceptional body of men in this country will resent the fact that a political party, in order to make political capital and attack political opponents, should put forward this Motion. The spectacle of Satan rebuking sin is always improving, but it is hardly more improving than the case of a railway director making a suggestion as to the private conduct of the Civil Service in this country. This is not the first time that the Noble Lord has been willing to use some outside person or service in order to attack a political enemy. I well remember the time when the Noble Lord tried to strike down a Liberal Home Secretary through the notorious Madame D'Angely, and I should think he would be glad to forget the time when he took up the case. And in this case he is willing to besmirch the reputation of the Civil Service of this country, in order that he may—
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the case of this woman?
    The CHAIRMAN: I confess I did not follow what the hon. Member's point was. I think he understands the line I have laid down.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I make the point quite clear that the Noble Lord was seeking to make an attack upon the then Liberal Home Secretary, and, in the attack which he made, it was one of the rare occasions on which the Noble Lord made himself responsible for the honour of the individual whom he was championing.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. I never did anything of the kind. The incident is now seven or eight years old, but I am certainly ready to discuss it on the proper occasion, and I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward), who greatly assisted me in that matter, will be here.
    The CHAIRMAN: Having seen the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I think he is clearly going beyond the limits of my ruling, and the matter is not relevant at all on the present occasion.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I will not pursue it further, but there is one other observation I desire to make with regard to the Noble Lord, who closed his speech on this question with a low, an unspeakably low, attack upon men whom he knew could not answer. The Noble Lord said there were certain things that certain members of the Civil Service would not do, and I may tell him that there are other things they would not do. One thing they would not do was indeed the means of preventing a public scandal, for they prevented Lord Salisbury from carrying through a scandalous transaction as regards Shaftesbury Avenue.
    Colonel YATE: Attention has been called to the three Orders which the Prime Minister read to this House some weeks ago, and I think the whole House and the whole country were glad at the public censure which the right hon. Gentleman passed on the late Secretary of State for War.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member apparently has failed to realise that I ruled that we could not enter into any question of that kind, and we are dealing here solely with the question of issuing a Treasury Minute to the Civil Service.
    Colonel YATE: I bow to your ruling, and I will make no more mention of it, except to express a hope that some Minute will be issued in respect of the Civil Service as to their future behaviour.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I rise to make a personal explanation. In referring to the Noble Lord, and to a certain transaction, I should have said the Charing Cross Road scandal.
    Question put, "That Item A (Salaries. Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £1,000."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 274.

    Division No. 141.]

    AYES.

    [5.35 p.m.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Anstruther-Gray, William

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Rolleston, Sir John

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

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Barnston, Harry

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bird, Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Blair, Reginald

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

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Bowden, G. R. Harland

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Boyton, James

    Hills, John Waller

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Tickler, T. G.

    Butcher, John George

    Horne, Edgar

    Touche, George Alexander

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cave, George

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Winterton, Earl

    Dixon, C. H.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Duncannon, Viscount

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

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

    Du Pre, W. Baring

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Nield, Herbert

    Younger, Sir George

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    James Hope and Mr. G. Locker-

    Gardner, Ernest

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Lampson.

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Burt, Rt Hon. Thomas

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Adamson, William

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Alden, Percy

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Falconer, James

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Clough, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Armitage, Robert

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Arnold, Sydney

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Field, William

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Cowan, William Henry

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Crooks, William

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Barnes, George N.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Cullinan, John

    Glanville, H. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

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

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Boland, John Pius

    De Forest, Baron

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Brace, William

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Hackett, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Dillon, John

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Doris, William

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Bryce, John Annan

    Duffy, William J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    252

    253

    Haslam, Lewis

    Middlebrook, William

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hayward, Evan

    Molloy, Michael

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rowlands, James

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter

    Hewart, Gordon

    Mooney, John J.

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morgan, George Hay

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hodge, John

    Morison, Hector

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Muldoon, John

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

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Sheehy, David

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Neilson, Francis

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Smyth, Thomas F (Leitrim, S.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Snowden, Philip

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Dowd, John

    Toulmin, Sir Georg

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Malley, William

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Kenyon, Barnet

    O'Shee, James John

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Waring, Walter

    King, Joseph

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Webb, H.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pearce. William (Limehouse)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Leach, Charles Henry

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pratt, J. W.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Maclean, Donald

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

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

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

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Radford, George Heynes

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Winfrey. Sir Richard

    M'Kean, John

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Reddy, Michael

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

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E).

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Manfield, Harry

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Meagher, Michael

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Original Question again proposed.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I promised to give another day for the discussion of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which forms part of this Vote, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,287,320, 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
    254
    of the Inland Revenue Department." [Note,—£920,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. GWYNNE: I beg to move, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."
    My object in doing so is to give the House an opportunity of considering and to give me the opportunity of calling attention to the manner in which Government officials in the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are treated in general, and in particular to call attention to a pledge which was given last year by the Chancellor the Exchequer and by the then Financial

    255
    Secretary to the Treasury, a pledge which up to the present time has not been redeemed. One thing is quite clear, and that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is extremely fond of creating officials, and does create officials with almost the same ease as a fly lays eggs, but, once having done so, he does not seem to have any further regard for them or for their future welfare. There is no man in this country who is more ready to abuse and criticise employers in every walk of life than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I venture to say, and I think I will be able to prove, that there is no body of men who feel that they have been treated with less consideration than officials who came under the Department which the right hon. Gentleman controls. Not only does the right hon. Gentleman not care generally about them, but it seems as if he does not even take the trouble to really know the grievances which exist in his Department, because, on the 22nd inst., the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. F. Hall) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the following questions:—
    "Mr. F. Hall (Dulwich) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what improvement has been made as regards the conditions of service of clerks to surveyors of taxes since he undertook, in July, 1913, to take steps with a view to improving their position; and if he will state how many of these employés are still in receipt of a weekly wage of less than 30s.?
    Mr. Lloyd George: I am afraid I can add nothing at present to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Down on the 23rd April last. The number of clerks to surveyors of taxes (exclusive of boy clerks) in receipt of a weekly wage of less than 30s. is 326.
    Mr. F. Hall: Could not the right hon. Gentleman say when he is going to carry out the promises made to these officers just twelve months ago?
    Mr. Lloyd George: I have nothing to add to the answer.
    Mr. F. Hall: Is the House to understand that there is no faith to be placed in the promises of Ministers?
    Mr. Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman has no right to assume that. This is a matter that has been dealt with by the heads of the Inland Revenue, and they are doing their best to carry out the pledges given as regards amalgamation, and I think they are doing it successfully. There are difficulties in the way, and at present they are liquidating their promises with success"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1914, col. 1556, Vol. LXIII.]
    What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by talking about amalgamation in his answer? There is no question of the amalgamation of clerks to the surveyors of taxes. I suppose he was confusing it with another and a very real grievance on the part of Customs and Excise officers, but he did not take the trouble when he was giving an answer to a definite pledge, which he had given and had not redeemed, to find out to what branch of the service he was referring. That only shows the entire disregard which the right hon.
    256
    Gentleman has for the staff which works under him. As regards the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave last year, I suppose if I said that he had broken his word or his bond, that he would take it as offensive, but it is the fact that nothing has been done, although a definite statement was made. I would like to remind the Committee of what took place last year. I raised this question on the same Vote, and I pointed out to the House that the whole work of collecting the Income Tax is left in the hands of the surveyors of taxes. They in turn have to employ men to assist them in their arduous and complicated duties. There are, I think it is estimated, 850 clerks who work under the surveyors of taxes in this highly confidential work. That number is exclusive of boys, and 600 of them are unestablished employés engaged on weekly agreements at wages varying from £1 to £2 10s. per week. According to the right hon. Gentleman's own answer, 326 of those are at present receiving less than 30s. per week.
    I pointed out last year that there are at least four grounds on which I think that procedure is objectionable and ought to be remedied. First of all, on the ground of the taxpayers. It is obviously unfair that men in business or otherwise should have to show their private books, and hand over what is most confidential information to be examined in detail by a body of men who are not placed in the responsible position of being on the establishment of the Civil Service. We know perfectly well as regards the Post Office that it is necessary in the public interest to put the men engaged even in the sorting of letters in the responsible position of being on the establishment, and it is found to be better for them and the public. Men on the establishment are permanently employed, they have a pension to look forward to, and if mistakes are made or irregularities take place, they can be called to book in a much better way than men engaged on weekly and temporary terms. This aspect of the question becomes more and more important seeing that the Income Tax every year is becoming more and more an inquisitorial tax. Therefore, from the point of view of the public interest every precaution should be taken to safeguard the public, and to see that confidential information is guarded as safely as can be, while from the point of view of the revenue to the State, the more

    257
    efficient the service is the better it will be for those who have got to find the money to carry on the work of the State. From the point of view of the clerks themselves, it is obviously fair that they should be put on the establishment, and have the advantage of being in the Civil Service. It is undoubtedly unfair to the surveyors to cast upon them the responsibility of sifting through all this information and not give them an adequately paid and equipped staff to do the work.
    There is no need to go in detail through this grievance, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year admitted that we had made out an irresistible case. I need not quote his exact words since I do not suppose it is disputed that he said we had made out our case for putting the men on the establishment, and that our case for treating them better was irresistible. He said also that the only ground on which he delayed acting there and then was that there was then a Royal Commission sitting to inquire into the whole question, and he added that if he dealt with the matter the Royal Commission in their Report might upset any decision he might come to then. He went on to say if we let the matter stand over he would see that it was dealt with during the coming year. Let me quote the words used by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Masterman, and then by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Masterman said:—
    "The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked whether we did not think we should have something in the revenue of statement this year. That means that by March or by July of next year, some definite scheme should be passed. I think by that time, if not by March, certainly by July, the Royal Commission will have reported, and I think I can promise him, and I trust it will satisfy him, that before another year has gone there will be some definite Government proposal for the amelioration of the condition of this class."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1913, col. 2244, Vol. LIV.]
    We on this side were not altogether satisfied with that assurance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came in, and he was very anxious at that time not to press the matter to a Division, because many hon. Members opposite felt very keenly that something should be done in this case. They were putting some pressure on the Treasury Bench either to act or else allow them to divide, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and said this:—
    "Those who interpreted my right hon. Friend's statement, I am sorry I did not hear it myself, but I know the details, seem to have come to the conclusion that he gave a purely vague promise which is generally associated with official undertaking, that the matter will
    258
    be considered next year. That certainly is not the case. My right hon. Friend is very anxious, and very properly so, to get the Report of the Royal Commission and see what they say about the surveyors. … I think, certainly, a very good case has been established. I think there is a good deal to be said for it, and that it is very desirable to employ men dealing with matters of an entirely confidential nature which affects the private affairs of hundreds of thousands of men in this country, of tenure necessary to identify them with the public service, and to give us the same sort of spirit as prevails in the Civil Service. I do not doubt that for a moment. I think the case the hon. Gentleman has put is irresistible. … I will guarantee, as my right hon. Friend has already done, that we will do justice to their claims."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1913, cols. 2249 and 2250, Vol. LIV.]
    On the strength of that hon. Members opposite, although they spoke strongly in favour of something being done at once, apparently withdrew their opposition, and supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or nearly all of them, in the Division Lobby, in the belief, I take it, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to act on his promise and going to do something as soon as the Royal Commission reported. I waited in patience until early this year, and then I asked the present Financial Secretary what was being done in regard to the matter. He caused a letter to be written to me from the Treasury as follows:—
    "Treasury Chambers. Whitehall,
    13th March, 1914.
    "Dear Sir,—Mr. Montagu asks me to send you information as to the present position of clerks in the offices of the surveyors of taxes. I am to remind you that Mr. Masterman stated in Supply last year that it would not be possible to come to a final decision as to the best means of ameliorating the conditions of service of these clerks until the Royal Commission on the Civil Service had reported. His promise was in the following words:
    'I think that by that time, if not by March, certainly by July, the Royal Commission will have reported and I think I can promise him, and I trust it will satisfy him, that before another year has gone there will be some definite Government proposals for the amelioration of the condition of this class.
    In point of fact the whole question has been thoroughly investigated, and as soon as the Royal Commission has reported and an opportunity thus arises of seeing whether suggested improvements will in any way conflict with any general principles of organisation recommended by the Commission, it will be possible to make immediate progress in the matter. Mr. Montagu thinks it is quite certain that he will be in a position to liquidate the promise given in Supply, and to make a statement in July, and in the circumstances he does not think it would serve any useful purpose to raise the question on Monday.
    Yours faithfully,
    Andrew McFadyean."
    6.0 P.M.
    That was sent on the 13th March, 1914. I waited, and very shortly after that the Royal Commission reported, but, as some of us had prophesied last July, there was really nothing in the Report to have waited all that time for. The Royal Commission made a few passing references to the case of surveyors of taxes, but they did not deal with it in detail, because, as they

    259
    said, that had already been done by a Departmental Committee, who had come to a certain conclusion with regard to this particular grievance. The Report, so far as it goes, entirely supports my contention that these men ought to be on the establishment. I do not believe that the Secretary to the Treasury will dispute that point. So far as the Report of the Civil Service Commission is concerned, there is nothing there in any way to delay for one week the carrying out of the recommendation of the Report of Sir Matthew Nathan's Committee. On the contrary, the Royal Commission go so far as to say that they think it most undesirable that men should be employed in the same service alongside, one another, some on the establishment and others not, as such conditions are bound to give rise to discontent and friction, and all such causes should be removed. They go on to say:—
    "We see no reason why these offices should not be staffed by clerks of the junior clerical class. But as this question has, we understand, recently been investigated by a Departmental Committee specially appointed for the purpose, was still under consideration when we took evidence respecting the Inland Revenue Department, we refrain from submitting any more precise recommendations."
    If that was the case, the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well last year how far the Royal Commission had gone; he knew that they were going to take no further evidence after I raised the question in July, and it was merely in order to prevaricate and to use the Royal Commission as an excuse for going further into the matter that that reason was given. The Government might just as well have dealt with the question then, because the Royal Commission has done nothing further in regard to the matter.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present,
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: I think that when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying so much about their devotion to the Civil Service and that nothing is too good for them, they might at least have come now to champion their cause. We would then have given more weight to their expressions of gratitude to the Service. We will see when the Division is taken who are the real friends of the Civil Service, who are really determined to see that they are employed under fair terms; whether pledges given in regard to them
    260
    are to be carried out, and who it is that is merely giving lip service and trying to make party capital out of the Civil Service. This may be a matter of little moment to the Labour party or to Radical Members, but it is of considerable importance to the surveyors of taxes. It is of considerable importance to the country that we should see that pledges given by Ministers are carried out. We are getting too apt nowadays to take it as a matter of course that pledges should be given and not kept. It is our duty on this side to lose no opportunity of calling attention to these matters and of forcing Ministers, so far as we can, to carry out the pledges which they have given in order to get out of inconvenient situations at the moment. There is nothing in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service to prevent the Treasury from immediately carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. Although the Report of the Royal Commission was published at the beginning of April—and no doubt the Treasury were cognisant of the details long before that—yet so late as last week we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitting that up to the present nothing has been done—and that in spite of a definite promise that something should be done within a year, even if the Civil Service Commission did not report until July. The Commission reported last April. There has been time to redeem that promise, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been better employed looking after the staff who work under him than in some of his other occupations, in which he gets perhaps more advertisement but less credit.
    This question is only one out of many. There is also the question of the assistant surveyors, which is long overdue for treatment. Great grievances and hardships arise in that case. I will not go into detail, because my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans), who will second this reduction, will do so. There is also the case of the assessors and collectors. They also have grievances. We have heard a good deal already this Session about Income Tax. The Prime Minister said the other day that the Income Tax was rather inclined to be under the limelight. Is it not necessary that we should have a little limelight cast on the terms under which the Income Tax is collected, and under which those who collect it have to work? Ought we not to see whether we can induce right

    261
    hon. Gentlemen opposite to put their own house in order, and to deal with grievances which they are always willing to admit for others, but are never ready to remedy in themselves? Quite recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the question of the superannuation of medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors. He then said that their case for superannuation was irresistible, one reason being that it was the only way to get rid, without hardship, of men who were past their work. There are many of us on this side who would willingly vote for the superannuation of Cabinet Ministers if we thought that they would give up their posts when they are no longer required. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not again be led into supporting the Treasury merely by some promise which Ministers may make. We have had one lesson, and I suggest that unless there is given to-day a definite undertaking, stating a definite time when this grievance shall be remedied and the promise redeemed, Members on all sides should join with us in supporting the reduction, in order that it may be brought home to the Government that we are tired of their promises which they do not mean to carry out.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I understand that this reduction does not need a Seconder, and although I do not wish to stand between the Committee and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans), I think it would be advisable that I should speak before any other speeches so unnecessary and so unwarranted as that made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. E. Gwynne) are inflicted upon the Committee. The hon. Member threw out broadcast charges of prevarication and broken pledges, which make it necessary for me to repeat what the pledges were and to show how exactly we have fulfilled them. The hon. Member read them to the Committee, but I do not think that hon. Members could draw accurate deductions from them. There was the pledge by my predecessor, who said:—
    "If not by March, certainly by July, the Royal Commission will have reported, and I think I can promise him … that before another year has gone there will be some definite Government proposals for the amelioration of the condition of this class.'
    That is on the 3rd July, 1913. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
    "I think it would be better to hear what the Royal Commission says. I will guarantee, as my right hon Friend has already done, that we will do justice to their claims."
    262
    Then the hon. Member quoted a letter written on my behalf from the Treasury, in which I said that I would be in a position to make a statement when this Vote came before the House. Without waiting for that statement, and without waiting for the Vote to come before the House, he throws out these charges, which I think the House will agree, in the light of what I am about to tell them, were wholly unwarranted and ought not to have been made.
    Mr. GWYNNE: As the right hon. Gentleman has personally attacked me, may I point out that I am justified by the fact that when a question was put last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that nothing had been done.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The date upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary promised last year that an announcement should be made was upon this Vote this year, and now that announcement is going to be made. The hon. Member had from me a letter giving the same undertaking, that by July of this year we should be in a position to make a statement. The hon. Member says that the Royal Commission has reported for some months. Of course it has. But I would ask hon. Members of this House to agree with me when I say there is a Commission affecting the conditions of employment right throughout the Civil Service, and involving vast charges upon the public purse, and it would not be fair to hurry the Treasury in the consideration of the questions so far as they may prejudge the recommendations which the Treasury may adopt as a consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne himself quoted, suggested that those who were concerned should be included in the junior clerical staff, which was one of the things which they recommended should be brought into existence. Therefore, it is not true to say that the Royal Commission has no bearing upon this question of the clerks to the surveyors of taxes. All we were anxious to see was that the scheme which we adopted should do justice to the claims of these men, and should not conflict with or prejudge the consequences of the Report of the Royal Commission.
    It was only decent to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission, and, having it, it is necessary that any scheme should not conflict with what may be the

    263
    outcome of the general recommendations. I would like to remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne that it is not necessary at all to argue the merits of this case. Representations were made to my right hon. Friend from all quarters of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark has been persistent in his advocacy of these claims. Hon. Members from the Labour Benches used powerful arguments as was recognised by hon. Members opposite. I hope the House will agree with me that as this statement was promised by July—and it is rather a complicated statement, which I will endeavour to make as short as I possibly can, and as clear as I can—that we have fulfilled our pledge.
    There are now in this class of clerks to surveyors of taxes 1,176 men and boys. Three hundred and three are boys with salaries rising from 10s. to 20s. per week. The others are divided into four classes, A, B, C, and D. There are 83 in Class A with salaries of 40s., rising by increments of 2s. 6d. to 70s.; or £104 per year, rising by increments of £6 10s. to £182. There are 173 in Class B with salaries of £78 per year, rising by yearly increments of £6 10s. to £156. Classes A and B are pensionable. Classes C and D are not pensionable. The former have salaries of £78, rising by increments of £6 10s. to £130; and the latter receive £52, rising by increments of £5 4s. and £6 10s., respectively, to £78 and £104. There are 83 in Class A, 173 in Class B, 178 in Class C, and 439 in Class D, with 303 boys, making a total of 1,176. It was urged in criticism against the system last year that only those persons in Classes A and B were established and pensionable, the remaining classes holding their appointments—in theory, though not necessarily in practice—on the precarious tenure of a week's notice, a tenure of office which it was argued—and I think quite rightly—was indefensible, having regard to the responsibility of the work and the increasing complication of the valuations. The Government have decided that in future the whole of the clerks to surveyors of taxes should, under the organisation now proposed, be placed on the permanent and pensionable establishment. It is not, I think, easy to estimate with any accuracy, having regard to the prospect of the clerks in the lowest ranks and the circumstances when they are promoted to Classes A and B, to say the exact financial result of that concession. These clerks now have
    264
    some little chance of promotion to Class A or Class B, and that is a factor which complicates any exact calculation of the cost to the Exchequer of any concession. But it is estimated by the financial experts who represent the Treasury that the amount will be £20,000. We propose to discontinue entirely the employment of boy labour, replacing it by adult labour, and we are going to absorb the existing boy clerks, after passing an examination test of efficiency, into the new organisation. The boys will pass into the new organisation at seventeen.
    Next we propose to reclassify the staff on improved scales of pay as follows: There will be forty staff clerks beginning at £200 and rising by increments of £10 to £300. There will be forty-three staff clerks beginning at £200 and rising by increments of £10 to £250. There will be 351 clerks beginning at £85 and rising by increments of £7 10s. to £180. There will be 742 clerks beginning at £50 and rising by increments of £5 to £130. The class of stage clerks will correspond in numbers, though not necessarily as regards individuals, with the present Class A. The class of 351 clerks at £85 to £180 will similarly correspond in numbers, though not as regards individuals, with the existing Classes B and C. The bottom class will absorb Class D and the present boy clerks, so far as the latter succeed in passing the examinational tests, which must of course necessarily be imposed. There will be efficiency bars at suitable points in the scale. There are other points regarding the various classes, but I do not think the Committee will wish me to burden them with all these numerous other details, which will be issued in the regular form at the earliest possible date. The total cost of these proposals may roughly be stated as follows: Improvement of scale, calculated at mean, approximately £37,000; add to this value of pension rights £20,000—making a total improvement of something like 60 per cent. on the present conditions.
    The Treasury propose to make a further concession in the matter of counting unestablished service towards superannuation. At present the unestablished clerks, on being placed upon the establishment, have the right to reckon for pension half of their unestablished service in the direct employment of the State. Some of these clerks were in indirect employment before they entered the direct employment of the State.

    265
    We are precluded from counting for pension any service spent, technically, not in the service of the Board of Inland Revenue. It is therefore impossible to count half the direct and indirect service together in any case where this half would exceed the total direct service, that being the maximum which can be legally counted for pension. Where this is the case the whole of the direct service will be counted towards a pension; otherwise—and I hope the House will follow the rather complicated wording—otherwise such portion of the direct service as is equal to half the direct and indirect service combined will be counted. When there is no indirect service half the direct service will be reckoned. There is one further word which I should add. Owing to the decentralised control of this service of collectors of Income Tax, it is necessary sometimes compulsorily to remove men, without an increase of salary, from one place to another. This involves some hardship, and the Board of Inland Revenue will, at their discretion, be empowered to give a bonus of £10, or, if the rise of salary is less than £10, to make it up to £10—that is a bonus for the trouble and inconvenience for compulsory removal from one station to another.
    I think the House will see that this will be a very satisfactory rearrangement in the conditions of the service, and that the men should feel, if they have been kept waiting a long time, that they have got what was worth while waiting for, and have received at least something satisfactory from those who employ them. Since this matter was debated last year the Royal Commission has reported, and recommends the substitution of a junior clerical staff for the existing assistant clerks. It would not be desirable to prejudge the very complicated questions of the recommendations of the Royal Commission in this matter. The scale of pay that we are proposing is far higher than the present scale of pay, and all that I can say in furtherance of what I have said is that if and when the assistant clerks are absorbed into the new junior clerical staff, then it will be a matter to be considered whether it will not be possible to effect still further improvements in the scale now granted. The hon. Member demanded last year that these alterations and rearrangements of pay of the clerks to the surveyors of taxes should be made during the coming year. He was indignant with the Members of the Labour party for
    266
    accepting the assurance of my predecessor and of my right hon. Friend that a charge would be made. That change has been made. Perhaps, after all, that is a disappointment to the hon. Member! This new scale of pay and these new conditions will come into force as from the 1st April last, so that is within the year. We have been making some inquiry as regards other branches of the public service to which the hon. Member referred—the assistant surveyors of taxes—and we have been able, too, to make some improvement in their position. All the assistant surveyors of taxes who were appointed before 7th August, 1908, and who are considered to be fit for an independent charge of a district, in a proportion not exceeding 50 per cent. in all, may be selected on a ground of special merits, and advanced to a salary of £200. The officers so advanced will be required to mark time at £200 until after eight years' service. This will come into operation as from 1st April, 1914. I think after what I have said that the hon. Member opposite should withdraw the censure he has levelled against the Government.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement in regard to the new terms and conditions of service of the clerks to the surveyors which, upon the whole, seem satisfactory. I do not want to pledge myself finally that there may not be some minor adjustments, but, on the whole, it seems to me that he has met the ease very fairly. I do not propose to discuss the matter in detail; but I notice that as a matter of fact that some of the staff clerks of the A class are going to be put into a worse position than some other men in the A class. They are not going to be in future treated as one class, but divided into forty superior staff clerks, and forty-three who are to be in a junior class. The right hon. Gentleman did not explain why this difference has been made between them—between men who have hitherto ranked as one class. I can quite see that there are possibilities here for a difference of opinion between those who are chosen and those who are left. Before I deal with the two other classes of assistant surveyors and assessors and collectors of Government taxes I want to say a word or two on what I consider a most unjustifiable attack by the right hon. Gentleman upon my hon. Friend who moved this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend had thrown about charges of broken

    267
    pledges, and he proceeded to quote from some of the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT. But he really did an injustice to my hon. Friend, because what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year was that it was quite impossible for him, much as he wanted to, to deal with this question then, or until he had the Report of the Royal Commission. He said that he would deal with it next year, and that that was not to be treated as a mere official promise. I ventured then to indicate doubt as to whether the right hon. Gentleman was not merely putting the Committee off, and he shook his head and said, "I assure the hon. Gentleman I am not merely giving a perfunctory promise in this respect." Nothing did happen from that day until the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and my hon. Friend could not possibly know that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make that statement.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I read to the House a letter in which I had said so.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer as lately as the 22nd June said that he had nothing to add, and, if he knew that already a decision had been come to, why could he not have told my hon. Friend and said, "Do not let us talk about this by way of question and answer; when this Vote comes up we will make an announcement." But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did nothing of the sort, and, even if you look at the Estimate, they give no indication whatever of any increase to cover this £57,000 which the right hon. Gentleman has announced to-day. He cannot carry it out without a Supplementary Estimate. Where is that Estimate? Does he think it is included in these Estimates?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Estimates for the Civil Service this year, as the hon. Member knows, are prepared long before it would have been possible to put this in. If it is necessary to take a Supplementary Estimate, of course it will be taken; but to suggest that we were not carrying out the policy because there was nothing in the Estimate is not correct.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The position the Government has taken up is consistent with denying any information such as the Government has given to-day. Let me take the Estimates. There is a note on the Estimates showing that the
    268
    staff is to be increased by a total of forty-two, and the note says:—
    "The organisation and salaries of this class are under consideration."
    We knew they were under consideration, and we asked on the 22nd June what was the result of that consideration, and the answer was that nothing was done. Yet the right hon. Gentleman thinks it fair to blame my hon. Friend for bringing this up to-day, and then he took the opportunity to make the announcement he has just made.
    I now propose to deal with another class of servants in the Inland Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman said he had an announcement to make about the assistant surveyors. I propose to remind the Committee who the assistant surveyors are. The assistant surveyors are established Civil servants; they are appointed by competitive examination at a salary of £100. From 1892 to 1908 the assistant surveyor served as an assistant on an average for four years and then became a full surveyor of taxes, and his salary went up to £200. All assistant surveyors joining the service between 1892 and 1908 had a reasonable prospect, seeing what had happened during the last sixteen years, of an increase in their position to that of surveyor at £200 after a service averaging four years. In 1908 there was a reorganisation of the service due to the additional work thrown upon the Department by the Budget, and there was an increase in assistant surveyors from about ninety, which was then the total, to 200, and with that increase of something like 110 assistant surveyors there was a statement made to the assistant surveyors that at the end of five years their position would be reconsidered with the idea of advancing them to £200 a year, because the Committee will see that although on the average when there was only ninety assistant surveyors they readily became absorbed after four years into the position of surveyors, when the large number of extra assistants had been appointed and their total number had become 200, there was a block in promotion and there was no prospect then of their being absorbed at the end of four years. So the Department induced them to accept the position of assistant surveyors with the small salary of £100 a year and postponed promotion, stating, "We will reconsider your position at the end of five years with a view to increasing the salary to £200 a year in certain con-

    269
    ditions." As I understand it, at the end of the fifth year fifty of the assistant surveyors applied to have their cases reconsidered and they were all refused.
    The right hon. Gentleman announced to-day what he called a concession. He says that half of the surveyors who are appointed under the old conditions—and, if I am right, I think there were forty-four appointed under the old conditions prior to 1908—half of these, twenty-two in number, are to obtain an advance to £200 a year at the end of six years' service, but then they are to mark time and get no further promotion until they have completed eight years' service. It seems to me that it is not following the conditions upon which the additional assistant surveyors were appointed. Merely to make twenty-two, half of those qualified under the old terms, is no real concession at all. I think it is a niggardly way of dealing with the service, which expected every prospect of promotion, and it is extremely unfair, and I trust the Treasury will be able to reconsider their position in that respect, more especially as under the 1914 Budget, if it ever arrives upon the Statute Book, which I suppose it will in some form or another, there will be an amount of additional work thrown upon the Department, and the twenty-two or a larger number promoted to the position of surveyors will readily be absorbed in the various districts which it will be necessary to create. I ask that at least the whole of the forty-four to whom I have referred should be advanced to the position of £200 a year at the end of five years' service, in accordance with what was part of the terms of their appointment, and that twenty additional, who entered on the old condition prior to 1908, should also be treated in the same way.
    I also want to call attention to the position of assessors and collectors of Government taxes. This is a different class of question altogether. These are outlying officials, as it were; the officials of whom we have been speaking so far are central office officials. I venture to say it is quite impossible to define the condition of their appointment, pay and service generally. I can quite understand the Secretary to the Treasury saying this particular question is part of the larger one—of the whole of the assessment and collection of taxes. This system has been allowed to grow up. It started almost before the penny post existed, and some of these officials are doing work
    270
    which could be quite easily done through the post—that is to say, they take round and deliver notices by hand which might be sent by post. It is quite possible that the Secretary to the Treasury may reasonably answer that the whole of the conditions of employment as well as appointment and pay ought to be taken into consideration. If he does make that answer, I ask him to get to work at once upon it so that there shall not be unreasonable delay. Let me remind the Committee as shortly as I can what their position is and what their grievances are. I am now speaking of the assessors and collectors of Government taxes. The position of the assessors is to serve Income Tax forms and to collect information for various assessments for Income Tax where people do not make returns, and, when these assessments have been made they have got to hand over these forms and to make returns to the local Commissioner, and finally these forms are handed over to the collectors of Income Tax, and the collectors who are part of the same class serve the forms upon the taxpayers and collect the taxes and do other necessary clerical work in connection with returning them to the centre.
    These people, it will be seen, are engaged in work which requires some considerable amount of judgment. They have got to be local informants in country towns and places as to the persons who refuse to make returns for Income Tax and who should be assessed. I do not mean that they are the ultimate assessing authority, but they are the local informants of the local assessing committee, and their work is obviously responsible and confidential. Let us consider their appointment. Their appointment is an annual one. The assessor is appointed by the General Commissioners each year for each parish, and the collector is appointed by the Land Tax Commissioners, and the General Commissioners nominate a collector for each parish to be grouped for Income Tax. The remuneration originally was poundage, that is, a percentage upon the revenue actually collected. The remuneration now is fixed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with the approval of the Treasury. The assessor receives half his remuneration when the Income Tax return forms are delivered in each division, and the bulk, several months after, when the assessments have actually been made, and in his capacity as assessor of Land Taxes he receives an

    271
    allowance for this branch of his work, when his net quota has been collected, which is done twelve months after the assessments have been made. It will be seen that the assessor for Income Tax receives no sort of salary at all until six months after part of his work as assessor of Income Tax has been done, and several months afterwards he receives a further share of remuneration. The collector is even in a more curious position, for he receives his remuneration in various instalments depending upon the date fixed for the closing of the account, but he never receives any remuneration until ten months after he has entered upon his work. Then out of his remuneration as collector he has to furnish his office, and provide the necessary assistants, and his payment is postponed on an average for a year after the work has been done. I do not think anyone will defend that as a means of payment for collectors or assessors, and no Government Department would think of appointing new servants on those terms. This is one of the things that has been allowed to remain, because it was based upon the idea that the Income Tax was a temporary tax, and therefore everybody connected with it ought to have temporary appointments. The remuneration was based on the amount collected as representative of the work done. That was altered, but the times of payments were left very much as they would have been had they still been payable by commission. What the collectors and assessors want is that as this tax has now become a permanent part of our system, the annual appointment should be abolished, and the appointment should be permanent. I do not think that I need argue that point. It is obvious that this is confidential work which requires something more than a temporary appointment.
    As regards their remuneration, it is equally undesirable that they should wait so long for it, and they should be paid either quarterly or monthy salaries. Some of the assessors and collectors are whole-time men. There may be some difficulty, and it may be necessary to divide them into two or more classes, but, at any rate, the whole-time men ought to be given an established position to make them eligible for superannuation. I can quite understand the Government saying that this raises a large question, and that although it has been looked into in Part IV., if it
    272
    is to be put on a permanent basis the whole question of the relation between the assessors and collectors of Income Tax and the surveyors, and the central office and the clerks to the surveyors ought to be taken into account. If the answer is that that ought to be done before the question of remuneration for the appointment is made, I shall be satisfied if the Government will say that they will make those inquiries within a reasonable time, and let the House know what their intentions are. This matter ought not to be allowed to drift on from year to year, and I think the Committee will feel that we are justified in bringing this matter forward for consideration, and I hope the Government will consider it. The hon. Gentleman said that on this side of the House we have been twitting hon. Members opposite with not having supported us last year in the Division Lobby on this question. That is wrong, because the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, at any rate, had the courage of his convictions, and he went into the Lobby in the support of a Motion for the reduction of this Vote. I know there were certain hon. Members sitting as Liberals who supported us in the Debate, but none of them went into the Lobby in favour of the reduction. It is a very small point, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I was only quoting what the hon. Member for Eastbourne said.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness did, as a matter of fact, go into the Lobby with us on that occasion. I think my hon. Friend has done a real service to the Civil servants for whom he was speaking last year and this year, for I feel certain that after what happened in the last Debate had it not been for the hon. Member's persistence this question would have been put off, and probably we should have had no such announcement as that which has been made to-day. Last year the Secretary to the Treasury was very vague indeed on this question, and it was not until he had been convinced that there was a large volume of opinion on both sides of the House which would have gone into the Lobby against the Government that he sent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and although the right hon. Gentleman had not been in the House during the earlier part of the Debate, he

    273
    came in for the purpose of making a little more definite what had been said in regard to these salaries.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: I should like to support the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member who has just sat down to the Government to consider the position of the surveyors of taxes and assessors. The hon. Member (Mr. Worthington Evans) has spoken so well and clearly that it only needs just a word to back up his appeal. As the hon. Member well said, these are only temporary men; they may be here today and gone to-morrow, although many such cases may not have actually occurred. I know from experience and conversation with some of them that they feel their position very acutely. Many of these gentlemen are persons of long tried service, and I hope the Government will consider their appeal and see if something cannot be done to put them on a permanent basis like other Civil servants. If this could be done they would be very grateful, and they would feel that their position was established, instead of feeling that they may be put in just for a day or a month or a year. The Secretary to the Treasury has pleased us very much with what he has said, but I hope that he will add to his laurels by considering this question, and see if be cannot do something for these worthy servants who, although they are only temporary men, yet do real good work, and are men of trust and experience. I would like to raise my protest against the remarks which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. R. Gwynne) has just made. If the hon. Member would have a little more patience he would not need to have spoken as he did. He finished up his speech by saying that the Government had made promises that they never would perform and which they never intended to perform, and all the while the Secretary to the Treasury was here with the figures before him. I ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne in future to exercise a little more of that spirit of charity which suffereth long and is kind, and he may do things a little better for his own credit's sake if he would not make such rash statements as those he has made today, which have made him look so foolish.
    Mr. HOARE: I cannot agree with the remarks which have just been made by the last speaker. On the contrary, I think the hon. Member for Eastbourne can go on his way rejoicing, and take heart of grace at the singular success he has met with this afternoon. I am perfectly well con-
    274
    vinced that if it had not been for the activity of the hon Member for Eastbourne there would have been no 60 per cent. rise which has been announced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the clerks of the surveyor of taxes. For the last two years I have been attending from two to five days a week on the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, and it is because the Financial Secretary has made several remarks on this point that I have risen to take part in this Debate. As a Member of that Commission, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Eastbourne has been successful in inducing one Department at any rate to pay more attention to its recommendations. It is a very singular fact that the conditions under which the clerks to surveyors of taxes work have gone on as long as they have. I think every hon. Member agrees that less, than 30s. per week is much too small a sum to pay to these people for temporary employment, and although the Treasury has control of the salaries not only of its own Department, but of other Departments up to now, it has taken no action at all in this matter. The excuse given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was that he was waiting for the Report of the Civil Service Commission. Last year Mr. Masterman said that the Report was, going to be issued in July. I do not know on what ground he based that statement, but there was never any idea of reporting last July. I feel that what the hon. Member for Eastbourne said was quite correct, namely, that the answers he was given a year ago were of a dilatory nature, to put off the day of reckoning that had to arrive some time.
    7.0 P.M.
    It is a singular fact that having waited so long the Treasury apparently are going to ignore the recommendations contained in the Civil Service Commission Report. What is the state of affairs? Two years ago the Civil Service Commission were provided with certain memoranda from the surveyors of taxes and from their clerks, in which the demand was made that the salaries of the clerks should be raised by a sum of £62,000. I believe the Departmental Committee was then sitting. I do not know whether it was on the strength of that Committee's recommendation that the Financial Secretary has just put before the House the proposed changes in their scale of salary, but certainly as far as I can see, looking at it on the spur of the moment, the changes which the Secretary to the Treasury has just suggested will not

    275
    satisfy the men, because they demanded £62,000 a year, and at the most the Financial Secretary is only offering them £50,000 a year. How does this stand with regard to the Report of the Civil Service Commisison? One of the strongest recommendations that we made was that as far as possible employés in Government offices should be brought into certain general classes. One of the great difficulties in dealing with the conditions of service has been the great variety under which a number of small classes serve in different offices. In accordance with that general principle these clerks should have been brought into one of the general classes of the Civil Service. Our recommendation was that they should be classed principally as members of the new junior clerical staff. The Treasury, as far as I understand is, first of all, not satisfying the men themselves, and secondly, it is adding to the very great complications that already exist in the Civil Service by creating a number of new classes of individuals. I therefore cannot agree that the statement which the Financial Secretary has just made is really satisfactory. It would have been much better if he had either satisfied the demands of these Civil servants to the full, or if he had brought them under one of the general classes that already exist in the service. I am in full agreement with one point in the changes which he outlined. I am delighted to hear that he intends to abolish the class of boy clerks in the service of the surveyors of taxes. There was no kind of defence for the existence of this blind alley form of employment in the service of the Treasury, and the only wonder is that the Treasury has not abolished this class long ago. Certainly the upshot of this Debate has been to show that up to the present the Treasury has been a very bad employer, and that it only acts when it is pressed to do so by hon. Members like the hon. Member for Eastbourne.
    Major STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman was very severe in his strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. E. Gywnne), but I do not think that he was entirely justified. My hon. Friend raised this question last year, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer only a week ago if anything was being done, and be was informed that nothing had been done.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had nothing to add.
    Major STANLEY: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been doing anything, I am perfectly certain that he would have added it, instead of leaving my hon. Friend under the impression, which I think was justified, that nothing had been done by the Treasury until this Debate. There are one or two questions I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, though I agree it is not quite fair to ask him too much in detail about this very complicated scheme. At first glance it seems to be a great improvement on what has been established before, but there are one or two things that strike me, and about which I should like the hon. Gentleman to give me an answer. There was before Class A of the Civil servants, which consisted of eighty-three clerks getting from 40s. to 70s. per week. That class has now been divided into two. There are forty clerks getting £200 a year, rising by £10 increments to £300, and forty-three rising from £200 to £250 a year. I should like to know why that one class has been split up into two. They both start at the same salary, and I should like to know why they are not all able to rise to the same maximum. There is one other point. I see that Class D consisted of 439, and 303 boys make up the new Class D. Is it not a fact that some of those 439 who originally got from £52 to £78 a year will start at a lower salary than they are receiving at the present time. If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, they will now all start with a salary of £50 a year, rising by £7 10s. to £130 a year. I think the hon. Gentleman might perhaps be able to give me an answer on those points. The point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington Evans) about the assessors of Income Tax is one worth the attention of the Treasury. It does seem an anomaly that these Civil servants, who have got a most difficult and confidential work to carry out, cannot be sure of permanent employment. They are only taken on from year to year, and I certainly think that they are deserving of better treatment than they receive at the present time.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask if it would be in order on this Vote to discuss the position of Excise clerks?
    The CHAIRMAN: The item for the wages and salaries of these servants

    277
    comes, I think, on Vote I., and the question of their position cannot, therefore, be raised on the Inland Revenue Vote.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wanted to impugn, not in any inimical spirit, the action, or want of action, of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the grievances of these clerks.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is quite clear that it must come on Vote I. of the Revenue Vote. The hon. Gentleman only replies on the Votes as they arise, and that Vote is not set down for to-day.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Then it would be impossible to raise it to-day?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Stanley), said that all the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said was that he had nothing to add. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has added a very considerable sum, amounting to something like £57,000, to the salaries which we are now going to vote, and that we are going to have a Supplementary Vote in order to provide for it. It seems to me to be a very inconvenient method of making an alteration to make it at the last moment after much pressure, and then to come forward and say that in order to do it we must have a Supplementary Vote. Supplementary Estimates are very bad things to have. They take up a lot of time, and they deceive the House of Commons and the country as to the real extent of the Supplies put before them. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. R. Gwynne) has raised this question on several other occasions, and the proper course for the Treasury to have pursued was not to have waited until the last moment, or to have said in answer to a question that there was nothing to be added, and then to have come down and raise £57,000 and ask for a Supplementary Estimate in order to carry it out. That seems to be a very bad thing, especially at the present moment when the expenditure of the country is so large. I should like to point this out to the hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, is desirous of doing the right thing. The proper course is to find out whether or not proper salaries are paid. If those salaries are not proper, then they should be increased; and if they are improper, they should be raised without the intervention of hon. Members on either side of the House.
    278
    Both sides of the House and both Governments have done the same thing, and I deplore it very much. They have not made an alteration in the salaries until they have been pressed by whoever may happen to be in Opposition. They have made a concession at the last moment. That gives the idea to outsiders, and it must also give the idea to the Civil servants themselves, that they will not get justice without agitation. That is one of the worst ideas, most subversive of discipline, which can be introduced into any service. Therefore, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I venture to lay before him the experience I have gained in that direction over a considerable number of years in investigating these Estimates. It is a very bad practice. It leads to extravagance and unrest, which we are all desirous of avoiding, in the Civil Service itself. I see that the actual increase in the salaries amounts to £49,670, so that with the £57,000 which is to be added there will be a very large increase in the salaries this year. Turning over the page, I see that there are six special Commissioners of Income Tax. I do not know whether those are the special Commissioners who have been appointed to investigate the Super-tax. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether that is so or not. There is a star, and, on looking at the footnote, I see that one of the special Commissioners has a salary of £1,200 a year. If hon. Gentlemen will look again at the actual item in the Vote, they will see that these special Commissioners have a minimum salary of £850, annual increments of £25, and a maximum salary of £1,000. Who is this special Commissioner who has a special salary of £1,200 a year? Why should he have been so singled out, and why should the maximum of £1,000 a year be exceeded? I am glad that an hon. Member who is a Member of the Estimates Committee, and therefore pledged to economy, has been sent to find out what is the reason of this, and I hope that he will get a correct answer.
    Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman appealed to me to withdraw my Motion for a reduction, and, after the announcement that he has made, I shall gladly do so, but I should just like to ask him one or two questions beforehand. He has told us that this increase in efficiency is going to add something like £57,000 a year. Are we to understand that it is to be £57,000 this year, or that the ultimate cost of these

    279
    additions will amount to that sum, perhaps in ten, fifteen, or twenty years' time? I assume we are not correct in thinking that this year the increase will be £57,000. I have another question to ask. It is difficult to follow exactly the hon. Gentleman's detailed statement, but may we assume that, generally speaking, the Treasury have accepted the recommendations of Sir Matthew Nathan's Departmental Committee. If so, I am satisfied on that point. I agree with my hon. friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) in thinking the suggestions are not altogether desirable, and may complicate the situation more than ever, but it is impossible now to criticise them. I realise, however, that the Treasury have endeavoured to meet the grievances we have put forward. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's personal observations upon my remarks this afternoon, I should like to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Masterman both last year, as I read the OFFICIAL REPORT, mentioned July merely because they thought that the Royal Commission would report about that time. I was certainly given to understand that so soon as the Royal Commission reported, then and at once something would be done, and that is why I thought, and still think, I was justified in feeling aggrieved that when the Royal Commission reported earlier than was anticipated, namely, in April, and when we asked in June what had been done, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that he was still considering the matter. I hold the opinion that my remarks were justified, and if they seem to be too strong for the hon. Gentleman he must put the blame on the Department or take it to himself for not knowing what was going on, and for not having made a public statement earlier that he did intend to keep his promise. There are many grievances outstanding which I hope will receive consideration before next year.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think anybody who reads the OFFICIAL REPORT will agree that in making a rearrangement of this particular branch of the service we have amply fulfilled our pledge, and I think also that any reasonable man will agree that the last person in the House who ought to have made the charge, which was advanced
    280
    by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Rupert Gwynne), of broken pledges is the hon. Member who had received from me and had read to this Committee a letter, in which I stated it was quite certain I would be in a position to liquidate the promises given in Supply by July. There might have been some excuse if the hon. Member had not received such a letter, but, under the circumstances, I assert there is no excuse for him. With regard to the question put by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Major Stanley), the clerks to surveyors of taxes will receive their existing salaries, and will proceed by existing increments to their existing maximum. With regard to his remarks about the distribution of the clerks, Class A will be recruited from Class B, and members of Class B will have a chance of going into Class A. But some differentiation will be made in salaries, as there are some districts in England and Wales which, in the opinion of those who have to deal with these matters, are of less importance. With regard to the question put by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), of course it would be more convenient not to have a Supplementary Estimate this year, and in a large Vote of this kind it is possible there will be savings which will prevent the necessity for such an Estimate. With respect to the other matters, action had to be taken before the Royal Commission Report had been received and considered, and it was obviously impossible to include these new salaries in the original Estimates for this year. The choice lay between postponing the salaries for next year or running the risk of a Supplementary Estimate, and we took the latter, as we were pledged to the House of Commons to bring them into existence this year. With regard to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, the hon. Baronet knows that a man has a choice of being assessed by a special Commissioner of Income Tax, if he is shy of disclosing his business to the local Commissioner. These special Commissioners have charge also of the Super-tax, and in some matters they constitute a Court of Appeal. The salary of one of them is £1,200, because at the time he was appointed he was acting as Secretary of the Insurance Joint Committee. He was taken from that post to be a special Commissioner of Income Tax, and he carried his salary with him as personal to himself. I refer to Mr. Braithwaite. With regard to the collectors and assessors of Income Tax it is difficult to rearrange

    281
    their salaries, because the amount of work which has to be done at different periods of the year varies enormously, and for that reason if there was a change in the occupation of the office during the year, the distribution of the emoluments would be unfairly affected. Although the appointments are nominally annual they are not actually annual, as there is no reason why a man should not look forward to reappointment year by year. I do not want to prejudge that question to-day, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in communication with the Association of Assessors and Collectors, and has agreed to receive a deputation from them on this point. Therefore I am precluded from making any definite statement. In reply to the hon. Member for Chelsea, he as a Member of the Royal Commission, knowing the importance of its recommendations and how far they affect all sorts of Departments, when he suggests that this Department is reprehensible for not having considered the Report by July, shows a strange lack of appreciation of the enormous importance and complication of the subject.
    Mr. HOARE: I objected because the Treasury had apparently entirely ignored our recommendations.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The hon. Gentleman has announced some very minor alterations with regard to the assistant surveyors, but will he take into consideration the claims of two classes, numbering sixty-four and twenty respectively, for whom I have spoken?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will of course bear in mind what the hon. Member has said, but I cannot go into details at present.
    Earl WINTERTON: I wish to deal with another point in this Vote and that is the item for salaries, wages, allowances and travelling expenses in the Land Valuation Office. I am sorry to have to raise it now, but I am afraid it is the only chance we have. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Royds) who has an expert knowledge of these questions unequalled by that possessed by anyone in this House, to deal with one part of this Vote, and I shall confine myself to the points which I have indicated. The Committee will observe that the Vote shows a very great increase. We fully realise that to-day we are only discussing the administration of the Land Valuation Department, but naturally in a case of this kind, where
    282
    administration and legislation are somewhat interdependent, there is a temptation to entrench on the legislative aspect of the case. I hope, however, I shall be successful in steering a clear course. I Want to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is a very large increase in this Vote amounting to over £170,000. There is an increase for salaries, wages and allowances of £47,000 odd, and for travelling and subsistence allowances of £33,000 odd. Without desiring to refer to the legislative aspect of this question, I do think that the Committee, in considering the amount of money which is being spent, should remember that this is a very vast and costly machine which has been set up and which is producing a remarkably small result, and, in view of the fact that the result is so small, it seems to me that there is clearly a responsibility resting on this Committee, as guardians of the public purse, to keep down, as far as possible, the cost of this Department, seeing that instead of producing an egg of the size one would expect from an ostrich, it has produced one of the proportions of a tomtit's.
    There has been a very large increase in the travelling and subsistence allowances. In 1913–14 that item was £46,000. In 1914–15 it has risen to £78,300. The removal expenses have also gone up slightly. There is also a small increase of £300 in the matter of postage, but another very considerable item of increase comes under the head of "law charges and expenses of appeals" which have gone up from £8,000 to £11,000. There is in fact a very large general increase, and I think we are entitled to some explanation in regard to it. With regard to the staff there are 128 first-class valuers, 120 second class, and 200 junior valuers. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question. I have never been able quite to understand the way in which the duties are divided among these various classes of valuers. On a certain estate of which I have some knowledge, on one occasion it was visited by a first-class valuer, on another by a second-class valuer, and on still another by a junior valuer. I do not know what is the clear line of division between their duties, but I do know that the valuation of land is one of the most highly technical duties in connection with any form of business, and that it is not possible to get a man who is sufficiently competent to value land for £120 a

    283
    year, which is the amount these junior valuers are paid according to the Estimate.
    I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman by what process the valuers, and particularly these junior valuers, are chosen. I make no charges against any of these valuers, because so far as I have come into touch with them, I have always found them extremely courteous and in no respect behind the very high standard of public officials generally in that connection. I have, however, taken the trouble to inquire into the antecedents of some of these valuers, and in the case of three of them—they have not valued any land of mine, so that I had no personal bias against them—I find that they were extremely junior clerks in a land agent's office. In each case I know very intimately the former employer, and he told me that in his opinion they were not engaged in making valuations, and had no knowledge of the kind of work they had to undertake until they were made public officials. It has been my lot to come into contact with land valuation questions, not only in the United Kingdom but in other countries. I cannot pretend to have the knowledge of them which some Members of the Committee possess, but I have a fairly extensive knowledge, and I do not know any more technical business than land valuation. How can it possibly be said that a boy taken out of an office at the age of nineteen or twenty, who has been a clerk in a land agent's office, but has had nothing to do with the valuing of land, especially agricultural land, is competent to make a valuation. He is only paid a salary of £120 a year, and you cannot get a competent valuer at that sum. I am well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in obtaining a valuation of the whole of the land of the country, but if a few more highly paid and more competent officials were employed, some of the law charges would be thereby avoided. The increase in the law charges is very serious, although no doubt the right hon Gentleman will say that that is due to the action of those who sit on this side of the Committee.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not at all.
    Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman might be inclined to say that those who have opposed his general policy have caused that increase. In a matter so important as the valuation of the land of
    284
    this country, if you have men who are not fully qualified to deal with it you are bound to have high law charges. That some of these men are not qualified to undertake this business will not be denied. Instances have been given in the Press of men who, when valuing timber, made no differentiation whatever between sound timber and rotten timber. Timber is naturally a very important consideration in the South of England, with which I am acquainted. It takes a very highly qualified man to know the difference between rotten and sound timber. Timber merchants who are not well qualified very often make serious mistakes through not knowing the difference, and it requires very highly qualified men to detect it. How can it be said that these boys who were junior clerks and are now junior valuers have sufficient knowledge of the subject. This legislature has embarked upon this process of valuation, and I cannot say anything upon it with regard to this Vote, but it is the duty of the Committee, in view of the heavy increase in certain charges, and the great importance of the subject, to give their close attention to this particular Vote. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman by what process these men are chosen; what are the duties of the first and second-class valuers and the junior valuers respectively; and whether he can hold out any hope that the great increase in travelling and subsistence allowances will not continue.
    Mr. ROYDS Mr. ROYDS rose
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know whether the hon. Member will occupy much time, but I should like to answer the Noble Lord before 8.15. If he is not going to be long, I will give way now.
    Mr. ROYDS: Perhaps it will be more convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to reply now.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret I was not here to hear the first part of the observations of the Noble Lord, but as soon as I heard that the question was being raised I came into the Committee. The first question to which I heard him refer was that of travelling expenses. There has, undoubtedly, been an increase, but I think I can explain it satisfactorily. Now, after three or four years of valuation, the valuers are engaged upon the valuation of hereditaments, which are the farthest away from the central offices. So long as the valuations took place in the

    285
    immediate contiguity of the central offices the travelling expenses were not high, but now that they are going further afield the travelling expenses are naturally increased. That is the explanation of the gradual and, perhaps, considerable increase in the cost of travelling expenses connected with the valuation. I am afraid they will probably increase until the end of the first valuation, because there is still a considerable number of hereditaments far removed from any central office, and the travelling expenses will he heavy.
    Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand that the whole of this increase, which amounts to £32,000, is due to the greater distances which these men have to travel, and to the fact that they receive allowances while travelling? It seems a very large sum to be accounted for merely by the fact that they are now travelling further afield.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the Noble Lord considers the immense character of the transactions, involving the employment of hundreds of valuers, he will see that it is not a considerable increase; on the contrary, I think they have done the work with a good deal of frugality, having regard to their having to travel considerable distances to get to these outlying districts. I suppose there are many districts to which they cannot get by railway at the present moment. I come to the Noble Lord's second point, namely, the cost of appeals. I think he said they cost £11,000.
    Earl WINTERTON: They have increased from £8,000 to £11,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the Noble Lord can reasonably complain that the sum is very heavy when he considers that the total number of hereditaments—
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When the Noble Lord considers that there are eight million hereditaments which have already been valued, he will see that the number of appeals is exceedingly small. If I had known that he was going to raise this question I could have got the figures as to the number of appeals, but I shall be able to give them in the course of the evening. They are exceedingly small. As
    286
    he knows, if he has had any experience at all of employing solicitors and lawyers, they are rather expensive people to employ. Eleven thousand pounds, considering the immense number of transactions in which appeals were possible, strikes me as being a very small sum. I am not sure that it does not also include the cost of referees, but I am not sure of that. I come now to the duties of the various branches of surveyors. I agree with the Noble Lord that when you come to value the land of the country it is a very difficult operation, which requires, men of skill and experience. But he knows very well that when you have a firm of valuers—I am not referring to official valuers—they have two or three first-class men in their office, a large staff of clerks, and some second and third-class, men whom they employ to assist the principals in putting through the valuation. The function of these junior men is to do what is called reference work. They go on the premises with a map, they check the various figures, they get a full description of the building, and they do work which is half clerical, but which requires, of course, a certain amount of experience. Take the first-class men. Their salaries are £120 rising to £350, but the Noble Lord only quoted the lowest figure. Their appointment is subject to the production of certificated qualifications, and is made by the Civil Service Commissioners under Clause 7 of the Order in Council.
    To be eligible for a third-class candidature a man is required to pass the examination of the Surveyors' Institution or of the Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, so that they are not merely clerks who have no kind of proficiency, but they have passed the examination of one of those institutions. I believe the Civil Service Commissioners dispense with a certificate of that kind in cases where it is shown that these junior clerks have already had experience in valuers' offices. He has asked me what are the qualifications of first-class and second-class valuers. The professional qualification normally required for first-class valuers is fellowship of the Surveyors' Institution. The second-class valuer requires normally the professional qualification of Associate of the Surveyors' Institution. In the case of mineral valuers, either first or second class, the person appointed must be either an associate member of the Institution of Civil Engineers or associate

    287
    member of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, or a member of a recognised Institute of Mining Engineers. So steps have been taken to see that men who are employed for this purpose are men whose qualifications are above suspicion. I know that in certain cases men have been appointed whose qualification is rather one of long experience of valuing—for instance, farmers and landowners, who know from experience and have for twenty or thirty years been valuing land in their own district. I know cases of that kind. I am sure the Noble Lord would be the first man to state that these men are very often men of the highest possible qualification for the work. I agree that it is desirable that you should have highly trained men. The Noble Lord has made the suggestion that it is desirable that we should have a few more.
    Earl WINTERTON: Not so many, but more highly paid, because thereby you would get more competent men. You could not for £120 per year get men who would be sufficiently competent. They would get a better sum of money in this country or in the Dominions Overseas in this line of business.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If you happen to get a job overseas, of course you are better paid, but let me put this to the Noble Lord. He knows perfectly well that when you have got your highly-paid man he must get his £120 a year man to assist him. There is work which he could not do himself. He could not possibly cover the ground, and it is true of any firm of valuers at present employed by landowners that they have a number of men of that kind. They are not used for the purpose of first-class valuers, but as assistants to the first-class valuers. They are £120 a year men because they have not had the experience, but they can do the kind of work for which they are employed. I do not think the Noble Lord brought to my notice any case where a £120 a year man had been employed in valuing. He can call my attention no doubt to many cases where they have been employed to assist in the valuation, and it is quite impossible to get a valuation without assistance of that kind.
    Mr. ROYDS: I have no fault whatever to find with the valuers themselves. I am quite sure the chief valuers and the assistant valuers are doing their work to the best of their ability, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has
    288
    done his best to engage experienced valuers I should like to draw attention to the fact that no valuer has ever previously had any experience of this class of valuation at all. No valuation has ever been found such as is directed to be found by this Act—gross values, site values, assessable site values, statutory site values, values on the occasion—and no independent valuer not paid by this Department ever believes they can be found. That is the position to the best of my belief. I am quite sure that the valuers are doing their best, but they have an impossible task in front of them. Something has been said about appeals and the cost of appeals. These appeals very largely arise not on any question of value, and certainly not on the question of market value or total value, but they arise in consequence of the different view taken by the valuers for the Government and the valuers for the subject as to what is the meaning of the Act under which these valuations are directed to be made. To give an instance, there is the question as to whether tenant right is to be included in the total value and whether stone walls and embankments are to be included in the value of the site, and whether drainage works are included. The legal representatives of the Government take the view that embankments and so forth are to be valued in the site. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when he framed the Act, it was part of the scheme of the Act that stone walls and embankments and drainage operations, as we see in the Eastern counties, should be included in the value of the site, and should not be divested as improvements? These questions are left to be fought out and settled in the Law Courts, but they are questions on which I should like to have a plain answer across the floor of the House of Commons.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is a matter of legislation. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have intended does not arise. We are bound by the Statute as it exists.
    Mr. ROYDS: We do not know what the meaning of the Statute is. That is exactly what we are fighting for in the Law Courts. It is quite unsettled, and it is for that very reason that I raise the point. It is before the Law Courts now as to whether these are or are not in-

    289
    cluded. Instead of going to the expense of testing that, leaving the poor subject to pay the cost, I think if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell us straight away, as the author of the Act, what he intended, it would simplify matters very much, and if the construction placed upon it by the legal advisers of the Government is not the construction that he intended when he framed the Act, perhaps we might have legislation introduced to put the matter right.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand the hon. Member is referring to a case in which his firm is engaged, which has come before the Referee, and in which the Referee has supported the view of the Department. My hon. Friend understands what the law was. For the moment the Referee has declared the law to be exactly what the Department said it would be. If it is sub judice. I do not want to make any reference to it.
    Mr. ROYDS: I was not referring to that particular case at all; I was referring simply to the general position. I should think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give me an answer on that general position. I will leave the stone walls, and confine my questions to the drainage operations and works of reclamation from the sea, and so forth. There are a dozen points of prime importance of that character. I merely mentioned these because they came into my head. We have never had an answer across the floor of the House as to what the intentions of the Government were on the subject. It would very much simplify matters if we had. With regard to cost of valuation, I see that the Estimate that we are considering now comes to £761,718, but there are a very considerable number of items which are strictly attributable to the Valuation Department which do not appear under this Vote at all—the Valuation Office, Ireland, £17,396; the Office of Works, £20,000; Stationery Office, £15,500; Post Office, £24,500; making a total, not of £761,718, but £843,614. That is a very large increase. Besides that, we have not included in this Vote an additional sum of £80,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day would be necessary in order to adjust the full site value to his new scheme. That has got to be undertaken by the Valuation Department, and that brings the total cost for the year up to £923,000, and as these Estimates are seldom adhered to, I think we may safely put the cost of the
    290
    Valuation Department this year at £1,000,000. I was going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in other years, as in the case of some other Departments, a note should appear in the Estimate of services rendered which are strictly attributable to that Department. I have had to ferret out all these figures, otherwise the House would have supposed that the total cost of the valuation was £761,718. As far as I can make out, it is £923,000 odd. That is a difference of over £200,000. We are not considering the true Estimate, and the correct figures ought to be placed before us. With regard to receipts, the House, I think, is also under a misapprehension.
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise to-day. We are simply discussing the administration of the Department carrying out the legislation. The receipts must be dealt with when we are considering finance.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. ROYDS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated just now that 8,000,000 hereditaments had been valued. I never heard that figure mentioned before, and I should very much like to know how it is arrived at. I should like to know how many hereditaments there are to be valued, and how many have been valued. I think he told us in his Budget speech that there were 9,000,000 to be valued, but if 8,000,000 have been valued that would mean that eight-ninths of the hereditaments of England have been valued. That must be either a gross under-statement of the hereditaments to be valued or an overstatement of the number which have been valued. I should like a definite statement on that subject. The important point is first—how many hereditaments are there to be valued?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I gave the figures in answer to a question—I am sure I did.
    Mr. ROYDS: Am I right in assuming that there are only 9,000,000? I do not know how many are valued in point of fact and how many owners have required separate valuations. You could be required to make a separate valuation for each field. We were told in the first instance that there were 11,000,000 hereditaments to value. Therefore, I should imagine that the number of hereditaments would be 12,000,000 or 13,000,000. The point is not how many have been valued or how many are still to be valued, but how many are

    291
    finally agreed. That is the point upon which we have not been able to get information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer up to the present time. I asked how many hereditaments had been valued in rural and urban districts respectively. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he could not give an answer. But the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said a few weeks ago that three-fourths of the valuations had been completed. Does he now say that three-fourths of the valuations of this country have been completed, meaning by "completed" agreed? Does he not mean that the valuers had, according to their own notions, made three-fourths of the valuations? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's answer will be, but I cannot believe it possible that anything like three-fourths of the valuations have been agreed. I have no hesitation in saying that not one-half of the agricultural land has been valued and agreed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer before I conclude my speech. When we know how many have been agreed we shall have a rough idea what the cost of the valuation will be. The estimate this year brings it up to just under £3,100,000, and, so far as I can see, the valuation is likely to go on for a good many years to come. I should like to know how many valuations have been made on "the occasion." I asked the right hon. Gentleman some weeks ago, and, so far as I could gather from the answer, there were some 300,000 or 400,000, in respect of which valuations have not yet been made. It is only about 2 per cent. of those occasions on which any claims arise, but these valuations have to be made to see whether there is any claim for Increment Value Duty. The valuers and the solicitors have to be paid, but we hear nothing whatever of these charges. If the cost to the State is £1,000,000, I am sure I am correct in saying that the cost to the subject has been as much as that to the State.
    There is another point to which I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I want to know exactly what connection this Valuation Department has with the valuing of property for Estate Duty purposes. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated on 6th May last:—
    "I have no doubt whatever that the 'People's Budget' has been of inestimable value in increasing the yield from the Death Duties. That is absolutely undeniable."
    I deny it emphatically, and I have the authority of the Chancellor of the Ex-
    292
    chequer himself in support of that. On 29th October, 1909, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in this House that in the previous spring he had reorganised the Valuation Department at Somerset House, with the result that he was receiving as much as £100,000 a week in additional Death Duties. He stated that he had now a satisfactory Valuation Department for the purpose of Death Duties. That was six months before the "People's Budget" was passed at all. He did not require a Valuation Department at a cost of £1,000,000 a year in order to increase the Death Duties to give him a perfectly satisfactory Valuation Department. It only required an additional expenditure of about £5,000 a year.
    Mr. MONTAGUindicated dissent.
    Mr. ROYDS: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head.
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Between May, 1909, and March, 1914, there was an increase of 6.31 per cent. Three per cent. was due to the machinery described by my right hon. Friend and 3.31 was due to this new valuation.
    Mr. ROYDS: The hon. Gentleman calls it the new Valuation Department. How does he know anything about it? The valuation was made by the Department which was valuing previously. I was not in the House of Commons in 1909, but in 1910 I asked if it was the same Valuation Department that was then accounting for the Death Duties as was making the valuation in October, 1909, and the reply was that that was the Department, It is ridiculous to suppose that it takes £1,000,000 a year to provide an efficient Valuation Department for Death Duty purposes. There was a good Valuation Department before, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he had made it efficient. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes and says that the Department which is costing £1,000,000 a year has brought about an increase in the Death Duties. It is the old Department that has done the work all the time.
    There is one important point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ignored altogether. The right hon. Gentleman has not stated the great depreciation which has taken place in the value of property itself in consequence of his People's Budget. I say that the Government has lost millions of money in Death Duties in consequence

    293
    of that depreciation in property. Ask anyone who knows what the effect of this valuation has been, and he will tell you that urban properties have depreciated in many cases 50 per cent., and seldom less than 25 per cent. If these properties had not been depreciated they would on the death of the testators have paid higher Estate Duty, so that, instead of this valuation having added to the amount of the Death Duties, it has considerably decreased the amount which these duties would otherwise have brought to the Exchequer. I hope the facts which I have stated satisfactorily dispose of the case made by right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, who, whenever the effect of the People's Budget is mentioned, invariably get up and say, "Look at the amount in Death Duties arising from the valuation!" [Cheers.] They cheer that, but I hope they will not do it again, because I think that on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing the whole of that increase is attributable to the Valuation Department which he set up before the People's Budget was ever heard of. I recommend hon. Gentlemen to read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on 29th October, 1909, and also what he said in the spring of 1910, when I raised the question myself. If they will do so, I am sure they will be perfectly satisfied as to the accuracy of what I have said on the subject, and if they are not satisfied, I would ask them to go to Somerset House and ask how the valuations are being made. I find fault with the system, and not with the officials.
    As to the question of Reversion Duty, I suppose I should be in order in mentioning that. In consequence of the decision in a case brought before the Law Courts a very large proportion of Reversion Duty which had been paid will be repayable. I have not seen any note in any Estimate as to the allowance to be made on that account, but I suppose a considerable amount of the charges collected in respect of Reversion Duty will have to be refunded. The Revenue Bill of this year deals with that matter. The methods of arriving at these valuations of site value by the valuers is, I understand, by the process of deduction. But the Lord Chancellor recently said in the House of Lords that full site value was not a value, but only a difference. The Land Conference, which is a body of experts selected from all the professional bodies in England dealing with land, have come to the conclusion
    294
    that the methods of valuation employed by the valuers—I say nothing whatever of the provisions of the Act—are not methods by which you can possibly arrive at the true unimproved value of the land. They have expressed that opinion, and I want to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now prepared to pay any attention whatever to expert opinion on this subject. He has told me several times in this House that he is prepared to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole of this matter. It rests in his hands to do so at any time, and to call expert witnesses before the Committee. He has done nothing of the sort, but has continued the system without regard to the opinion expressed by experts, throughout the length and breadth of the land, that by this process the true unimproved value of the land cannot possibly be arrived at.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords]. — (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. WARDLE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I move this Amendment not because of any desire to prevent private Bills or Railway Bills from going through this House up to a Committee. Both my colleagues and I would be only too delighted to give Railway Bills a speedy passage through this House to a Committee, if it were not for the fact that this is our only opportunity for calling attention to the action of the companies when they do not do what we think they ought to do. The Great Northern Railway Company, who is the promoter of this Bill, has in the past promoted Bills dealing with a superannuation fund to which its staff have to pay, and it is because of the powers granted by Parliament that it has been enabled to establish funds which we think it has used

  295
  to its own advantage, and not to the advantage of the staff in the proper way. The chief reason for asking the House to decline to pass this Bill is that the Great Northern Railway Company has acted in a most arbitrary and unsatisfactory way towards those members of its staff who belong to this particular superannuation fund. The company has not treated the Board of Trade and this House with the respect which it ought to have shown, and, in my opinion, therefore this Bill ought not to have a Second Reading. As a preliminary point, I would like to mention that the company has persistently refused to the members of the staff who are members of this superannuation fund what I think are certain elementary rights. It has declined to receive from them at any time with regard to the management and control of this fund a deputation to put the views of the staff before it, and, therefore, I think that even in that matter the company has acted in the most arbitrary way towards the staff who belong to the fund. During the whole agitation, which has been going on for some years, it has persistently and consistently refused even to meet a deputation to put the views of the staff before it, and when the boast is made, as it always is made—and I am glad to say that it is sometimes carried out—that the board-rooms of the railway companies are always open to deputations of the staff, we can point in this instance to deputation after deputation asking for an interview and being denied that interview. Therefore, I think that we are justified in saying that from the very beginning the most elementary right of the staff, the right to put their views before the company, has been denied.
  The House will appreciate that changes of great moment have taken place in this fund, and changes are being proposed now, and yet in all these changes the men who have paid into the fund regularly and are contributing to the fund are not even recognised as having any voice whatever, either by deputation or otherwise, in saying that the fund should be controlled. The House will appreciate that when questions between the staff and the company are dealt with in this manner it is no wonder that feelings of exasperation and resentment grow up in the minds of free men in this country who believe that they have a right to have a say in matters of
  296
  this kind. I am not surprised at the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) who, I believe, is thoroughly consistent in this matter, and has no belief whatever in democratic management and control; but certainly I am surprised that a great railway, such as that with which he has to do, has the temerity to come to this House for a Bill, when it treats its employés in the fashion in which these men have been treated. The superannuation fund of the Great Northern Railway Company is built up of contributions subscribed by the company and by the men themselves. That is the general arrangement in all funds of this character. But the Great Northern funds is peculiar in this, that the members of the fund, the men who subscribe to it, have never been allowed from the very inception of the fund to take any part whatever in its management. There is no annual meeting, and no election of a committee in which the members can have any say, and there has never been a chance for the men in any way to place before the company any views they might have with regard to the management of this fund.
  In the case of the London and Northwestern, the London and South-Western, the Midland, the Caledonian, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the North-Eastern, the North British, the Glasgow and South-Western, the Great Central, the Great Western, and the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies, and the Railway Clearing House, a general meeting is held every year for the discussion of the accounts and general affairs of the fund, and the members also elect their own representatives to the respective committees of management with, save in the case of the Great Western, in each case a number equal to that of the representatives appointed by the company, and in the case of the Midland Railway the men have an even larger proportion. In the case of most of the funds which I have named, the benefits are far higher than they are in the case of the Great Northern Company, and therefore it is not on account of the benefits of the fund that the company can be said to be entitled to take up any exceptional attitude. Moreover, in several of these cases the company subscribes more money than the members towards the provision of the benefits, and I am pleased to say that the operation of these democratic arrangements with regard to the annual meeting, and the election of contributors' committee men is attended with results satisfactory to both sides.

  297
  I would like to say here that if the hon. Member for Durham were in the House, I should ask him to substantiate what I am about to state with regard to the Midland fund, when I point out that the Midland Company came to this House with a Bill, which passed through without any challenge, to increase their subscription from 2½ per cent. to 4 per cent., and that there should be six elected members, from the staff, and only three directors on the committee of that fund; and I would challenge the hon. Member for Durham, if he were here, to state whether that arrangement has not worked perfectly satisfactorily, and without ever having created any friction. It is this attempt to bar out the men from any control even over their own contributions which has created the friction to which I have already alluded. The Great Northern Railway Company have rigidly excluded from their superannuation fund anything in the nature of democratic control, and it is an amazing thing, in this twentieth century, that we should have come to the House of Commons to bring what, I admit, is pressure of a kind which I do not like to bring, and which ought not to be necessary in the House of Commons in this twentieth century.
  This is a matter which ought to have been granted without any plea of the kind I am now putting forward. The Great Northern fund has over 12,000 members. About half of them belong to the clerical staff, and half of them to the outdoor grades, and men of the engineering and store departments. So far as the members of the clerical staff are concerned, they are obliged to join the fund as a condition of their employment, and the contributions are compulsorily deducted from their salaries. The other members may join voluntarily, but both sets of members are equally keen on the right to have a voice in the control and management of the fund. But their appeal for this eminently reasonable concession has always been resisted by the existing committee of management, consisting of seven directors and six of the chief officials. It is quite conceivable that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), when he comes to speak on behalf of the company, will put forward the plea that the six officials who are at present on the committee of the fund, along with the seven directors, being members of the fund, do represent the staff. I do not know whether he will put forward that view or
  298
  not, but, if he does, I should like to answer him in advance. I do not think that anybody who knows anything about the railway business of this country will contend that six of the chief officials of the company can possibly represent the views of the majority of the members of the staff. In the year 1908 an incident occurred in connection with another railway superannuation fund which illustrates the difficulty there is in this regard. In that case a deputation from the rank and file, if they may be so described, waited upon four of the company's officers, who had seats upon the management committee of the fund, and they urged them to support a petition for certain improvements which the staff had submitted to the general manager. The superintendent of the line gave a reply to the deputation in the following terms:—
  "I want yon to clearly understand that you are asking the members of this management committee to give yon their support to your petition; but I would remind you that as officers of the company we occupy a very peculiar position, because whatever our own views may be, I do not think we can go so far as to state to you what our attitude will be when the subject comes before the directors. When the general manager gets the petition the course he will no doubt adopt will be to place it before the committee of the superannuation fund; after that we shall have no alternative but to refer it to the directors, and when it gets as far as that, I do not think we can tell you what attitude we shall have to take up, as there may be policy involved."
  That utterance gives a clear and reliable indication of the disposition of the higher officials, and certainly justifies the claims of the staff to have their own directly elected representatives. I make no reflection whatever in any shape or form upon the officials of the company as officials or as men of humane disposition, but I do say that, occupying the position they do, between the company on the one hand and the staff on the other, it is impossible for them to put forward impartially and fairly the views of the staff unless the staff have an opportunity of having elected representatives. While it may be perfectly true that the members of the present committee are genuinely anxious and humane in their desire to serve the staff properly, when it comes to the case of an invalided member, a man who is going to the managing committee for sympathetic treatment, he can never put his case to the officials as he would do if he were putting it before a member whom he had helped to elect to the position, and to whom he could give all the facts in a manner different from what he would adopt were he communicating them to the chief officials. The men, on whose behalf I am speaking, on several occasions have

  299
  pressed their claim on the committee for this representation. The Board of Trade appointed a Departmental Committee in 1908. I had the honour to be a representative of this House upon that Committee. The business of the Committee was to inquire into the constitution, rules, administration, and financial position of all the superannuation funds of railway companies. A great deal of evidence was taken from the members of the Great Northern fund, showing their dissatisfaction with the system of management. For some reason or other—and I cannot understand to this day why—the Great Northern Railway Company did not give any evidence before that Committee; they did not meet the evidence which the men themselves put forward; they preferred simply to put in certain documents. One of the documents brought before the Committee was the petition signed by 3,800 members of this fund, asking:—
  "That such alterations shall be made in the rules as will permit of the election to the managing committee of the fund of contributors' committee men as shall be equal to the proportion of the managing committee appointed by the directors, and that the method of election of such contributors' committee men shall be by nomination from the ballot of the ordinary contributing members of the fund."
  I want to say quite frankly that I would not refer to this Committee if it consisted merely of men who, like myself, might be supposed to represent the views of the staff or the democratic rank and file, if you like to put it in that way. The Committee to which I refer was formed of actuaries, of experts, of Government officials, and of one general manager of one of the railway companies, and it was a unanimous Report which they presented. They said this:—
  "It has been represented to us that the present arrangements do not always provide sufficient opportunity for the members to have their views represented upon the management committee of the fund. While we are not in a position to lay down precisely what would be the best mode of election of electors to serve on the committee, we think that, even where the benefits are guaranteed by the company, it is of advantage to have a provision for election of representatives Such a power tends to remove any feeling of suspicion as to the management of the fund, and also to promote that confidence amongst the staff which, for the interests of all concerned, it is desirable to secure. It should be recognised that, whether the funds are guaranteed or not, there are many details of administration in which the members are deeply interested. Where there is an election of members representatives, it appears most satisfactory that such election should be taken by means of voting papers issued to the whole of the contributing members."
  The report goes on to indicate that in the event of the two sides being unable to come, to a decision by reason of equality
  300
  of votes the subject of issue should be referred to arbitration, which clearly indicated the view of the committee that there ought to be equal representation. Viscount Buxton, the then President of the Board of Trade, sent the Report to each company, but the Great Northern disregarded its recommendations. When the matter was raised later by correspondence and question in this House showing how dilatory the methods have been, I was informed so far back as 26th July, 1912, that the Board of Trade were informed by letter from the company that the directors had decided to amend the representatives on the committee of the superannuation fund, and had referred the matter to their solicitor to consider and report as to what amendments to the scheme might be necessary to give effect to their decision. That is close on two years ago, and time went on and apparently nothing was done, and subsequent inquiries met with no satisfaction. In April of last year I raised the matter in this House on a previous Bill of the company. Some discussion then arose, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City gave the House to understand that the matter had been somewhat overlooked, but that it really was going to have some attention, and that arrangements were being made to give effect to desirable reforms. In view of that assurance I and those associated with me withdrew our opposition to the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is well to have this clear. I have not looked up what I said, but my impression is that I said I would report what took place.
  Mr. WARDLE: The hon. Baronet's recollection is not quite right. I looked it up. He said that as chairman of the superannuation committee he would go back to the committee and report what had taken place in the House, including the promise which had been given on behalf of the company to the Board of Trade, and that he would see about carrying it out. That is the recollection I have of what the hon. Baronet said. What I am now complaining of is that we are now almost in July, 1914, and the matter is still unsettled. It has taken myself and the men agitating for this reform up till to-day to get to the position in which we are—a position which I am going to show the House is an entirely unsatisfactory

  301
  one. I want to ask the House to say that the company have not carried out their duty in this matter, and have not fulfilled the obligations which they ought to have fulfilled. What have they done? I am going to attempt to show that what they have done is inadequate, and that the way in which that has been done is the worst possible way in which it could be done if they want to give satisfaction to the staff. The members of the superannuation fund in March last appointed a deputation to discuss their grievances with the company and to ascertain when facilities were going to be arranged for the election of their committee men. They were denied that interview and asked again and again, but were still denied. On 7th April the general manager issued a circular to all the members of the fund conveying the impression that if they persisted in their demand for equal representation on the committee it would be detrimental to their interests. I have got here a copy of the circular and of the voting paper. That voting paper was appended to the general manager's circular. The men were called upon to vote for one or two proposals. They had no say in the questions put to them and which were considered profoundly unsatisfactory. The first proposal was that they should only elect three representatives out of a committee of fifteen, whilst the second was to start a new fund upon which equal representation would be allowed on the understanding that the company ceased to subscribe on behalf of such members as joined the new fund the additional contribution they were now subscribing to the old fund. I submit that any circular in connection with the affairs of the fund ought to have been issued by the secretary of the fund and not by the general manager of the company.
  The fact that the voting papers were issued by the general manager, and that every voting paper was key-numbered, and that every member had to sign his name, and that the counting of the votes and the subsequent proceedings were all in the hands of the company's officers, show that this was not a fair method of taking the vote, and it was no way whatever of getting the opinions of the staff. The men had no opportunity as to drawing up of the ballot paper, and there was nobody present to see the votes properly counted. The whole matter was conducted in a way which could only exasperate men living in a free country, and who were desirous of
  302
  having proper treatment. Official influence was brought to bear on all parts of the line to persuade the men to vote in favour of the company's proposal to elect three out of fifteen. It may be that that will be denied, but we have evidence, and if this were a Court could prove that that official influence was used. In spite of all these facts, after the long delay, the scheme produced was so unsatisfactory that the company could only get 4,700 votes in favour of their scheme, leaving 7,672 who were not in favour of their proposal, and amongst those there were 3,217 who were bold enough to spoil their voting papers deliberately by endorsing them with remarks that no new fund was needed and that equal representation on the existing fund and an annual general meeting were required. We have this state of things, that the company get 4,775 votes and the men, who desire equal representation, with no influence at all, and with no pressure and a free opportunity of carrying out their will, decide that they were against the company's proposals as they were put to the men. I think under these circumstances it must be admitted that that is a most profoundly unsatisfactory method of carrying on business. I want to come to what I suppose will be considered the crux of the whole question. What is the plea of the company? Why do they not give equal representation? Why is it that after, all these years, during which the men have been paying £25,000 a year without having a single word to say in the management of the fund, they do not grant what is asked for? These are the excuses put forward. The company say, "The men pay 2½ per cent., and their total contributions come to £25,000 a year. We pay £25,000, and in addition we make a further contribution of £24,000 in order to make the fund solvent. Because we pay that extra £24,000, because we are taxed, if you like to put it in that way, at a higher rate than the men, therefore we should have a larger representation, and have the control of the fund." That is the company's contention. I believe I have stated it quite fairly and frankly. Surely the hon. Member is not going to put that forward tonight, when, during the whole time that the fund has been in operation the men have not had a single representative upon its management.
  Further, the reason why the company have to pay this additional £24,000 is because they have had the management

  303
  of the fund in their own hands up to this time. It is their policy which has created the deficit. It is their management which has made the extra contribution necessary. They had many years ago, in consequence of an actuarial investigation, to admit that there was in the fund a deficit of over £800,000. That deficit was due not to the management of elected representatives of the men, but to the management by the company's officials and the company's directors. And why? Because of the policy which they pursued. These superannuation funds have undoubtedly been very convenient for the companies. I do not say that the staffs have not benefited; I do not say that it is not a good thing for the men to have pensions; but I do say that if anybody has benefited it has been the companies. Look at the policy which the Great Northern Company pursued. First of all, they took in anybody at any age. Anybody who knows anything about pension funds knows the result of a policy of that kind when you come to an actuarial investigation. Although the fund says that the men must retire compulsorily at sixty-five years of age, and may retire voluntarily at sixty, the company sent many men on the fund at the age of sixty, in order to pension them off and get rid of them for their own purposes—not because the men were done up and desired to retire. It was that policy, and several other facts of that kind, that led to the deficit which caused the company to have to make this alteration in the fund. As a matter of fact, most of the companies have found, when the funds have been going for some years, that their optimism with regard to their solvency has been misplaced, and they have to come to the help of the funds, and either guarantee them or pay extra subscriptions. Surely it is not going to be argued because of that fact that it is fair to deny to the men an equal representation on the management.
  We have a precedent with regard to this matter, not only in many of the funds to which I have referred, but also in the National Insurance Act. Under that Act sick funds connected with private industrial undertakings were provided for. An opportunity was allowed for shop clubs to exist, but it was laid down as a condition that, no matter how much the company or the employer might pay towards the shop club or sick fund, they could on no account have more than one-fourth of the repre-
  304
  sentation on the committee of management. When we have a precedent of that kind, and when we are asking, as in this case, only for an equal share in the administration, and for an annual general, meeting, surely the House of Commons is not going to say that the men who have contributed all these years without any representation shall be offered a meagre one-fifth of the representation now. Nor have the men any control over the auditors, or actuaries. If I were to criticise, as I could do on the notes before me, the policy of the management of this fund for many years past, I could prove in detail that it is due entirely to the way in which the company have managed the fund that the deficit which causes the extra contribution to be necessary has arisen. Therefore the company have no right to use that extra contribution as an argument against giving this representation. I realise that in moving the rejection of a Bill of this character on grounds of this kind it may be said that we are indirectly attempting to impose conditions upon the Great Northern Company through pressure in the House of Commons. I ask the House of Commons, What are the men to do? Do you want them to strike? It is not an imaginary grievance. It is a grievance that has rankled in the minds of these men for years. I have not created it. I have not asked the men to manufacture this grievance. It was there long before I became a Member of this House, and the men have asked me to bring it forward. I would say to the hon. Baronet and his company that in this matter they are far behind the times, and that, if they are not careful, they will create upon their system a sense of dissatisfaction which certainly, if this House will not remedy their grievances, will lead the men into courses which I, for one, should deplore, and which all those who desire to see amicable relationships with the men would be very sorry to bring about. I venture to say that the time of the House of Commons is not wasted if it puts an end to a grievance which rankles in the breast of a large number of the men employed by this company.
  Mr. HUDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I think the House will admit that the case has been very thoroughly and reasonably put by my hon. Friend. I do not intend to do more than summarise the position in this important case—because it is an important case, as will be realized

  305
  when it is remembered that over 12,500 men are involved. In view of the whole situation, it is no wonder that there exists the intense dissatisfaction which is to-day expressed and displayed by the men with even the latest proposals put forward by the company. Just consider the meagre representation! At the last moment their offer is one-fifth of the representation of the committee of management. I wonder what the hon. Baronet or his co-directors would say if the working men took up a similar position in regard to them? He would say that it was a most outrageous and unreasonable position for any body of men—and I should agree with him! Consider the guarantee of the £24,000 to the fund. What has happened in the past, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is due entirely to the company's own wilful error in overspending the fund, and placing the committee in a position of insolvency. We come to the latest stage of the matter. The men ask that a deputation chosen by the men shall have an opportunity of expressing the views of the men before a representative of the company, or before the directors of the company, and the general manager refuses it. In offering that representation the company take a course which must be admitted to be monstrously unfair. They use their official influence to secure a vote from 12,447 men—under pressure—yet they only receive votes to the number of 4,475. That at least should have convinced them that they were not getting the views of the men accurately.
  9.0 P.M.
  It must be admitted on the part of the company, I think, if they will but carefully look over the matter, that there is a great deal that they ought to do in order to win the confidence of the men, instead of giving them the very severe rebuffs that they have done from time to time when they wanted to take a share in the management of what is rightly and properly their own concern. It is a most regrettable feature that even when they came to a decision in this matter that they appear to hold the men entirely at arm's length, and say, "We will listen to nothing you have to say; we are going to take our own course; we have managed the funds entirely ourselves hitherto, and whether you are compulsory members of the fund, or voluntary, we will manage it for you, and you have no right to question it." I think any impartial person, either inside or outside this
  306
  House, would fairly support the views which have been set up by the men—that is equal representation by the contributing members of the funds, and also that the election of such representatives should be by ballot, and not taken under official pressure and official control. Look at the other companies that my hon. Friend has named. We have not even had the advantage as representatives of sharing the authority that might be attached to an annual meeting to hearing the accounts read out, and also taking a fair share in the deliberations of the concern. It is also, I think everybody will admit, a very reasonable proposition that the men have made: that the rules of the fund should be altered, and that they should give to the contributing members the right to select one auditor every year, and the opportunity of electing one of the actuaries at every quinquennial valuation. If other railway companies can do these things in a reasonable spirit, and arrange an amicable management of an important fund like this, of which my hon. Friend said rightly that the company got the most interest out of it, why should not the Great Northern? After all, it ought always to be remembered that whatever interest the company put into the fund, they at least count it as against the men in one way or another as part of what they have earned. If for no other, or from any equitable point of view that might be advanced, here at least is a strong reason for the men putting forward their scheme. The company reserve to themselves in a large number of cases the right to deduct the money of the men, and to create the fund, a fund, of course, of which we approve, and which we desire to make preparation for our old age; but whatever we put into that fund the company always calculate that that is part of what the men have earned as servants of the company. I sincerely trust that this House will take advantage of this opportunity, which is one of the few accorded of approaching a matter like this, and the only way we can come into close touch with the company and deal with them. I sincerely trust that this House will seriously consider whether it is right that a company which treat its servants in this manner should be allowed to have the further powers that they seek.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I do not make any complaint of the manner in which the hon. Member who proposed this Motion nor the hon. Member who seconded it put their case before the

  307
  House. The case has nothing whatever to do with any of the provisions of the Bill, and if the hon. Member will excuse me for one moment I would like to reply to the only objection I heard urged to any of the provisions of the Bill before I deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division asked me about minerals, and whether there was not something in the Bill which was objected to by the Coalowners Association. I told him, I did not think there was, but that at the moment I could not answer that question, and that I should like to know what it was exactly he objected to. He told me that there had been some decision in the House of Lords in regard to the distance on either side of the banks of a railway as to the mineral rights, and as to whether the company had to pay compensation to the mineral owners or else work the minerals themselves. I made inquiries from the solicitor to the company and he informs me that Clause 44 deals with that point and that the Coalowners Association are satisfied. I do not see the hon. Baronet in the House just now, and I think, therefore, it is possible that he may have found out that his objection does not hold good.
  I should like to say a word with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport upon what I said when we had a similar Bill before the House last year. I think everyone in the House will admit that as far as I can I am always desirous of being straightforward with the House, and that I do not attempt to say anything which I know in my own mind I cannot carry out, and my recollection is that I expressly guarded myself against doing anything more than promising to represent to the board of directors what had taken place in the House. My hon. and learned Friend near me has kindly brought me a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that Debate and I will now read what I actually did say. I said:—
  "With regard to this, I would point out that it hardly arises on a small omnibus Bill of this sort, which is merely to give powers to widen the railway in one or two places, and to do similar work of that description. I did not expect that this question would be raised, and although I happen to be chairman of the superannuation committee, I should not only have to ask the other members of the board before I pledged them to any course, but I should also have to ask the board of the company, who are the ultimate tribunal before whom these matters come. All I can say is that I will represent to the superannuation committee the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Stockport."
  And then I went on to answer some points raised by the hon. Member for Ponte-
  308
  fract, and nothing further took place. I claim to have absolutely fulfilled the pledge I gave on that occasion.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Dublin Harbour Division): Nothing has come of it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would say to the hon. Gentleman, in the words of his Leader, "Wait and see," and after he has heard what I have to say he will see that something has come of it. As I said before, I was only one, and it was quite possible the other directors might say, "We choose to make no alteration." I was careful to say I could only represent to the board what the hon. Gentleman had represented in the House.
  Mr. WARDLE: I did not accuse the hon. Baronet.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I make no accusation against the hon. Member, and as I said, I have nothing to say against the manner in which he brought the matter forward, but it gives me an opportunity of putting our side of the case before the House, which I shall be very pleased to do. Before I deal with the points which the hon. Member for Stockport made, I should like very briefly to state to the House what are the real facts with regard to the superannuation committee. This committee was founded in 1875, and the original scheme was that 2½ per cent. should be contributed by the shareholders of the company and 2½ per cent. by the staff, and there also was a provision that there should be a quinquennial valuation by the directors. The committee was to consist of certain directors, and six officials who were to be appointed ex officio—that is to say, they were to be heads of the various departments, it being thought that it was advisable to have the heads of the various departments upon the committee of management as managers, because by having the heads of each department on that committee an opportunity would be given to men working under a particular head to represent their views to that official, and he could represent them upon the board of management. Then, as in my experience it nearly always happens, it was found at the first or second quinquennial valuation, I am not sure which, that the fund was insolvent. That is nothing new, I think, if I may venture to say for a moment, with political questions, that there is a vague suspicion that another great fund is not in such a

  309
  good position as it might be, but however that may be, I think it is evident that in the majority of cases it happens that whether the committee of management are too generous or the actuaries make wrong calculations—I do not say that is the case—the result is the fund becomes insolvent. The company gets some assistance in order to put that fund upon a sound basis. Further valuations were made as time went on, and it was found again that the fund was insolvent.
  As far as I know I think I am correct in saying no pressure was put upon the directors to do what they did, but of their own accord at one of the half-yearly meetings they made a proposal to the shareholders that they should continue the 2½ per cent. which they had always agreed to do, and that in addition they should not contribute any fixed sum of money—the hon. Member for Stockport talked about £24,000, and he talked about 4 per cent. which the Midland gave instead of 2½ per cent.—but they said, "We will, out of our own pockets—the pockets of the shareholders—secure that whatever benefits any person, who has subscribed to the fund, thought he was going to receive, he shall receive and we will pay whatever sum is necessary to see that that man gets that benefit." I really do not know how we could go further than that. I myself thought when there was a discussion some nine or ten years ago when that resolution was passed at one of the half-yearly meetings, that we were suddenly face to face with what might be a very large sum of money to find, and I remember myself saying whatever we have pledged ourselves to do, regardless of the cost, we must carry out, and we did carry out. We did carry it out. I do not think that there is any blame attached to us in that direction, and that is really a much greater concession and a much more pecuniary burden than the Midland Railway Company has borne, because we render ourselves liable for an indefinite sum. As long as the company is in existence so long will those people who enter into the fund understand that they were to receive certain benefits; so long as the company is in existence or borrow any money so long will those persons receive the benefits which they thought they were going to receive. Of course, at the end of the quinquennial valuation we reserve for ourselves the power to put new entrants upon another basis, but they would still receive
  310
  everything they thought they were going to receive when they began their contribution.
  On these circumstances it does not seem to be reasonable that the shareholders who have to find the money should say that the majority on the committee of management should be the directors, who are the elected representatives of the shareholders. They have to find by far the larger proportion of the money. They have to find an indefinite sum, and it only seems fair that the board should have the larger representation. Those are plain, simple facts which cannot be contradicted as to the method which up to a certain point the Great Northern Railway adopted in regard to the management of their superannuation fund. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) said that the railway company had refused to receive a deputation. Before I deal with that point I must inform the House of something which took place four or five months ago. I may say here, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, who told me that nothing had been done, that I made the representation which I had promised to do, with the result that there was a little acceleration in the legal department. I do not know whether the hon. Member has had to indulge in law suits, but, if he has, he will know that, however excellent a legal department is, it always takes a certain amount of time if it works with that great care which from time immemorial has distinguished legal departments. It must be remembered that a large amount of consideration had to be taken into account by the directors when they were asked to make a fundamental alteration in a fund which has been in existence for thirty-seven years, and I think it is only quite lately that there has been any grievance or any disturbance of the kind indicated by the hon. Member for Stockport.
  The committee and the board were face to face with this problem. The superannuation committee had recommended to the board that there should be a representation, the number not given, of the men upon the committee. They had to alter the rules to admit of elected representatives, and they had to consider how many should be elected and what the constitution of the board should be. Last March, I think it was, they came to the conclusion that they would submit two proposals to the staff. One was that the staff should have equal representation upon the committee, on the understanding

  311
  that the fund should go back to the old position—that is to say, that the company should contribute 2½ per cent. and the men 2½ per cent., and then, the contributions being equal, the representation should be equal, but any question of further guarantee would then disappear. The other proposal was that the company should contribute 2½ per cent., the men 2½ per cent., and that the guarantee of the benefits I have already described should be continued. That proposal was put to the men on 7th April, and the result was that 4,775 voted in favour of the proposal (a) that there should be three elected representatives, the company continuing their guarantee, and 330 voting in favour of proposal (b) which was that there should be equal representation, the company paying equally with the men. I notice from a trade union circular that 3,217 endorsed their voting papers to the effect that no new fund was needed, and that equal representation on the existing fund was required, and also an annual general meeting. They would like to have an equal representation provided the funds were not distributed. The company was to pay the larger amount, while it was not to have a larger share in the representation and management of the fund. Then there comes a question of the refusal of the directors to receive a deputation. I must repeat what I said last year, that I am only one, and all I can do is to express my own opinion, and I cannot bind other people. My own opinion always has been that if any of the staff wish to see the directors they should certainly be allowed to see them. That is my own opinion, and, as far as I know, the whole of the board hold the same opinion. Of course, I can only speak for myself and not for them. I have not provided myself with the general manager's answer to that request. I believe the request was made on the 11th of June. The first letter was as follows:—
  "I am in receipt of your letter of the 11th instant, which will have consideration."
  Mr. WARDLE: That is not the first letter.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Was there one before that?
  Mr. WARDLE: There were several.
  Sir F. BANBURY: At any rate, the answer was given on the 25th of June as follows:—
  "Great Northern Railway Superannuation Fund. Dear Sir,—With further reference to your letter of the 11th instant, I must call your attention to the circular dated the 7th of April last, which gave the reasons for submitting to the members two different schemes for dealing with the Superannuation Fund, and seeing that the majority were in favour of proposal A, it really does not appear to my directors that the interview suggested by you would be of any practical advantage.
  Yours faithfully,
  (Signed) "C. H. DENT."
  I may point out that that method is not a direct refusal to receive the deputation, and I am quite prepared to say that I will do my best to request the board to see that particular deputation, it being understood that I can do no more than make the request to the board, and that I do not in any kind of way bind myself or the board as to what their conduct will be after they have heard what the deputation have got to say, provided that they do receive the deputation. I want that to be clearly understood. The last thing I should like to do would be to attempt to get the Bill by making any statement which I could not carry out. I think it is very reasonable that the hon. Member should ask that we should see our own staff, and, as far as I am concerned, I should be perfectly willing to do so. Then the hon. Member for Stockport said:—
  "The company has used the powers granted them by Parliament to their own advantage."
  I listened very carefully to hear how the hon. Member justified that, because that is not the opinion we hold on the board. We hold that we have spent very large sums of money because we thought that we ought to carry out our promises, and the result has been that we have been very much out of pocket by the generous way—I must say that I think it is generous—in which we have endeavoured to ensure that no man who contributed under compulsion to this fund should lose in any kind of way. I have dealt with the question of other companies. The Midland is in quite a different position, and we have got to judge different companies under different circumstances. I have endeavoured to show the facts of the case, and the reason why we have taken the attitude we have taken. The hon. Member said that official influence was brought to bear to induce men to vote for three representatives. I do not know where the hon. Member gets proof of that. He says so, and of course I must take his word for it, but I do not know of anything of that sort, but I very much doubt if any such influence has been brought to bear, for the very simple reason that if we were to have

  313
  an increased representation, I do not think anybody would deny that we should be perfectly justified in saying, "Very well, we only contribute the same as the men," and we should be in a very much better position financially if the men accepted the proposal for which only 330 voted. The hon. Member said that the deficit was owing to the company's management. I cannot admit that except in this way. The committee of management in the years gone by, relying upon the statements of the actuaries, no doubt did pay larger benefits than they ought to have done. There is no question about that, but it is what is being done every day and what has been done for many years past. I do not want to cast any blame upon the actuaries, but as a matter of fact, in nine cases out of ten, the actuaries' calculations have always proved to be wrong. They have always been too sanguine, and they are going to prove to be wrong in National Insurance. The ordinary layman has founded his administration of the fund upon what the actuaries have said, and the result has been that the fund has been insolvent. How have we met that? We have met it by paying it out of our own pockets, and I really do not think that we can do more than that.
  The question of the dismissal of the men at sixty is a very difficult one, and it raises the whole policy of the railway company, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are by no manner of means anxious to dismiss men at sixty, provided that they are capable of carrying on the work. We have to consider what would happen if we had an accident by which a certain number of lives were lost, and it was proved that the engine driver was a man of sixty-one, who had applied to receive his pension and to be allowed to retire, and who had been told, "Oh, no, we think that you are all right to go on, and you must not retire, because you will be a burden on the fund, and thereby cause the company to spend a little money. Therefore, you must go on a little bit longer in order to make the fund solvent." What would hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have said if that had come out in Debate in this House? The company would have been held up to odium for having, for the sake of a small paltry contribution to the superannuation fund, sacrificed, not only the health of the particular engine-driver, but the lives of the public, for their own immediate advantage. I think that the hon.
  314
  Gentleman is wrong there. The company have by no manner of means desired to retire their servants too early. After all, what has a man got to object to receiving a pension at sixty instead of being persuaded to work on a little bit longer? It is not in the interests of the company, provided that they think the men are fit to do their work, to retire them too early, and they have never done so. I have endeavoured to deal quite honestly and straightforwardly with the hon. Member. I do not in the least make the slightest complaint of his having brought the matter forward. I have put my case before the House, and it must be for the House to decide whether or not they think the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member are sufficient to cause the rejection of an Omnibus Bill like this upon Second Reading.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The hon. Baronet did not complain of the tone and temper of the Debate, and I think we on this side must congratulate him on the fairness with which he has endeavoured to state the case. If the Debate can be conducted on those lines, free either from temper, passion, or prejudice, the House will certainly be in a better position to judge exactly as to the merits of the case. I am glad that the hon. Baronet has not raised any objection to the right of taking exception on Second Reading to a matter that is not strictly in the Bill, because I want to assure him, and the House generally, that no one deprecates more than we on these benches the necessity of repeatedly having to draw the attention of the House to what might otherwise be a purely domestic matter. We take a view which I believe will be generally accepted in all parts of the House that when we are dealing with railway men we are dealing with those who after all are semi-public servants, and it would be much better, as indeed it would be in the interests of all, if we could, to adjust any matter on the floor of the House rather than have to resort to a strike or any means of that description. Therefore, in this matter our objection tonight is not only because we believe a great injustice has been done to the men, but that an injustice is being done to-day; but, over and above that, we state frankly and definitely that promises were made across the floor of this House and to the Board of Trade which have not been given effect to. The hon. Baronet was quite right in the quotation that he gave, and as he said

  315
  he expressly guarded himself against committing any of his colleagues, which he had no right to do. That is perfectly true, but it is equally true to remember that this is not the hon. Baronet's Bill. This is a Bill promoted by the Great Northern Railway Company, and if the the Great Northern Railway Company have failed to do their duty, we are dealing not with the individual attitude of the hon. Baronet but with the attitude of the Great Northern Railway Company as a whole. Therefore, I propose to show that, even if the hon. Baronet did not make any definite promise himself, the Board of Trade, on that particular night, did interpret his view as a promise on behalf of the company. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for the Board of Trade was speaking, and at the conclusion of his speech he said:—
  "With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Stockport. I think he is perfectly correct in saying that the railway company did promise, and I think the hon. Baronet has forgotten it. that the staff should have representation on the superannuation management committee, and, as my recollection goes, we received from the company last year an assurance that the matter had been referred to their solicitor who is to prepare a scheme."
  Then the hon. Baronet intervened and said:—
  "I believe he is doing that at present."
  Then the hon. Gentleman rejoined:—
  "I trust that is the case, and, a promise having been given, I have no reason to doubt that the company will not fail to fulfil it."
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I am not sure I made my position quite clear when I was speaking. The solicitor to the company has done that. He has prepared a scheme to give the men representation. A proposal has been made to give representation to duly elected representatives—an equal number elected with the number appointed by the directors under certain circumstances. That has been done.
  Mr. THOMAS: I will deal with the merits of that particular proposal in a moment. At the present time I am confining myself to this proposition, that my hon. Friend objected to the Great Northern Railway Company's Bill fourteen months ago solely on the ground of representation of the staff on this committee. He put forward a claim then, as he has put it again this evening, that the men ought to have equal representation with the company. In the course of the Debate he expressed a wish not to
  316
  press the matter to a Division, so long as he was satisfied that a reasonable prospect existed of his wishes being carried into effect. The representative of the Board of Trade said that they had had certain assurances from the Great Northern Company. The hon. Baronet confirmed that, and on that understanding my hon. Friend withdrew his objection. I put it to the House that we, and the House generally, agreed to this only because we thought that a satisfactory settlement would be arrived at as a result of the Debate. I wish to emphasise what is really the main contention from our side, namely, that the men do not feel, and we share their view, that effect has honestly been given to the promise made through the Board of Trade and on the floor of the House of Commons.
  I come now to the second point. Why have these promises not been given effect to? The hon. Baronet has asked why do the men take exception to the method in which it has been brought about? The hon. Baronet quite frankly said the company objected to the men having equal representation unless they are prepared to relieve the company of the liability they have undertaken. I think that is stating the case quite fairly. Let us examine it from the men's standpoint. They are not free agents. The Great Northern Railway Company do not say to the men, "Here is a superannuation fund ostensibly promoted for your benefit, because we believe it to be to your interest, and therefore you are free agents and can join it if you like." If that attitude were adopted, then there might be something to be said for the hon. Baronet's point, but the reverse is the case. The Great Northern Railway Company say, "Here is a fund that we have promoted, which we control, and which we demand you to contribute to, and we insist upon your joining, notwithstanding any other provision which you have made for your superannuation fund. You must forfeit all that and join our fund." I put it to the House, is not that an entirely changed situation? If any employer of labour takes the responsibility of compelling men, as this company has compelled men to join, then I say there is a moral obligation on the part of the company to fulfil to the full every responsibility that they have undertaken.
  I will make another point with regard to this superannuation fund. It is not an advantage or perquisite given by the com-

  317
  pany. It is not an additional gift free and unfettered over and above the men's wages. It is nothing of the kind. It is to all intents and purposes deferred wages. There has never been, and the hon. Baronet knows it perfectly well, an occasion when we have had to treat with the Great Northern or any other railway company, and, having gone to arbitration, have stated our case so far as the men's wages are concerned—there has, I say, never been an occasion when the company's advocate has not immediately replied:—"We desire you, not only to take into consideration the wages as outlined by the men, but the additional advantages which we estimate at so much per week, for the superannuation and other funds that we have." If, therefore, an arbitrator is to to be asked to set a face value on these advantages, and by that means be prevented giving advances to the men, are we not justified in saying that not only have the company no right to try and take them away, but that to all intents and purposes it is a moral obligation that they must carry out. Therefore, I repeat that it is manifestly unfair, and, indeed, was taking a mean advantage of these men to say, "No, make your choice and make it in one of two ways. Have representatives if you like, but in that event forfeit all the benefits for which you have paid, and which we have promised to guarantee." I say that is neither fair nor honest, and the men were perfectly justified in resenting, as they did, the methods thus employed by the company.
  The hon. Baronet puts the position quite fairly when he says that the company's view in having officials on the managing committee was because they were always accessible to the men who could state their grievances to them, and that then the officials could represent their views. I put it to the House, as I put it to any business man who knows anything of railway life, is that the actual relationship between the ordinary humble railway man and the railway official? Is it not true, indeed, have the company not the right to expect, that their official is there primarily to look after the company's side of the case? Can anything else be suggested? To suggest, as is done in this case, that the officials will be there as representatives of the men is to put up a proposition in which no one in the railway service would believe for one moment. The hon. Baronet brought forward a most ingenious argument about the engine
  318
  driver who might risk the lives of the travelling public. That is very farfetched indeed. I was an engine driver, and I think I would have welcomed my pension at any time, indeed, I would welcome it even now. It is not true to say that these funds were spent on engine drivers, because 80 per cent. are the clerical staff. When the leakage took place, and this fund became insolvent, it was not the engine drivers who were put on, but superintendents with pensions of £200, £300, £400, and in some cases up> to £700 or £800. I want the House to clearly understand that if the men have representation they themselves would be the first to see that no funds could go on in this matter. Therefore I come back to the original point, namely, that the demand is a demand that the men believe would be in the interests of the society itself. I go further, and say that it is too late in the day to challenge the right of anybody to representation. The very law of the land allows that right to the vilest criminal, and no man to-day in a court of law can be denied the right of representation. Why? In order that justice shall be done to him. If that is a right conceded to a criminal, surely it is a right that ought at least to be conceded to 12,000 railway employés. Whether this House agrees or not, there will, and must be, an agitation continued until this representation is conceded.
  I do not want to pit one railway company against another, but I put it to any other railway company director in this House, that he has no right to support this Bill on the merits of the case we are putting up against it, because we are asking the Great Northern Company to do this evening what the company of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Colonel Lockwood), the London and North Western Railway Company, have done with success, what the Midland Railway Company have done with success, and what the Great Western Company have done with success. Whatever prejudices they may have had in the past, similar to those the Great Northern have to-day, surely their experience has not only justified the claim we make, but I venture to assert that they themselves would not like to revert to the old position. Without attempting to delay the House, I put it to the hon. Baronet that it is too late to talk about the deputation now. He read the reply of the general manager,

  319
  and then said that it must not be taken as a refusal. I have conducted negotiations on many occasions when I was in the service, and if I dared to repeat another letter after the reply the hon. Baronet read out, the one simple answer I should have got would have been, "I can only refer you to my previous letter of so-and-so date."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I said I would represent to the board that it would be advisable to see these gentlemen. The hon. Gentleman need not repeat any letter.
  Mr. THOMAS: I agree, but the hon. Baronet must remember that he had previously said that what he had represented to the board had had no effect.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No.
  Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Baronet made it perfectly clear in the last Debate that he would then represent the matter to his colleagues on the board, and he told us that he had, and we all believe that he had, but the result of his representation was nil.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No.
  Mr. THOMAS: At any rate, you expressly safeguarded the position by saying that you only spoke for yourself.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!
  Mr. THOMAS: Therefore I am justified in saying that we ought to have some assurance on behalf of the company—I presume the hon. Baronet is speaking here for the company—if he is not speaking for the company it is valueless—if he is, then he ought to be in a position to speak authoritatively for them. It is not true to suggest that the letter read out was the first letter. It was the very last letter, and it was after the agitation had been created. There were several letters prior to that, and up to this stage there has been a definite refusal to receive a deputation. We do not want to press this matter to a Division if a desire is shown to be reasonable and to meet our point, but we do say, having stated the case as fairly and impartially as we can, that here is a number of men compelled to contribute to this fund, compelled to join the fund, and compelled to run out of any other provision they may have made; and we suggest, even at this stage, that the company should be prepared to give representation—if
  320
  like, eight to the company and seven to the men, which is surely not unreasonable! We are not even asking them to let in someone who has no interest, because these men are contributors, and it will be to these men's interest to safeguard the fund quite as much as it will be to the company's interest. I put it to the hon. Baronet that he ought to agree to some such terms as those. We will not say seven and seven. We will be fair, equitable, and, I believe, magnanimous, in asking the Great Northern Company to do what other railway companies have already done with success. If he will do that, I hope that it will not only save us from going to a Division, but that it will be the means of restoring that relationship between railway companies and their men which we want to see restored. Unfortunately there is bitterness, unfortunately there are difficulties, and unfortunately there is irritation. Some of us are genuinely anxious to remove the cause of that irritation, and to be able to say that when railway companies introduce their Bills into this House we who speak for the railway men are not only prepared not to oppose them, but are prepared to give them our blessing, as we ought to be able to do. That can only be done by the railway companies recognising that they have obligations, duties and responsibilities. They must recognise that in the twentieth century it is too late to deny common justice in the form we are asking for it for these men. If, as a result of this Debate, some such promise as I have indicated can be given by the hon. Baronet to-night, none will be better pleased than we shall be to give our whole-hearted support to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: It is my anxiety that those of us on this side of the House who are in favour of the Bill, should come to an agreement with hon. Members opposite. I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) say at the start that he recognised the advisability of always meeting these men in the board room whenever they had any grievance, and as I now find that he has that idea in his head, I could only think that, as a just reward, he should be asked to join my company and leave the one he now adorns. I cannot help regretting that this question of the superannuation fund and its administration should have been brought up in the House at all. I am

  321
  quite sure the hon. Member (Mr. Wardle) will not think for a minute that I thought that he had not a perfect right to bring this question forward on a Railway Bill, because we have long left behind that idea that only subjects cognate to the Bill can be admitted in discussion. I am sorry that the House of Commons should be called upon, if it is called upon, to settle this question of the superannuation scheme, because I think it is so easily settled and so much better settled by the companies with their men. After all the superannuation scheme is not entirely for the benefit either of the company or of the men. We all know that. It is a scheme for our mutual comfort and well-being, in order to create a feeling of comfort amongst the men and of security in the company. But I cannot help saying that these matters are brought before the House because they are not settled at the start. If these matters, which grow so easily into big matters of discontent, were settled at the start by a few individuals, I am perfectly certain that no question of superannuation or any other railway question would be brought before the House of Commons.
  The question of representation is not within my province, and I should not wish to enter into it to-night, but I would suggest that my hon. Friend and his colleagues will surely be able to settle that fairly and amicably with their men. I am sure, from my knowledge of hon. Members opposite who compose the Labour party, that their wish on an occasion of this sort, and I think on most occasions, is to settle the matter amicably, in order that those in whom they are interested may feel that their party have done their best for them in the House. What is best for the men of the Great Northern Railway? Is it the best thing that after a Debate of this sort, when all the questions have been fairly laid before the House, this Bill should be passed or that it should be rejected? I would suggest, not by way of escaping a Division—that is entirely for hon. Members opposite to settle—that after a Debate of this sort, when everything has been stated so plainly, that any railway company must take notice of it, it would be a pity to reject this Bill on the score that has been put forward. The company have heard, quite fully, exactly what the case of the men is, and I should say from my knowledge of the directors of the company, and of the directors of railway companies generally,
  322
  that they will be anxious to show that they have appreciated some of the remarks which have been made in the Debate, and I believe if this Bill is allowed to pass after the Debate which has taken place, the party opposite will not regret that they have allowed it to pass.
  10.0 P.M.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The right hon. Gentleman has just said that we have long passed tie stage of demurring to a railway Bill being opposed on Second Reading on questions quite apart from its merits. It has become now, I suppose, the normal procedure of the House, but I am bound to say that in this particular case the company has brewed a good deal of its own trouble. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) quoted a speech he made in the discussion of a Bill of last year, and observed that nothing else happened, but as the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, a little more did happen, namely, my calling to his recollection that a promise on the subject had been made a year before, and the hon. Baronet puzzled me somewhat on that occasion, after I had remarked that I supposed he had forgotten the previous promise, by saying that he believed the solicitor was at that moment preparing a scheme. The hon. Baronet had just before declared that he had not expected to hear anything on the subject.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It had nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: No, but as the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Lockwood) has just pointed out, Railway Bills are habitually discussed on matters which have nothing to do with the Bill. The hon. Baronet's experience is much longer than mine, but in mine I should have said it would be a very natural thing for the hon. Baronet to expect to be reminded of his promise of the year before. The fact is that his promise was made more than two years ago. I believe the hon. Baronet will have to grant that there has been no alacrity in fulfilling the pledge. If they were preparing a scheme fifteen months ago, even that did not mature very rapidly, and I think the hon. Baronet will have to admit as regards the speeches of my hon. Friends below the Gangway that the proposal finally made by the company was not exactly a popular one. To delay the fulfilment of a pledge for two years,

  323
  and then to give the men that choice between a scheme of equal representation with loss of the company's guarantee, and the continuance of the old scheme, with the company's guarantee, at the cost of having only three members elected, was not a popular proposition to put to the men. I think I am justified in saying that the company have brewed the trouble that has befallen them. It is not for me to discuss the merits of the fund. The hon. Baronet has given what I have no doubt is a perfectly fair and just explanation of the state of things in which that fund became insolvent, and had then to be guaranteed by the company, but he is aware of the fact that at least two other companies guaranteed their funds in the same way and yet find it possible to give the men equal representation. I think the propriety of some such adjustment has been suggested to the hon. Baronet by his experienced colleague. I hope the Great Northern Company will approach a little nearer to agreement with their members on this subject, especially in view of the fact that the promise was given such a long time ago, and had been so tardily fulfilled. I would only suggest to my hon. Friend below the gangway that to throw out a Bill on the Second Reading, even on the occasion of such a grievance as this, would be to inflict a rather heavy punishment, not only on the company but on the public. The public is punished in all these cases in which Bills are thrown out on the Second Reading, whether because of disputes between directors and employés or between traders and directors.
  Mr. THOMAS: They blame the right people.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The public is not perhaps discriminating in its blame, and the general fact will remain that a setback will have been given to commercial and industrial progress, a useful Bill will have been retarded and a certain amount of employment for labour will have been prevented from coming into operation. I merely urge these as reasons why, though I think hon. Members have a real grievance against the company and have worded it in a very moderate way, hon. Members should not press the matter to a division, but should allow the Bill to go to a Second Reading in the hope that the hon. Baronet and his colleagues will come to better terms with them.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I wish the House to understand exactly what is the question now before it. As I understand the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, he understood that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said on a previous occasion that he was going to give equal representation.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: No, I have not said that. I understood that the question of equal representation was not raised on either side.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: That was the essence of the dispute. The hon. Member opposite on the last occasion claimed equal representation. He said that equal representation ought to be given, and I think we have a right to ask him whether, in the previous statement he made on this dispute asking equal representation, he desired to have equal representation with equal control.
  Mr. THOMAS: The offer I have made was previously made to the hon. Baronet.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Does it mean that with the claim for equality of representation the claim for equality of control is still maintained? The House must see that that is the whole difference. I do not think you will find any other case in connection with any other company in which a company, having accepted the unknown quantity of unlimited liability, has conceded the point of equal control. If any company is asked to guarantee the debts of another company, the company whose debts are guaranteed is put into the position of a subsidiary company and accepts the usual terms that the guaranteeing company is to have the ultimate voice in the control of the concern. The hon. Member for Derby proposed seven should sit on this board as against eight. The hon. Member for the City of London has—it may be slowly and in an injudicious manner for which he personally is not responsible—proposed the lesser number of three. I do submit that if hon. Members reflect on the extreme unwillingness of companies to come to this House for power to raise new capital, they may take it that these things which are asked for are really and truly necessary. The difference between the parties in this case is not such as to warrant the House in taking an extreme course on this Bill on

  325
  the Second Reading. This is not the last stage on which hon. Members will be able to state their case.
  Mr. LOUGH: The point cannot be raised on the Third Reading.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I am not sure of that. Besides, if the Second Reading is passed now, there will be time for subsequent negotiations. Speaking for myself and other directors of railways in this House, I am able to state that we fully concede that there ought to be representation. The objects are two. One is to give control to the guaranteeing company, and the other, which is only a degree less necessary, is to secure that the men who are contributors to this fund should have the best of all possible means of knowing what is being done in the management of the fund. That, I think, should be conceded, and for that purpose I should have said that the presence of three is enough. If the presence of three is not enough, then let that number be increased. But I must say that you will not find any analogous case of equality of representation and equality of control being given where there is unlimited liability being undertaken by one of the parties. I think there ought to be an accommodation arrived at without an extreme course being taken, and certainly no accommodation can be arrived at unless the fundamental distinction which I have pointed out to the House is borne in mind.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think this matter might be arranged in the spirit of the remarks which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stuart-Wortley). I think we have come to the point now when the Debate might be adjourned, in order to allow further negotiations to take place. The right hon. Gentleman really went too far when he said that some representation has been conceded. It has not been conceded.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Representation by three has been conceded.
  Mr. LOUGH: Even representation by three has not been conceded, and it would not be satisfactory to accept three. I think everybody will feel that. It is a pity that on such a small point as this, where the decision of the House could be so easily arrived at, we should lose so much time discussing the matter, and not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. We have reached a stage in the discussion, especially after what has fallen from the hon.
  326
  Baronet the Member for the City of London, when it should be adjourned for further negotiations. I believe that what is wrong is that the hon. Baronet is not chairman of the railway company. The chairman of the company comes from the provinces, and does not grasp the thing with the same seriousness as the hon. Baronet would do. I think if the other directors would take his advice, the matter would be immediately adjusted. We ought not to be called upon to kill the Bill, but we should listen to the appeal made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Let us have a few more days discussion between the directors and in the hope that an adjustment of the kind suggested may be arrived at. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press that Motion. To-morrow will be 1st July, and we do not know how long the House is going to sit. We have taken very great pains to put the case fairly before the House, and hon. Members who are here now may not come again. If the Debate is adjourned, we should have to take up the time of the Government which is required for Supply, and I think it would be much better to go to a Division to-night on the Motion for the Second Reading.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I intervene with great diffidence, for I am not acquainted with the subject matter of the Debate. I venture to say, with great deference to the hon. Baronet, that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) has made a reasonable proposal for this reason. I heard the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and I thought he made rather a damaging criticism of the position of the hon. Baronet. At the same time he pointed out the obvious inconvenience to the public of rejecting an important Bill of this kind. I understand that hon. Members below the Gangway do not desire to be forced to divide against the Bill and kill it on the Second Reading if an accommodation can be arrived at. The object of my right hon. Friend, I understand, is to see if an accommodation cannot be arrived at, and in that event further time would not be required for debate when the matter comes before the House again.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I had very much hoped, after the way in which the case had been presented from these benches,

  327
  that the hon. Baronet speaking for the Great Northern Railway Company, would have been able to agree to the suggestions which have been made. I cannot help feeling that the House in this matter is against the railway company, but—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is speaking on the Motion for Adjournment, and cannot now discuss the merits.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: But if that is impossible, I do hope, as one who desires to see the Bill passed, that the Debate will be adjourned as suggested by my right hon. Friend. I think that it would be a grievous thing to have this Bill thrown out at the present time, and I cannot help feeling, after this Debate, and after the expressions of opinion on both sides of the House in favour of a far larger representation on the fund, that if a day or two for further negotiation is permitted,
  we shall be able to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. Therefore I cordially support the Motion for Adjournment, and I trust that it will be accepted by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. DENMAN: The hon. Baronet, I hope, will see that it is advisable to meet this House on this point. Of course, if he desires to compel us to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, he is taking an excellent course to secure that end. He says that we are now almost in July, and that the adoption of this Motion means a few days delay. Let him remember that the men have waited for two years, and that the company may reasonably be asked to wait a few days longer.
  Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 110.

  Division No.142.]

  AYES.

  [10.20 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Field, William

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

  Alden, Percy

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Armitage, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Manfield, Harry

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Gill, A. H.

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Glanville, Harold James

  Middlebrook, William

  Black, Arthur W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Millar, James Duncan

  Boland, John Pius

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molloy, Michael

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Gulland, John William

  Muldoon, John

  Brace, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hackett, John

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clynes, John R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hewart, Gordon

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hodge, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Malley, William

  Crean, Eugene

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Crooks, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  O'Shee, James John

  Cullinan, John

  John, Edward Thomas

  O' Sullivan, Timothy

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Pratt, J. W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Doris, William

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Duffy. William J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, George Heynes

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  King, Joseph

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

  Reddy, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sheehy, David

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Shortt, Edward

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Sutton, John E.

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Rowlands, James

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Mr. Lough and Mr. J. H. Thomas.

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

  Wardle, George J.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Royds, Edmund

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Baird, John Lawrence

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

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Sandys, G. J.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Starkey, John R.

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Boscawen. Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hills, John Waller

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyton, James

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Swift, Rigby

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Horne, E.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Butcher, John George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Webb, H.

  Clough, William

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Currie, George W.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Du Pre, W. Baring

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Fell, Arthur

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Younger, Sir George

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Sir. F. Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson.

  Gretton, John

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Debate to be resumed upon Friday next (3rd July).

SUPPLY.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES.
  Postponed Proceeding on Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,287,320, 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 Inland Revenue Department," resumed.
  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday).
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes after Ten o'clock.

  United Friendly Insurance Company, Limited.
  United Friendly Insurance Company, Limited.
  Lizard Fog-horn.
  Lizard Fog-horn.
  Miers Estate, Swansea.
  Miers Estate, Swansea.
  Poor Law Reform.
  Poor Law Reform.
  Army Southern Command (Plain Clothes).
  Army Southern Command (Plain Clothes).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  British Service Officers (India).
  British Service Officers (India).
  Food Taxes.
  Food Taxes.
  Income Tax (Finance Bill).
  Income Tax (Finance Bill).