Sitting of 23 March 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 Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable, have been complied with, namely:—
South Metropolitan Cemetery Company Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the
2
Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Birkenhead Corporation Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Commons Regulation (Gosford Green) Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Cardiff Railway Bill,
Cardiff Railway (Compounding of Tonnage Rates) Bill,
Kidsgrove Gas Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time.
London Electric Railway Bill,
As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
South Suburban Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Northern Junction Railway Bill (by Order), Lurgan Gas and Electricity Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Norwich Electric Tramways Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Middlesex County Council (Western Road and Improvements and Finance) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Metropolitan and Great Northern Railway Companies Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Metropolitan and Great Northern Railway Companies Bill may be committed that the Council of the Metropolitan borough of St. Marylebone be allowed to appear by counsel, agents, and witnesses upon the allegations contained in their petition against the Bill, and that the Committee may determine the question whether, and to what extent, if at all, the powers of the Metropolitan Railway Company in regard to the supply of electricity should be limited.—[Mr. Boyton.]

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5264 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
Account presented of all Moneys received and of the disposal thereof, and of all Contracts for the grant of Deferred Life Annuities and for Payments on Death made during the year 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish In-
4
surance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Out-workers' Exclusion) (Ireland) Provisional Order, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the, Table, and to be printed. [No. 160.]

TRADE BOARDS ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 19th March, 1914, made by the Board of Trade under Section 11 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, with respect to the Constitution and Proceedings of the Trade Board for the Shirt-making Trade (Ireland) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 21st March, 1914, made by the Board of Trade under Section 11 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, with respect to the Constitution and Proceedings of the Trade Board for the Sugar, Confectionery, and Food-preserving Trade (Ireland) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS, IRELAND).
Copy presented of Returns of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy Lieutenants lodged during 1913 as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FABRICS (MISDESCRIPTION) ACT, 1913.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Order in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, dated 9th March, 1914, entitled the East Africa Order in Council, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of two Orders in Council, dated 9th March, 1914, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SPRING ASSIZES ACT, 1879.
Copies presented of two Orders in Council, dated 7th March, 1913, constituting Spring Assize Counties Nos. 2 and 3, for the purpose of the ensuing Spring Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated the 9th March, 1914, assenting to a Reserved Bill of the Legislature of New Zealand, entitled "An Act to amend the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Albania and Northern Epirus.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any recent information as to the position of affairs in Albania and Northern Epirus.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): As I stated on the 9th instant a President of the Provisional Government of Epirus was appointed at a public meeting at Argyrocastro on the 28th February. Since then autonomy has been proclaimed at Santi Quaranta, Delvino, and Khimarra. The Greek Government are doing what is in their power to check the spread of disorder. They have blockaded Santi Quaranta, and prohibited ex-officers of the Greek army from proceeding to Epirus to organise resistance. The Prince of Albania has appointed a Dutch officer of the gendarmerie to superintend the occupation of Northern Epirus.
  Mr. NEWMAN: What has happened to this Dutch officer? Has he been expelled from Epirus?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not think we have any information, but perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information from the Greek Legation that, since the evacuation of the Caza of Corytz by the Hellenic troops, several of the towns and villages have been pillaged by bands of Albanians and
  6
  the Epirote population severely handled; whether the village of Soriani has been pillaged and the women and girl inhabitants outraged, and the town of Sinitzi attacked and only saved by the resistance offered by its inhabitants to a force of 500 Albanians; and whether the above information was communicated to the Foreign Office in reply to a request for information or spontaneously by the Government at Athens?
  Mr. ACLAND: Information to that effect has been communicated to me spontaneously by the Greek Legation. I should add that somewhat similar accounts of robbery and outrage on the part of Greeks have been received from official Albanian sources. His Majesty's Government are not in a position to verify the accuracy of these various charges and counter-charges.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Will the Foreign Office communicate with the Greek Government on the subject, in order to find out the accuracy or otherwise?
  Mr. ACLAND: As the boundaries of Albania were settled by the six Great Powers together, I do not think that His Majesty's Government have any responsibility for making special representations while Southern Albania is being pacified, and a stable Government is being set up there.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Hellenic Government was compelled, under the pressure exercised by two Powers of the Triple Alliance, to abandon the territory it had won in Northern Epirus and to consent to its forcible incorporation in the newly formed principality of Albania, and in view of the outrages that are being daily committed on its inhabitants by bands of Albanians, the Foreign Office of this country intends to bring, or has any means of bringing, pressure on the Powers of the Triple Alliance to allow the Epirotes the autonomous government they have asked for?
  Mr. ACLAND: As the boundaries of Albania were determined with the consent of all the six Great Powers, the answer is in the negative.

  Mexico.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs Whether he has any information relative to a success of the

  7
  Federal troops of the Mexican Republic over the rebel forces in the neighbourhood of Torreon?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no official information on the subject.

  Persia.
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give any information as to the state of affairs at Kazerun?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Minister at Teheran reported on 5th March that the gendarmes had occupied Kazerun, and that Nasri Divan, the ringleader, and all his riflemen had fled. On the side of the gendarmes the total loss was fifty killed and missing and twenty-five severely wounded; on that of the rebels 118 killed. I regret to confirm the previous report of Major Ohlson's death. Colonel Merrill, the Commanding Officer of the Governor-General's force at Shiraz, assumed command as senior officer on arrival at Kazerun and by his energetic action did admirable work to restore and maintain order. The situation, however, is not yet satisfactory and cannot be considered so until the gendarmes are able to take punitive measures against the rebels who are at large in the neighbouring hills.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is it a fact the Swedish Gendarmerie has also been defeated by Baluchi raiders in Kerman, and is retreating on Bam?
  Mr. ACLAND: Not that I know of. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

  Portuguese West Africa (Rev. J. S. Bowskill's Arrest).
  Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has yet received official notification from the Portuguese Government of the charges upon which Mr. Bowskill has been arrested in West Africa?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have received no notification of the actual charges on which Mr. Bowskill was arrested.
  Mr. HOARE: Does the hon. Member know whether they are making any inquiry?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes; we shall hear as soon as the charges have been formulated
  8
  and are known to the Portuguese Government.
  Mr. HOARE: Does the hon. Member know when that is likely to happen?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir, I could not say precisely.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any form of forced or indentured labour is in operation on any of the plantations in Portuguese West Africa where cocoa is grown which is exported to this country?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am not aware that there is any forced labour, but indentured labour is in operation in the plantations in question; indeed, I have no special knowledge as to which plantations cocoa exported to this country comes from.

  Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that the new board of governors of the Agricultural Organisation Society about to be constituted twelve members have, under its constitution, to be nominated by the board and two each by the County Councils Association and the Co-operative Union, respectively, and the remaining eighteen to be elected by the affiliated societies, and that the latter are not proceeding with such election, although due to take place, pending the board's announcement of the names of its nominees, in order to avoid overlapping and duplication of appointment, he will now state the names of the board's nominees and so accelerate the reconstitution of the board?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): As soon as the estimates of the Agricultural Organisation Society for the new financial year are received, it is proposed that an informal conference should take place between representatives of the Board, the Society, and the Development Commission, with a view to defining rather more precisely the relation between the Society and the Board and the purposes to which the Grants from the Development Fund and the Small Holdings Account should be applied. I think it is desirable that the Board should defer nominating representatives on the governing body of the Society until these preliminary points are

  9
  settled. But there appears to me to be no reason why the affiliated societies should not proceed at once to elect members of the governing body in accordance with the rules.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. LARDNERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the fact that there is not nor has there been for a considerable time any foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland north of a line from Dublin to Galway, he can see his way to allow cattle into Great Britain from one or two of the northern ports forthwith; and whether he is aware that several cattle dealers in Ulster have had large numbers of cattle bought for immediate shipment several weeks ago detained in Ireland owing to the closing of ports, entailing serious financial loss to these men?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I informed the House on Monday last, the Board were then advised by the Irish Department that in view of the uncertainty as to the extent to which infection might have been spread from the centres of disease in county Cork and county Tipperary, it was inexpedient that animals should for the present be moved to the Irish ports for shipment. As soon as a more reassuring report is received from the Irish Department, I shall be prepared to consider the possibility of modifying the restrictions on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. I greatly regret the loss which has resulted from the long-continued suspension of the trade.
  Mr. FIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects to give us the details of the arrangements, or what time will elapse before the House is informed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am unable to say at present, but as soon as the information from Ireland for which we are waiting has been received, I shall proceed to make an early arrangement.

  Forest of Dean (Cottage Sites).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the recent reduction of 200 per cent. in the price charged by the Government for cottage sites in the Forest of Dean is limited to local authorities and public utility societies, and is not available to colliers and other would-be private purchasers; and, if so, at what price, if at
  10
  all, can land in the forest be purchased by individuals for such purpose?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means by a reduction of 200 per cent, in the price charged by the Crown for cottage sites in the Forest of Dean, but I have in certain cases offered large sites at a low price to local authorities, and am willing to make similar offers in suitable cases to public utility societies, provided the Crown retains the right to approve of the manner in which the land is to be laid out, including the number of cottages to the acre and the plans and specifications of the buildings. I am not prepared to offer land at the same low price to private individuals generally, and to leave them to build as they like. I may add that the price of £47 to £60 an acre at which I have offered this land to local authorities is for land in the same districts as that for which private land-owners have asked and obtained three or four times that price.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: If the Board approve of plans of cottages proposed to be erected by colliers, why will he not allow the colliers to obtain the land on as favourable terms as the district councils?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is very much better that any planning under the Town Planning Act or any new distribution of cottages in the Forest of Dean should be conducted either by local authorities or by public utility societies, and it was for them I obtained the consent of the Treasury to sell this land at this low price.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Vote for the Office of Woods and Forests.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked who has been appointed to succeed Mr. V. F. Leese as deputy-surveyor of the Forest of Dean?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not prepared at present to make any announcement on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's question.

  Carlton Club Lease.
  Major MORRISON-BELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, on a recent renewal of the lease of the Carlton Club, in Pall Mall, the Government raised the rent from £677 to the sum of £2,400 per annum; and if he will state the amount of the fine exacted in addition?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A ground lease granted in 1845 for a term of 87 years expiring 5th July, 1932, at a rent of £677 14s. 2d. was agreed to be surrendered as from 5th April, 1913, and a new lease of the club house was agreed to be granted for a term of eighty years from that date at a rent from 10th October, 1913, of £2,400 per annum. No fine is payable on the grant of the new lease.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Duke of Westminster?
  Mr. E. WASON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a communication from the Reform Club as to the renewal of their lease?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say off-hand whether there has been any formal communication, but the Reform Club will be treated in exactly the same way.

  Abingdon Street Pavement.
  Mr. COWANasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, who is responsible for the condition of the pavement in Abingdon Street; and whether there is any immediate prospect of its being improved?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Under the London County Council Improvements Act, 1900, it is the duty of that council to repave the road. I understand that it is their intention to put this in hand shortly.

  Ancient Monuments Acts (Advisory Board).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether, in view of the fact that so large a number of the members of the advisory hoard of the Ancient Monuments Acts represent societies with specific interests, he will consider the advisability of adding a Scottish Member of Parliament to those already selected?
  Mr. BENN: The First Commissioner is of opinion that the board is sufficiently large, but he will, of course, be prepared to consider the addition of any Member of Parliament who has the qualifications likely to strengthen the present panel.
  Mr. HOGGE: What suitable qualifications has the hon. Member representing
  12
  the Board of Education, England, for this special duty?
  Mr. BENN: He represents the Board of Education.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what qualifications are necessary?
  Mr. BENN: To be the, representative of the bodies named in the schedule, or else to have an interest in or knowledge of archæology.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the period of time for which the members of the advisory board of the Ancient Monuments Acts are appointed; and how much money annually will be at the disposal of the Scottish Board?
  Mr. BENN: The duration of the appointments has been limited to five years, but members will be eligible for reappointment. The money voted by Parliament for the preservation of ancient monuments will be administered by the Commissioners of Works, and not by the Ancient Monuments Boards. It is not proposed to allocate definite sums to the three countries, but the First Commissioner will undertake that Scotland is not treated unfairly.
  Mr. HOGGE: How much is allocated to the three countries?
  Mr. BENN: It is named in the Estimates, and I think it is £19,000.

  Tuberculous Children.
  Mr. ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board whether any of the capital sum made available by the Finance Act, 1911, has been provisionally allocated for the erection of institutions for tuberculous children; and, if so, what amount has been set aside for this purpose?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Yes, Sir. £100,000 has been so allocated out of the share of England in the capital sum available.
  Mr. ASTOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much has been spent on the erection of institutions for children?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot say.

  Inspector of Nuisances (Torrington).
  Mr. JAMES PARKERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Rural District Council of Torrington were required by the Board to appoint a whole-time inspector of nuisances; if so, will he state the increase of salary given to the officer so appointed on the salary paid to the officer employed part-time, also the total amount of the salary now paid; whether the officer has to pay his own travelling expenses out of his salary; and whether, where a local sanitary authority, in complying with the request of the Board to appoint a whole-time inspector of nuisances, refuses to pay at least £100 per annum, clear of travelling expenses, he will consider the advisability of preventing a moiety of the salary being refunded to such authority by withholding the Board's consent to the appointment?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Local Government Board in August last requested the Torrington Rural District Council to consider the question of arranging for their inspector of nuisances to give his whole time to their service at an adequate salary. The council appointed the inspector as a whole-time officer in November, at a total salary of £80, which was £8 in advance of his previous salary, and he has to pay his travelling expenses out of his salary. The Board, in giving their assent to the appointment, informed the council that they considered the salary a low one, especially as no allowance was made for travelling expenses, and they trusted that the council would take an early opportunity of reconsidering it. I am again drawing the council's attention to the matter.

  Emigration (Agricultural Training).
  Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he would now support co-operation between the Government of Great Britain and the Governments of the Dominions Overseas in establishing a uniform and general system of emigration and the training in agricultural pursuits of young men from the towns, with the object of their being fitted to emigrate and acceptable to the Dominions as agricultural labourers, such training to be carried on under the supervision and co-operation of the Governments of the Dominions, in pursuance of the suggestions made in the Reports of the Dominions Royal Commission?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question of the training of possible emigrants will be considered with other matters arising out of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

  Education of the Blind.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding the cost of education of blind children and the possibility of more adequate financial assistance, as arising out of the recent Debate on the condition of the blind?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): I am afraid I cannot, in reply to a question, make a statement regarding the cost of education of blind children, but I shall hope later on, when my Estimates are considered, to make some reference to this subject. The revised Grant which I propose to pay will be: in respect of residential institutions £13, and in respect of day schools £7 per annum per unit of average attendance.

  Manual Training Classes (Foreign Goods).
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether it has been brought to his notice that certain local education authorities, in inviting tenders for tools for manual training classes, have specified foreign-made saws to be supplied, to the exclusion of British-made; and whether he can use any influence with local education authorities to prevent the sale of foreign-made goods being pushed by British public servants and to suggest the undesirability of the youth of the country being brought up with the idea that British-made tools are not good enough for them?
  Mr. PEASE: A case has been brought to my notice in which certain tools of foreign manufacture were specified in a list of tools required for manual training classes. In approving equipment for these classes the function of the Board of Education is confined to consideration of the suitability and adequacy of the equipment and of the reasonableness of the cost, and they have no power to interfere as to their source of origin with the discretion of the local education authorities concerned, who are responsible for the provision of the equipment of classes provided by them.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: In spite of the technical point, may I ask whether the

  15
  right hon. Gentleman would do what Departments have often done, and send a circular to those local authorities, pointing out the extreme undesirability of these gratuitous disparagements of the credit of British craftmanship?
  Mr. PEASE: I think it is a matter which may really be left to the discretion of the local authorities.

  Julia Decies (Conviction).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the appeal of Julia Decies, who was fried at the Central Criminal Court on 4th March, will be heard; if he is aware that the jury, in finding the prisoner guilty, strongly recommended her to mercy and that Mr. Justice Darling awarded seven years' penal servitude; and whether, in view of the health of the prisoner and the whole of the circumstances of the offence, he can see his way to recommend a remission of the sentence?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am informed that the application will probably come before the Court of Criminal Appeal on Monday next. While the matter is sub judice I cannot answer any question.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to give notice that I shall repeat the question to-morrow week.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask whether Mr. Gladstone, when Home Secretary, when this Court of Appeal was being established, again and again said that its provisions should not interfere with the exercise of the Prerogative?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but that does not arise on this particular question.

  Mrs. Annie Williams (Conviction).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Annie Williams, of London, now lying under sentence of death for the murder of her illegitimate son; if he is aware of the circumstances under which the murder was committed, and that the jury strongly recommended her to mercy; and whether, in view of the health of the prisoner, he is prepared to announce a reprieve in this case?
  Mr. McKENNA: This prisoner was convicted on the 11th December last. The sentence of death was respited by the Court, and on the 16th December it was commuted by conditional pardon.

  Suffragist Outrages.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Home Secretary whether, with a view to preventing destruction of national art treasures and damage to public buildings, he will direct that persons who have been temporarily discharged from prison under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act, 1913, and who are known to have been guilty of committing wilful damage to property and to have expressed their intention of doing such damage again, should, from the moment of their temporary release, be kept under constant observation by the police?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are almost insuperable difficulties in keeping persons of this class under constant observation, but the object the right hon. Gentleman has in view is borne well in mind.

  Metropolitan Police (Day of Rest).
  Colonel BURNasked if it has been arranged that the police in the Metropolis, the boroughs, and the counties are to be given one day's rest in seven?
  Mr. McKENNA: In the Metropolitan Police District the Act has been in full operation for nearly a year. As regards other forces, it has not been found possible to give full effect to the provisions of the Act in all cases, but I am informed that satisfactory progress has been made in this direction throughout the country. The hon. and gallant Member will bear in mind that to give full effect to the Act requires a very considerable increase in the strength of the different forces.
  Colonel BURN: May I ask if, in the case of those constables who have been on duty out of their turn on Sundays and other days in the event of disturbances, that time is made up to them?
  Mr. McKENNA: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to the Metropolitan Police Force or the boroughs?
  Colonel BURN: Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. McKENNA: That does not arise out of the question, because it has been in full operation in the Metropolitan Police district for nearly a year, and, as I have frequently explained in the House, when-

  17
  ever constables are called upon to do special duty, so far as possible arrangements are made to make up the time for them on other occasions.
  Colonel BURN: Do they get it made up?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, so far as possible arrangements are made that they shall get it.
  Mr. F. HALL: If the police are entitled to one day's rest in seven, is it not the fact that, if they are called upon to perform special duty on that day, the day really belongs to them and should be given to them without question?
  Mr.McKENNA: It is given to them. I cannot say that it is given absolutely immediately on every occasion, but every opportunity is taken in order to make good any time that is taken.

  House Boys Brigade Home.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the treatment of boys in the House Boys Brigade Home in Westminster; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: The matter has been brought to my notice only by the Noble Lord's question and by a newspaper article, The institution in question is inspected by the Inspection of Homes Association. I will make inquiries.

  Truck Acts.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the date on which he will introduce the promised Government measure on truck?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot yet fix a date when I shall be able to introduce this Bill, but I hope to do so shortly after Easter.

  Customs and Excise Service.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he promised to receive a second deputation on the subject of grievances in the Excise Service which have arisen since the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Services; whether the date of the deputation has been postponed several times; and whether he will consent to meet the officers in the Excise Service at the earliest possible moment?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I regret very much the delays which have occurred in, this matter, and I am prepared to receive a deputation if the officers concerned desire one. But, in order that such a deputation may be useful, I am addressing, and I hope to despatch in the course of a few days, a full reply to the representations already made.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked on what ground a distinction is drawn, since the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Services, between the late second-class; principal clerks and the late Excise clerks, both as regards rises of salary in the seventeenth year and as regards opportunity to compete for higher posts without danger to their existing prospects in case of failure?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The case of each class, was considered on its merits by the Amalgamation Committee, and I would refer the hon. Member to their Report.

  Secondary Education.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what are the sums voted for secondary education in England, Scotland, and Ireland for the year 1914–15?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for East Northants on the 20th instant.

  Antarctic Expedition (Grant).
  Mr. FELLasked what Vote the proposed gift of £10,000 to the Antarctic expedition will appear?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Five thousand pounds has been placed on the Estimate for Scientific Investigation, etc., 1914–15. (Class IV., 7), and Parliament will be asked to vote the balance in 1915–16 on the same Vote.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    TUBERCULOSIS (TREATMENT IN WORKHOUSES).
    Mr. CASSELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any information as to the number of insured persons suffering from consumption who are now in workhouse infirmaries; and, if not, whether he will take steps to obtain such, information?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend is not in possession of the information in question.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the hon. Gentleman grant the Return which stands in my name in reference to this matter?
    Mr. BENN: I do not think the Return should be asked for by the Insurance Commission.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it a matter of importance that a number of insured persons suffering from consumption are at present under treatment in workhouses?
    Mr. BENN: I did not mean that. I do not think the information could properly be asked for by this Department.
    Mr. CASSEL: To what Department should I apply?
    Mr. BENN: The Local Government Board, I think.

    INSURED PERSONS.
    Mr.WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester. [National Insurance Acts Medical Attendance (England, Scotland, and Wales),—Return showing the number of insured persons who, at the end of the first year after the National Insurance Act came into operation, had chosen panel doctors; the number who had chosen an approved institution; the number who had been assigned by the several insurance committees to panel doctors or to institutions; the number who had been allowed to make their own arrangements for medical treatment with doctors not on the panel; and the number who had neither chosen doctors nor institutions, nor had been assigned to doctors, nor had made their own arrangements.]
    Mr. BENN: For the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member of the 2nd instant, which were fully discussed in Debate on the 5th instant, my right hon. Friend cannot alter his decision.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other Members of the House, including the chairman of the London Insurance Committee, desire this Return? Will he not take notice of hon. Members on his own side if he will not of Members on this?
    Mr. BENN: It is not a question of taking notice of Members. The information is difficult to obtain.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London Insurance Committee has the information, and can give it as regards London in two minutes, and that other insurance committees are in the same position?
    Mr. BENN'Sreply was inaudible in the Gallery.

    DRUG FUND DEFICIENCY.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Government propose to make a Grant to those chemists whose bills for 1913 have not been paid owing to a deficiency in the drug fund, if it is shown that the prescriptions ordered by the doctors were not unreasonble?
    Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a similar question by him on the 26th February last.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's replies, I shall raise the question at the earliest opportunity.

    PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked why Provisional Orders and Provisional Special Orders under the National Insurance Acts dated in October last, and presented to this House in the early part of February and then ordered to be printed, have not yet been printed?
    Mr. BENN: No Provisional Orders are made by the Insurance Commissioners. Five Provisional Special Orders made and laid before the House in the periods referred to have not yet been printed, as the type which has already been set up for the Statutory Rule Volume cannot yet be released, and it is the practice of the Stationery Office to avoid double composition by using the same type for both Provisional Orders and Statutory Rules. The issue is expected to be made shortly, and in each case a copy has been available in the Library since the date of laying.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman say why Orders which were made as long ago as October are not available to Members of the House except by searching in the Library?
    Mr. BENN: All Orders have been made available to the persons to whom they apply, and also to Members of this House through the Library.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that an undertaking has been given that these Orders should be circulated amongst Members, but that they are not circulated until the time for taking objection to them has expired?
    Mr. BENN: I was not aware of that undertaking.

    HEALTH COMMITTEES (DELEGATE'S EXPENSES).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that many delegates attending the district insurance health committees have to pay their own expenses in attending the health committees; and if he can state whether delegates' out-of-pocket expenses can be paid to them for attending health committees?
    Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for West Hampshire On the 6th instant.

    EXCESSIVE SICKNESS (INQUIRY).
    Mr.GODFREYLOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the inquiry of the Departmental Committee into excessive sickness and deficiencies under the National Insurance Act is a secret inquiry, or whether the evidence will be published when complete?
    Mr. BENN: I do not know what the hon. Member means by a secret inquiry. In accordance with the usual practice, the proceedings of the Committee are confidential, but, as I have already stated, evidence will be published. To remove any misapprehension, I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the terms of reference.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he does not understand what a secret inquiry is?
    Mr. BENN: I mean that the term is totally inapplicable to this inquiry.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Government intend to appoint a Committee to inquire into excessive sickness and deficiencies in Wales under the National Insurance Act, Wales not being included in the scope of the inquiry of the Departmental Committee now sitting?
    Mr. BENN: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 2nd instant.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: how does the hon. Gentleman propose to find out whether deficiencies really exist without making inquiry?
    Mr. BENN: I have already informed the hon. Member that the Welsh Commissioners are making inquiry to see whether any such deficiencies exist.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that the Insurance Commissioners have required in Memorandum 187 I.C. that no insured person will on and from 12th January last be able, without a medical card, to exercise a choice of, or to claim treatment from, a doctor selected by him; that in spite of such regulations the medical cards have not reached insured persons in several hundred thousands of cases, with the result that they are wholly unable to obtain medical benefit when sick except at their own expense; and whether, as in such cases insured persons are being deprived of the benefit promised to them as the result of their own and their employers' contributions, the Government propose to take any and, if any, what action in the matter?
    Mr. BENN: Under the arrangements indicated in the Memorandum in question, doctors are not permitted to require the persons on their lists to produce medical cards as a condition of their receiving treatment until notified by the Insurance Committee that medical cards have been issued to all such persons. Those arrangements, moreover, provide a special procedure whereby persons who desire to choose a doctor may obtain a medical card for the purpose upon application, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that there is any ground for the apprehension of the hon. Member.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, in fact, a large number of insured persons are not receiving medical benefit since this Order was issued?
    Mr. BENN: I am not aware that anything has been done which has prevented from obtaining medical benefit anyone who had a right to it.

    WORKHOUSE INFIRMARIES (TUBERCULOSIS).
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister Whether the Government will introduce legislation to enable the expenditure incurred in treating insured persons suffering from tuberculosis in workhouse infirmaries to be recouped to the ratepayers?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The question of the treatment of tuberculosis in insured persons is receiving consideration, but the Government have no intention of amending Section 12 of their National Insurance Act, 1911, in the direction suggested.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, with regard to deposit contributors expire at the end of this year, it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation at an early date to deal with the position of deposit contributors; whether the Bill for this purpose will be introduced before Easter; and whether ample time will be allowed for the consideration of the Government's proposals on this complicated problem?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I recently stated, special investigations in regard to this class of insured persons are in progress, and, until they are completed, it would be premature to make any statement.

    UNEMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTIONS (SCOTTISH RAILWAYS).
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Perth General Station Joint Committee of the Caledonian, Highland, and North British Railways has recently posted a notice to workmen (painters, plumbers, and slaters), in connection with Part II. of the National Insurance Act, to the effect that they must now begin payment of unemployment contributions, including all arrears of contributions since 15th July, 1912; and whether he can do anything to abate this demand?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): My attention had not previously been called to this notice, but the circumstances appear to be the same as those dealt with in the answer given by me to the hon. Member for West Houghton on 24th February, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

    Dover Harbour Works.
    Mr. FELLasked how much has been expended upon the harbour works at Dover during the past ten years; and when the same are likely to be completed?
    Mr. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): The total expenditure to end of current financial year is £1,937,100. The work in hand is expected to be completed by September, 1915.

    South Africa (Deportation of Labour Leaders).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister the number of resolutions that he has received in connection with the Hyde Park and other public meetings protesting against the deportation of Mr. Hessel Jakob Poutsma, Mr. James Thompson Bain, Mr. Archibald Crawford, Mr. Robert Burns Waterson, Mr. George William Mason, Mr. David M'Kerrell, Mr. William Livingstone, Mr. Andrew Watson, and Mr. William H. Morgan, from South Africa by the South African. Union Government; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The number of resolutions received is about 330. As regards the attitude of the Government in this matter, I would refer the hon. Member to the speech made on the 12th February by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to which I have nothing at present to add.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Are we to be given to understand that the Government have taken the advice of their Law Officers as to the constitutional and legal right of the Government to intervene in any case?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise on the question. Perhaps the hon. Member would give notice.

    Government of Ireland Bill.
    Mr. ASTORasked the Prime Minister how many days he proposes to allot for the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot yet say.
    Mr. F. HALLhad the following Question on the Order Paper: To ask the Prime Minister if he will state the number of troops which it is estimated would be required to subdue Ulster in the event of revolt; what is the number of troops now

    25
    stationed in Ireland; and if any arrangement has been made for naval co-operation should the necessity arise for armed intervention?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The first and third parts of the question are of an extremely hypothetical character and out of order; the hon. Member can only ask the central part.
    Mr. F. HALL: Under those circumstances I shall only ask the central part.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is the only part I was prepared to answer. The strength of the troops in Ireland on 1st February was 23,755, and there has been no material change since.
    Mr. CROFT: May I ask whether the Territorial Force is liable to be used in Ulster with the Regular troops
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not propose to answer that, Sir.
    Mr. HUNT: In view of the injury now being caused by the present uncertainty to the Army, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.
    Mr. F. HALL: As the right hon. Gentleman stated he would not answer the last part, may I ask him if he will actually say that as regards naval co-operation—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the part of the question which I ruled should not be put.

    Parliamentary Elections (Mariners and Franchise).
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Committee to investigate and deal with the claims of mariners and others who, owing to the avocations which they follow, are almost wholly disenfranchised, and at present are given no facilities whatever for the purpose of enabling them to record their votes at Parliamentary elections?
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that a number of persons employed in our mercantile marine are, although they are on the register of voters, unable to record their votes on the actual day of a Parliamentary election by reason of their absence at sea in the course of their employment, he will give facilities for the passing of the Bill now before the House for enabling such persons to exercise the franchise?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt whether a Committee would be able to deal satisfactorily with the claims referred to. The difficult case of absent voters involves some obvious hardships for which it is not easy to devise appropriate remedies, and I cannot say more than that the question shall be carefully considered.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the consideration of the Bill now before the House to enable absent persons to exercise the franchise?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Is that a private Member's Bill?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Yes.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will look at it.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has already informed the House that he would give this matter immediate attention?
    The PRIME MINISTER (was understood to say): That is being done.

    Secretary for Scotland (Salary).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the salary attached to the Secretaryship for Scotland is only £2,000; that the Minister concerned is responsible for local government, education, fisheries, the Boards of Agriculture, Lunacy and Prisons, the national galleries and museums, the Register House, the internal administration of specific branches of the Home Office, the Board of Trade, etc., for all of which there are separate Ministers for England; whether the Master of the Horse has £2,500; and whether he is prepared to increase the salary of the Secretary for Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The salary of the Secretary for Scotland was fixed at £2000 by the Secretary for Scotland Act, 1885, and I am not prepared to introduce legislation to alter it. The salary of the Master of the Horse is £2,000—not £2,500.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) also the hon. Member who brought forward a Motion not long ago for the reduction of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland?
    Mr. HOGGE: Are we to take it that it costs as much to look after the King's Horse as it costs to look after the business of Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Apparently, at the present moment, it does.

    Picture Galleries and Museums (Re-opening).
    Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the damage that will be inflicted on the Metropolis, and the disappointment that will be felt by Colonial and other visitors to London at this season if the picture galleries and museums are closed for any long period; and if he will consider the possibility of opening them with safety if numbers of attendants are engaged and an entrance fee is charged to cover the expenses which may be incurred in guarding the treasures exhibited?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that an early date for re-opening the National Gallery will be fixed at a meeting of the trustees to be held to-morrow. The supervision of the rooms is being re-organised, and other precautions are being taken.
    Mr. FELL: With regard to the other galleries may I ask the Prime Minister to make a recommendation such as that suggested?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

    Admiralty Policy (Mr. Churchill's Speech).
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the curtailment of private Members' opportunities to discuss the policy of the Admiralty owing to the long speech delivered by the First Lord last Tuesday on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, and of the fact that this practice has been growing into a habit during recent years, he will consider the advisability of either increasing the number of days during which this Motion is to be debated or of affording Ministers other opportunities of explaining the policy of their Departments before the House goes into Committee of Supply?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion. The matter is one which might be well brought before the Committee on Procedure.

    War Time (Storage of Food and Raw Material).
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the advisability of appointing another Royal Commission to deal with the question of the storage of food and raw material in time of war in view of the altered circumstances since the Report of the Royal Commission of 1905?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Various aspects of the question of the supply of food and raw material in time of war are being carefully examined by Sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I see no reason to appoint a Royal Commission on the subject.

    Naval Defence (Statement of Australian Minister).
    Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Minister of Defence in Australia on the policy of naval defence as regards the Overseas Dominions; and if he will advise another Colonial defence meeting?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are in communication with the Commonwealth on the subject, and the holding of a conference with Australia and New Zealand is now under consideration.
    Captain FABER: Will the Colonies receive more consideration than Ulster at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that the Prime Minister has himself sent a dispatch to the Commonwealth Government of Australia saying that he cannot hold this conference till 1916?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have sent no dispatch at all.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are you not responsible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

    Scottish National Antarctic Expedition.
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the total cost to date of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition has been £40,000, of which sum the Government have only contributed £3,000; that £3,800 is required to complete its work; whether he is aware that the "Discovery" Expedition was given a Grant of £45,000, followed by a further Grant of £50,873; whether he is

    29
    aware that the Shackleton Expedition was given a Grant of £20,000; whether it is now proposed to give a Grant of £10,000 to another Shackleton Expedition for work similar to which the Government refuse a Grant to Dr. Bruce; and whether, in view of the fact that Scotland contributes a surplus revenue to the United Kingdom of approximately three millions a year, he can see his way to make this Grant of £3,800 to complete the work of an expedition which has enriched the Admiralty, the Meteorological Office, and the museums of the United Kingdom?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the facts referred to by my hon. Friend. I cannot hold out any hope of a further Grant from public funds towards the cost of publishing the records of the Scottish Antarctic Expedition. When the Grant of £3,000 for this purpose was agreed upon in 1910, it was made clear to the parties concerned that no further Treasury contribution would be forthcoming.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to-day the Secretary to the Treasury stated that £5,000 was to be put down for the purposes of scientific research, and would it not be very much better if the Government would complete the scientific research which has been accomplished by this expedition before they spend more money in encouraging other scientific expeditions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The competition of these various scientific bodies is very keen.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the Prime Minister aware that the money for the Scottish expedition was subscribed publicly, while the money for all these other expeditions has been found either by the Government or by one individual, and why cannot Scotland have something?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Scotland has always had a large share of the money granted for those purposes.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is not fair!

    St. George's Day.
    Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister whether he will take into consideration the advisability of introducing legislation for the purpose of declaring St. George's Day a public holiday?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I do not see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Colonel BURN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a very good thing to encourage patriotism, especially at a time like the present?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter has been considered by successive Governments, and they have all decided in the same sense.

    Leipsic Exhibition.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Leipsic Exposition; whether it is proposed to spend any money in this direction; and, if so, how much?
    Mr. BURNS: His Majesty's Government have decided, on the invitation of the German Government and in compliance with representations made by the principal, associations connected with the printing and publishing industries in this country, to participate in the Leipsic Exhibition, which is to be devoted to the printing, publishing, and allied trades. The Governments of France, Russia, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, and Sweden will also be officially represented. The total cost to public funds of the participation of this country is estimated at £13,000.

    Railway Carriage Doors (Automatic Locking).
    Mr. HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many fatal accidents occurred, during the last five years for which particulars are available, owing to passengers falling out of trains; how ninny minor accidents were due to the same cause; and how many of these accidents would have been avoided if all the doors had been locked by some automatic device?
    Mr. BURNS: The number of passengers killed and injured through falling from trains in the United Kingdom in the years 1909 to 1913 was 126 and 237 respectively, an average of 25 and 47 respectively per annum. I cannot say how many of these accidents would have been avoided if an automatic device for locking the doors had been in use, or, on the other hand, how many additional deaths or injuries might have been caused by the adoption of such a device.
    Mr. HAMILTONasked whether the inventions and plans submitted by Mr. John Wilson, of Bakewell, Derby, have been fully considered by the Board of Trade; and whether the question of the

    31
    automatic locking of railway carriage doors to which his inventions refer is being still considered by the Board?
    Mr. BURNS: This gentleman's invention has been examined by the inspecting officers of railways. On the general question I can add nothing to the reply I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division on the 10th March.

    Steamship "Kinneil" (Deck Cargo).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the circumstances of the sinking on 30th October last, in the North Sea, after collision of the steamship "Kinneil," of Bo'ness, have been brought to his notice; whether, at the time, she was carrying a deck cargo of 18 feet in height; whether, owing to the imminent dangers of this deck cargo after the collision, the crew were put in a position of peril and could do nothing in attempting to save their vessel from sinking; and whether the Board have held a formal investigation into this casualty or intend to hold one?
    Mr. BURNS: The collision case to which the hon. Member refers was dealt with by the Admiralty Court, and it is not proposed to order a formal investigation. My information is that the deck-load did not exceed 15 ft. in height. If the hon. Member has any evidence to show that the height of the deck cargo added to the danger of the crew in this particular case, or hastened the sinking of the vessel, I shall be glad to consider it if he will forward it to me.

    Board of Trade Surveying Staff.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have recently invited applications for positions as nautical surveyors under the Board at a commencing salary of £200 per annum; if so, whether he is aware of the fact that the annual earnings of most shipmasters and many ships' officers exceed this sum, in addition to which they are accommodated and provided with food when on board their ships; and, seeing that the salaries offered for surveyorships to the Board of Trade are not adequate for such positions, and in view of the general higher standard of remuneration in the merchant service and enhanced cost of living, whether he will consider the desirability of substantially increasing the
    32
    salaries of the Board of Trade surveying staff all round?
    Mr. BURNS: Applications were invited recently for some posts as nautical surveyor under the Board of Trade at the usual scale of salary of £200, rising to £400, with a possibility of promotion to higher posts, and a large number of applications have been received. The initial salary is lower than that which many officers are at present receiving, but it is the minimum of a rising scale, and the posts are pensionable.
    Mr. PETO: When was the scale the right hon. Gentleman refers to fixed; is it not true that there has been a very large increase in the cost of living since; and have not increases been made in the pay of officers in the merchant service generally?
    Mr. BURNS: I shall be pleased to give the hon. Gentleman that information if he will put a question down.

    Shipmasters' Certificates (Canadian Suspensions).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information regarding the cases of the captains of the steamers "Bengore Head" and "Bellona" who, though successful in their appeals in the High Court against the suspensions of their certificates at Canadian Courts of Inquiry, were compelled to themselves bear the costs of these appeals; whether in a similar case, that of the "Grecian," the costs were refunded by the Canadian Government; whether the Board of Trade have used their influence ina similar direction, as suggested by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild; and whether the matter is still engaging the consideration of the Board of Trade with a view to making provision that in cases of this sort which arise in future captains or officers whose appeals are successful will not be compelled to bear the costs of such appeals?
    Mr. BURNS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 31st July last by my predecessor. The Board of Trade, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion that they could not usefully take steps with the object of obtaining payment of the costs in question by the Canadian Government. As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that I have no power in the matter.

    International Maritime Conference.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to state when the next International Maritime Conference will take place; what subjects will be referred to it for consideration; and whether it is intended that the enhanced safety in different respects of the crews of cargo vessels is to be the predominant issue at this Conference?
    Mr. BURNS: It is proposed to convene an International Conference on load line, when the necessary preparatory work, which is now in hand, has been completed. This preparatory work is being carried out by the Load Line Committee, which has been sitting for some months, but I am unable to say when it will be concluded. The object of the Conference will be to approve international rules and tables for fixing the load lines of merchant ships, and to deal as far as possible with the question of timber deck loads. Matters relating to the safety of cargo vessels and their crews will thus be the main subjects of discussion.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman see if it is possible to extend the scope of this inquiry to include suitable construction of vessels for carrying other forms of deck cargo?
    Mr. BURNS: It must be obvious at this moment I cannot give an answer to an important question of that character.

    Shipping Casualities.
    Mr. PETOaked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in respect to Board of Trade inquiries into shipping casualities where the conduct of the cases and questions submitted to the Court by the Board suggest blame on the part of the shipmasters or officers concerned, he will now give instructions that in the event of their being found blameless by the Court applications they may make for the legal costs they have incurred in their defence shall not be opposed by those representing the Board of Trade at these inquiries, but left to the unfettered discretion of the Courts to whom such applications may be made?
    Mr. BURNS: I am afraid that it is not possible to give an undertaking which would be universally applicable. While in some such cases the Board of Trade would no doubt feel warranted in not opposing applications for costs or for a fixed sum towards costs there might be
    34
    circumstances in other cases which would make it their duty to take a different course.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to avoid as far as possible this great injustice which is now being done to officers at these inquiries?
    Mr. BURNS: I am afraid at this moment I can add nothing to my answer.

    Pilotage Certificates.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state under what circumstances the masters, neither of whom are British subjects, of the two Norwegian steamers "Norway" and "Scotland," and trading between Christiania and Grangemouth, have been authorised to apply for a pilotage certificate under the Pilotage Act, 1913, having regard to the fact that not only these two vessels, but all the vessels of the same class belonging to the same owners, and trading between the above-mentioned ports on the 1st day of June, 1906, were on such date not exempt from the obligation to carry a licensed pilot and had not habitually been piloted by a master or mate of the ship holding a pilotage certificate?
    Mr. BURNS: My hon. Friend is, I think, under some misapprehension as regards the facts of this case. Until the passage of the Pilotage Act, 1913, a vessel carrying passengers between a foreign port and a port in a non-compulsory district in the United Kingdom was not subject to compulsory pilotage, whereas one carrying passengers between two ports in the United Kingdom was so subject. This anomaly was removed by Section 11 of the Pilotage Act, 1913. It is not therefore the case as stated in the question that the steamships "Norway" and "Scotland," and ships of the same class trading between Christiania and Grangemouth were not exempt before 1st June, 1906, from the obligation to engage a pilot or to be piloted by a master or mate holding a pilotage certificate. The Board of Trade, however, distinctly warned the parties concerned that no pilotage certificate granted to a person not a British subject would be of any effect within any area in respect of which the Admiralty make an Order under Section 24 of the Pilotage Act on grounds of public safety. I understand that the Admiralty have now under consideration the question of making Orders under that Section.
    Mr. JOYCE: Arising out of that answer, which I consider not at all satisfactory, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the specific pledge given to us during the passage of the Pilotage Act by his predecessor that no such certificates should be granted to foreign masters or mates who did not hold such certificates prior to 1906?
    Mr. BURNS: I can assure my hon. Friend that the answer I have given him has been drafted, and I now give it, in the light of any pledge given by my predecessors.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has not been informed by his Department that the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has just given is the interpretation put upon it by the late President of the Board of Trade and the former President, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and will he not recommend to the Admiralty to take into consideration these particular powers referred to?
    Mr. BURNS: The Admiralty are taking these particular powers into consideration as I said in my answer to the question.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman's reply does not directly contradict the promise made by his predecessor?
    Mr. BURNS: I have no reason to assume that.

    Mercantile Marine (Obligations of Owners).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the 7th November, 1912, the Government agreed to the issue of a Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Russia, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium, towards their captains, officers, and seamen, with regard to the following matters, namely, old age pensions, pensions to widows and orphans, accident compensation, Sunday labour, daily hours of labour at sea and in port, payment for work performed in excess of fixed hours of labour, medical treatment, accommodation and passages of distressed seamen, and the regulations of these different countries for the preservation of discipline on board
    36
    their merchant ships; whether steps have been taken for the preparation of such Return; whether the same has now been completed; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay; and whether, in view of the importance of this Return to the merchant shipping community, he will state when this Return will be issued?
    Mr. BURNS: The Return to which the hon. Member refers was presented to the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18th March.

    Exports to Colonies.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give figures showing domestic exports from this country in 1908 and 1913 of articles wholly or mainly manufactured to each of the under-mentioned countries: Canada, Union of South Africa, Australian Commonwealth, New Zealand, Germany, France, Belgium, and United States?
    Mr. BURNS: The particulars desired for 1913 are not yet available, but I will have a statement printed in the Votes giving this information for 1908 and 1912.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman always going to refuse to give figures?
    Mr. BURNS: No, Sir. I should be pleased to give any reasonable figures asked for by any Member.
    Mr. CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor always gave these figures.

    Worn-out Horses.
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if the traffic in worn-out horses, which used to be confined to their export to Holland and Belgium, is now being transferred to France; and, if so, from what ports are the horses being shipped and to what French ports are they sent?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During last year about 500 horses were exported from Great Britain to France for slaughter. They were shipped from London and Goole, and a few from Southampton, and were landed mostly at Havre and Boulogne.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any assurance that these horses are humanely treated on their arrival?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. I do not know that any declaration is necessarily made on this side.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Has the Government any information of what becomes of these worn-out horses when they go abroad?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Once they get to the other side they are no longer within our jurisdiction, but we look after them while they are under our jurisdiction.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether all those horses when shipped pass under the eye of the inspector of the Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like to have notice of this; but I think that is so.

    Shops Act, Glasgow.
    Mr. GEORGE BARNESasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any representations with regard to the violation of the provisions of the Shops Act by shopkeepers in Glasgow last Christmas and New Year time whereby many shop assistants were deprived of their half-holiday; whether he is aware that, although the attention of the Glasgow Council has been drawn to the matter, apparently no action has been taken and no prosecutions have taken place; and whether he intends to make any representations to the council on the matter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I received some representations of the nature mentioned. As my hon. Friend is aware, the duty of enforcing the provisions of the Shops Act is placed upon the local authority, which in Glasgow is the town council, and I therefore referred these representations to that body.

    North Sea Fishing Industry (Scottish Departmental Report).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has now considered the Minority Report of the Scottish Departmental Committee on the North Sea Fishing Industry; and whether, in view of the fact that the prosperity of the Scottish fishing industry is very deeply concerned in its adoption, he will give the suggestions contained in the Minority Report his favourable consideraton?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs on 26th February. The Minority Report is
    38
    receiving consideration along with the Report of the Majority of the Committee.

    East Carmarthen Postal Facilities.
    Mr. TOWYN JONESasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of sub-offices in East Carmarthen that are under the head office at Swansea, and the reasons why such offices are attached to Swansea and not to Llanelly?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): There are eighteen sub-offices in East Carmarthen which are under the control of the postmaster of Swansea. They are so placed for administrative reasons connected with the circulation of mails and concentration of telegraph and telephone lines.

    Price of Telephone Trunk Calls.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Postmaster-General if, following the telephone system which obtains in Germany, by which conversation between any points in the Empire can be conducted at the rate of 1s. for three minutes, he will consider the desirability of reducing the rate for telephone trunk calls within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The rate of charge for ordinary trunk calls in Germany ranges from 2½d. to 2s., according to the distance. The charge for an urgent call is three times the charge for an ordinary call. The question of the future charges for trunk calls is receiving my consideration.

    Ulster Covenant.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a copy of a document called the "Ulster Covenant" was, on or about 12th March, posted up at the counter of the post office, Upper Hale, Surrey, for the purpose of obtaining signatures; and that complaint was made to the postmaster of Farnham on the 13th March, with the result that the document, instead of being removed altogether, was merely removed to a less prominent position in the shop, namely, to another counter where fancy goods are displayed; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The document in question should not have been exhibited by the sub-postmaster, and I understand that it has now been removed altogether. I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to the matter.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    GUN-MOUNTINGS.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a large consignment of gun-mountings has recently been delivered from Barrow at Clydebank, on account of an Admiralty contract; whether this consignment has been carried by a French vessel to the exclusion of British tonnage; whether the contract was made direct by the Admiralty; and, if so, for what reason preference was given to a French vessel; and whether in future such contracts, either direct by the Admiralty or on their account as sub-contracts, will be given to vessels under the British flag?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I am in communication with the contractors with regard to these questions, and will furnish further information when details have been received.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD (HOUSING WORKERS).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his expert advisers are of opinion that the houses in Jamestown Square, near Rosyth, are satisfactory habitations for the workmen there employed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the county medical officer of health has recently reported that these houses generally are unsatisfactory, and I understand the report is at present under consideration by the local authority.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked whether, in the proposals for improving the housing conditions at Rosyth, the houses in Jamestown Square are still to be counted on for housing workmen employed there?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The proposals for adding to the temporary housing provision at Rosyth by the erection of huts for 300 single workmen and 200 families, were made with a view to meeting, generally, the needs of the men engaged upon Admiralty works. I went over Jamestown Square, formed my own judgment upon the character of the accommodation, and contemplated the possibility of its condemnation. The preliminaries of the work of providing the new temporary accommodation are pro-
    40
    ceeding with all expedition. In fact, a commencement is being made with the accommodation roads to-day. When the huts are ready I shall watch weekly the extent to which they are used by the workmen. If, and when they appear to be likely to be fully occupied, I shall discuss with the contractor the question of the necessity or otherwise, which will depend upon the number of men employed, for the provision of further accommodation. In view of the statements made as to congestion in the district, it may interest the Noble Lord to know that, though the first of the existing huts was occupied on 24th February, 1913, and the hut accommodation made by the contractor for 905 men was ready about the end of June, as late as December last there were considerably over 100 places unoccupied. It was not until the end of February, 1914, that the colony was fully occupied, and the contractor at once expressed his intention of augmenting the accommodation.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question whether the houses in Jamestown Square are fit to be counted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already stated that I went over to Jamestown Square and formed my own judgment upon the character of the accommodation and contemplated the possibility of its condemnation.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when these new houses will be ready for occupation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Tenders have already been invited, and I think some of them will be ready by Easter.

    MERCHANT VESSELS (GUNS).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether, as regards the placing of guns on merchant vessels, any confidential documents in the way of instructions, particulars of guns, and otherwise, are placed in the hands of the masters or officers of the ships on which these guns are fitted; and, if so, whether it is stipulated that the masters and officers of these vessels must be British subjects, or otherwise what precautions are taken against such confidential documents falling into the hands of alien masters or officers who may be serving on these vessels?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No confidential documents have been placed in the hands of

    41
    masters or officers of ships defensively armed. The Admiralty issue to them such instructions as they may from time to time consider necessary. The interests of the State are safeguarded by the fact that all captains and officers of the ships so armed are British subjects worthy of the confidence of the Admiralty.

    DESTROYERS (PEACE CONDITIONS).
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked what is the average number of days per month during which a destroyer is at sea under peace conditions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The proportion of time spent at sea by a destroyer varies so widely according to circumstances that a monthly average figure appears to be of little value. I am informed, however, that the figure for the flotillas of the First Fleet last year was eight and a half days per month.

    ROYAL NAVAL MUSEUM (GREENWICH).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked whether it is proposed to remove the present exhibits in the Royal Naval Museum at Greenwich and to use the premises for other purposes?
    Captain WILSONasked if orders have been given to dismantle the Royal Naval Museum at Greenwich; if so, where it is proposed to house the exhibits; and if he will take steps to preserve intact this collection in view of its historical interest?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question is under consideration, but no final decision has been arrived at. If it be necessary to remove the exhibits from their present position, care will be taken to preserve so far as possible the main collection intact.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Have they not already begun to remove them?
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that the cases in which these exhibits have been shown are already destroyed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The final decision with regard to the disposal of the collection has not yet been taken.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is any other place in the neighbourhood of London so suitable as Greenwich for these exhibits, having regard to the long and
    42
    close association of Greenwich with naval history?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite certain there is no other place in the possession of the Admiralty so suitable for a great naval exhibition as Greenwich.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate the separation of the exhibits which have been in cases from the pictures which have hitherto hung with them in the hall, the whole of them making a great naval museum?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The exhibits are of a very different character to the pictures in the painted hall, which will be left intact in every respect; but the exhibits in the museum are not of artistic but instructional value. The question is being considered, not only with reference to the exhibits themselves, but also with reference to the integrity of the collection.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Is he aware that there is plenty of land available belonging to the college?

    "DREADNOUGHTS" (NUMBER COMPLETED).
    Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked for the number and names of completed ships of the "Dreadnought" type that Great Britain will have in Home waters on the 1st of July, 1914, on the 1st of July, 1915, and on the 1st of July, 1916; and the number and names of completed ships of the "Dreadnought" type that will be possessed by Germany, Austria, and Italy, respectively, at the same dates?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must refer the hon. Member to the Return standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras for the numbers and names of completed "Dreadnoughts." The number which will be in Home waters on the dates mentioned will depend on circumstances.

    ISLAND OF LEWIS (UIG COTTARS).
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the Secretary for Scotland a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether eleven inhabitants of the Island of Lewis were on Thursday sentenced to six weeks imprisonment by the High Court of Justice in Edinburgh for trespass; whether he is aware that no damage was done to the farm or cattle on the farm over which they

    43
    trespassed; whether it is not a fact that they are all men of high character, and have almost all been born on it, and that the proprietor of the farm did not wish or press for punishment; and whether in view of those facts, and the fact that they have persistently and repeatedly used every means to secure the land at an equitable rent, he will take steps to have them immediately released?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of the procedings in Court to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards the remainder of the question, I would remind him that the sentences in this case were imposed solely in respect of the deliberate disregard by the prisoners of the order of the Court and after they had twice rejected the opportunities given to them by the Court to enter into an undertaking to desist from illegal action in the future. In these circumstances I must answer the last part of the question in the negative.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Board of Agriculture have taken to procure that land for those men?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The farm on which these men desired a settlement is one which, under the Small Land Holders Act, it is not competent for the Board of Agriculture to take compulsorily.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sub-section 16 (a) of Clause 7 of the original Act gives the Board of Agriculture power to take that particular farm?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; certainly not.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is it the case that my hon. Friend wanted to put this similar question to the Secretary for Scotland last Friday, and the Secretary for Scotland was not there, and purposely stayed away? May I also ask if it is the case if a similar incident had taken place in Ireland it would have been treated not as a criminal but as a political offence, and whether, in view of the fact that these men, some of whom are unsophisticated Highlanders not able to speak English, and who have never known a Police Court—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  MOVEMENT OF TROOPS.

    ISLAND OF LEWIS (UIG COTTARS).
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that it is the intention of the Government that a statement should be made by the Secretary of State for War as to the position in the Army, but in view of the widespread anxiety on that subject, I beg to press upon the Prime Minister a request—of which I gave him notice yesterday—that he will make the Motion necessary to allow a discussion on that statement to take place immediately after it is made. I need not say that, if he does so, we on the Opposition side will offer no objection to obtaining the Votes down for to-night later on, though I hope the right hon. Gentleman later will give us sufficient time for the discussion that may be lost.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, will he bear in mind that Scotch Liberals desire to raise to-night the question of this illegal imprisonment of eleven crofters who have been in prison from Thursday night until now? We want them out, and we want the Adjournment at 8.15.
    Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the imperative need of an immediate settlement in Ireland, and having regard to the fact that last Thursday's Amendment in favour of exclusion of Ulster counties, pending all-round devolution, is still on the Order Paper, he will give an early date for the continuance of the Debate?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In reply to the question just put to me by my hon. Friend behind me, I think the House will have a further and full opportunity of discussing his proposal when we resume the Debate on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill. With regard to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of course it is a very unusual thing to interrupt business in the way he suggested, and it can only be done on the Motion of a Minister, but, in view of his request made upon his responsibility, I will undertake, if, after what my right hon. Friend has said, the desire still exists, to accede to it.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Whilst this is under consideration, may I ask my right hon. Friend if, when he makes that statement, he will also give us some assur-
    70
    ance that the Debate due to-day shall not be altogether lost? Of course, we must discuss this Vote.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend knows that it is necessary we should get these Votes to-night, and it is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he can to aid us and not unduly curtail discussion, because we gave to-night as an extra night for the purpose.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give the Scottish Liberals an opportunity to discuss this very important question affecting the liberty of the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It can be done on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, or it can be done on Wednesday on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Mr. HOGGE: By Wednesday these men will have been in prison for a week, and they are in prison because of the neglect of the Board of Agriculture to do its work. We are surely entitled to-day to call attention to that. If we are only allowed to do so on the Adjournment we shall only have half an hour to discuss it, and we ought to get the Adjournment at 8.15.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I have received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will see that he cannot ask for that Motion for Adjournment until the House has decided whether or not the Prime Minister shall move the Adjournment immediately. If the Prime Minister moves the Adjournment immediately, no further Motion for Adjournment can be made. It would be courteous, at least, to wait and see what happens with regard to that.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask if, whether the Adjournment is moved just now or not, it will not be in order for any hon. Member to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance at 8.15?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There can only be one Motion for Adjournment made. The Prime Minister has indicated that in

    71
    certain eventualities he will make that Motion for the Adjournment forthwith, and the House will then be discussing the Adjournment of the House on that question. When that question has been put from the Chair, any subject can be discussed, and therefore the hon. Member will not be cut out. The fact that the Prime Minister's Motion is before the House would not prevent him raising that question.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry to detain the House, but I do feel strongly on this point, and I should like to know if I should be entitled to raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have just said so.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The Prime Minister has asked me to make a brief statement with regards to events as concerning the War Office, apart from other questions, in reply to many questions of private notice which have been addressed to himself and to me. I will state them very briefly with regard both to the question of officers and with regard to the movement of troops. First, with regard to the question of the officers: Information was received at the War Office on Friday evening from General Sir Arthur Paget, Commanding the Forces in Ireland, that some officers in his command had informed him that in certain eventualities they would be unable to carry out instructions which he might hereafter find it necessary to issue to them. The Army Council requested Sir Arthur Paget by telegram to forward a statement of the circumstances of the case and to direct the senior officers concerned to report themselves to the Adjutant-General at the War Office forthwith. As the result of the inquiry which the Army Council have held, it is clear that this incident was due to a misunderstanding of questions put to them by the General Officer Commanding the Forces in Ireland. With the approval of the General Officer Commanding, these officers have now been ordered to rejoin their units. With regard to the movement of troops, the following is the information: In consequence of information received by His Majesty's Government, it was decided to make certain movements of troops, and these were ordered on Thursday night. One company of Infantry was instructed to move to
    72
    Enniskillen, Omagh, Armagh, and Carrickfergus, respectively; one battalion of Infantry was ordered to proceed, half to Dundalk and half to Newry, respectively; and one battalion from Victoria Barracks at Belfast to Holywood Barracks, which are barracks adjoining Belfast, just outside. The reason for these movements was the necessity for protecting Government arms, ammunition stores, and other property. All these movements have been completed in accordance with instructions issued from the General Officer Commanding the Forces in Ireland, and all orders issued have been punctually and implicitly obeyed.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is necessary that there should be a discussion on that statement.

BILL PRESENTED:
  SLANERY, PEONAGE, AND FORCED LABOUR BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend enactments relating to the Slave Trade, and to make further and better provision with respect to Slavery, Peonage, and Forced Labour, and to certain companies; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." Presented by Dr. CHAPPLE; supported by Mr. Murray Macdonald; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 31st March, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
  BUSINESS OF HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement which, in view of the gravity of the situation as we all know, and as he best of all knows, seems to me one of the most amazing instances of paltering with the House of

    73
    Commons and the country which we have ever had. The position is far more serious than the statement would lead us to suppose. A new danger has arisen, a danger which, I think, anyone might have foreseen, but which has apparently come upon the Government as a bolt from the blue, the danger, that is—and I shall show that I am not exaggerating—that our Army should be destroyed before our eyes. In the face of such a danger, it is the duty of everyone—and I shall try to fulfil it—not to do or say anything which will aggravate a position which is already disastrous, and which must soon lead to a disaster that cannot be repaired. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if there had been only a suggestion of resignation on the part of the officers. As a matter of fact he knows, and everyone who has followed the subject knows, that a very large number of officers have intimated their intention to resign. That is not confined by any means to the Cavalry brigade, which has been chiefly referred to. I have received proof that is absolutely unquestionable, that the same thing has happened in many other than Cavalry regiments. In proof of that statement, and of the gravity of the situation, I shall read one letter only, or part of it, which has been received by an hon. Friend behind me from an officer in a Line regiment now at the Curragh, in Ireland. This is what the letter says:—
    "I wonder whether the people in England are aware of the way in which we are being treated over this Ulster business. At 12.30 p.m. to-day the commanding officer came back from a conference with the brigadier with orders to hold a conference of officers, and to put the following proposal before them: 'Any officer whose home is in Ulster can be given leave. Officers who object to fighting against Ulster are to say so, and they will be at once dismissed from service.'"
    [Interruption.] I do really regard the position as so serious that I hope the House on both sides will listen.
    "To decide this, we were given half-an hour. Everyone objects to going, and nine or ten refused under any conditions to go."
    Mr. JOHN WARD: What is the date of that?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The 20th March. Nine or ten in a single Line regiment refused under any conditions to go! The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, in repeating, indeed, what was said by the Prime Minister in the published statement issued last night, makes the statement that this movement of troops was a purely precautionary measure, with no other object than to defend arsenals and other property of that kind belonging
    74
    to the Government. If that be the case, then I cannot imagine any action more utterly foolish than that which has been taken by the Government. There was no new position in Ulster at all, there was no outbreak of disorder, there was no threatened outbreak of disorder—I am not going to exaggerate in any way—there was no threatened outbreak of disorder in any sense of which the same thing could not have been said during the last two years. If the Government had chosen to take these precautionary measures two or three months ago, they could have been taken without any suggestion that their action was provocative, or that they intended to begin coercing Ulster. But what are the facts? I ask hon. Members on both sides carefully to weigh them. The First Lord of the Admiralty went down to Bradford and made a speech, which he intimated was made in order to express the declared policy of the Government. In that speech he told the country that we, the Government, were going to put these grave matters to the proof. Then, and not till then, the order was given to move troops into Ulster. But that does not stand alone. I am going to read—I have permission to read—a statement taken down by one who heard it of what was said by the General Officer Commanding the troops in Ireland to his commanding officers. This is what he said:—
    "Sir Arthur Paget said that active operations were to be begun against Ulster, that he expected the country to be in a blaze by Saturday, that he had been in close communication with the War Office, and that he had the following instructions from the War Office to convey to the officers. "Officers domiciled in Ulster would be allowed to disappear, and would be reinstated in their position, but they must give their word of honour that they would not fight for Ulster"—
    A perfectly fair proposal.
    "'Officers who are not prepared to undertake active operations against Ulster for conscientious or other scruples were to send in their resignations, and would be dismissed the Army. It was to be fully understood that the officers, brigadiers and any officers who avoided service on an incorrect plea of domicile in Ulster would be tried by Court Martial.'"
    Sir W. P. BYLES: Whose statement was that?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had listened, he would have heard the source of the letter.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall refer to that communication in its bearing on the resignation of the officers, but that is not the point in connection with it to which I wish now to direct the attention of the House. The general commanding His Majesty's forces in Ireland had just been at the War

    75
    Office—the day before, I think—he comes straight back to Ireland, and he there states that he had received instructions which would put Ulster in a blaze by Saturday, and which were to direct military operations against Ulster. It seems to me utterly inconceivable that any Secretary of State for War could have failed to have given to a commanding officer in such circumstances explicit instructions, and to have given them in writing. I do not know whether that was done or not, but, at all events, this is clear, that this officer commanding His Majesty's troops, going straight from the War Office, did not agree with the Prime Minister that he was only undertaking precautionary measures, and he stated on his authority that, by the instructions of the War Office, he was going to proceed to conquer Ulster. In these circumstances, in view of the facts which I have pointed out, in view of the fact that the First Lord has said that this was a treasonable conspiracy, and that the troops were only moved immediately after he had made that statement, in view of the belief which was held by the officer commanding the forces that they were at once to put down Ulster, I think it will be very difficult for the Prime Minister to convince the House—I accept his own good faith completely—his own good faith—I think it will be very difficult for the Prime Minister to convince the House or the country that, with or without his knowledge—in my belief without his knowledge—some of his colleagues, acting for the Government, did not make this movement of troops as part of a concerted plan either to provoke or to intimidate the people of Ulster. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two rats—rats caught in a trap."] Now, let me come to the resignations of these officers. What happened is public property. General Gough, who commanded the Cavalry Brigade at the Curragh, was dismissed from the Service, and it is also a fact of which the right hon. Gentleman has not informed us that his successor was appointed by the Secretary of State for War. The Prime Minister said that all this was due to a misconception. How is that possible? The War Office were communicated with, the moment they received the communication they knew the ground on which General Gough had refused to act—
    Colonel SEELY: No.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They must have known.
    Colonel SEELY: No.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Then they should have at once asked, and they should have asked by telegram.
    Colonel SEELY: And so we did.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Then you must have known immediately, and, if that was due to misapprehension, the War Office should have at once said so instead of appointing a successor, and should have at once reinstated General Gough. In view of what, has actually happened, we have a right to ask the Prime Minister—and I am sure he will answer it—has General Gough been reinstated, and, if so, on what terms has he been reinstated? This position, remember, has arisen suddenly by the action, as I believe, of the War Office, and, as they will tell us, of the general commanding in Ireland. This position has arisen suddenly. General Gough was dismissed on this explicit ground, that he said he would not serve himself or lead his troops to coerce Ulster to accept the Home Rule Bill. That was the ground of his dismissal. If he has been reinstated, I ask the Prime Minister to say openly that he has been reinstated on the distinct understanding that he will not be asked to use troops to enforce the Home Rule Bill in Ulster. I think also we have a right to ask, and I should have thought it would have been one of the first things that the War Secretary would have given us, that the explicit instructions which were given to General Paget should now be communicated to the House. We have already seen in the Press that it will probably be suggested—the Prime Minister has said it is a misconception—that this is all due to an error an the part of General Paget. Naturally, before anyone decides that point we should like to hear what General Paget has to say about it. But, apart from General Paget's own evidence or statement, here is a point which I wish to make clear now, and to which I should like to have an answer.
    In this address to the commanding officers General Paget said that anyone domiciled in Ulster would be allowed leave of absence. Did General Paget invent that, or was it an instruction from the War Office? I will assume that it was until I have had a reply. What does that mean? It dispels at once conclusively the suggestion of the Prime Minister that they were only going to be used for police duties. Does anyone suggest that if the Army were likely to be required for any purpose

    77
    in London—[Interruption.] It is not my fault, Mr. Speaker, that this subject is not treated with the seriousness which it deserves. Is not this certain, that, if it were merely a question of police duties, would any officer or man, if he were asked to act in London or Glasgow or any other big city, be asked this question, "Do you live in London?" Of course he would not, and the fact that he is asked that question shows that the Government knew that they would be expected to engage in operations which were more than police duties, and to which a man might object. But that proviso goes a great deal further than I have already indicated. It utterly destroys the whole justification of the Government to use any part of the Army for this purpose against the will either of the officers or men who serve in the Army. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] If the House will listen to me I think they will see I am right. They do not say, "You are a soldier, and you are bound to obey the orders of your commanding officer." They say, "There are special circumstances which would make it unright for us to ask you to do that," and therefore they place the soldier in an entirely different position from that in which he is engaged in any ordinary duty which he is called upon to perform.
    Mr. J. WARD: Were they not used against us?
    Mr. W. THORNE: What about strikes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: How can such a distinction be drawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "Strikes."] Take General Gough's own position. He was an Irishman, although he was not domiciled in Ulster. His family had been Irish and his whole connections were Irish, yet, under this Order, he was bound to go against the Ulster people or to be dismissed the Service. How can you draw such a distinction, and does not the fact not only that General Paget spoke of military operations in Ulster, but that you make this distinction in itself answer the question the Prime Minister put to me the other day, which is, "How can you distinguish civil war?" I say at once that unless this were regarded by the Government as the possibility of civil war they had no right to make such an exception, and it does prove that they do regard it as civil war. The House knows that we on this side have from the first held the view that to coerce Ulster is an operation which no Government, under existing conditions, has a
    78
    right to ask the Army to undertake. [HON. MEMBERS "Why?"] And, in our view, of course, it is not necessary to say it, that any officer who refuses is only fulfilling his duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Treason."]
    Mr. JOWETT: What about the railway strike?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The distinction of those domiciled in Ulster already answers that question. I wish to point out to the House, if I may, that the way in which these officers have been treated seems to me so unfair as to be almost incredible. Surely in a case of this kind, we, in this period of our country's history, are not going to be less fair than was the case in England more than 100 years ago. At that time Great Britain engaged in a war against the American Colonies. What happened then was described in a book, which is quoted in a newspaper which I saw yesterday, by Sir George Trevelyan:—
    "That war was marked by a feature unique in English history, Not a few officers of every grade, who were, for the main part, distinguished by valour and ability, flatly refused to serve against the Colonies, and their scruples were respected by their countrymen in general, and by the King and his Ministers as well."
    This did not apply to officers in high positions, for, in the same book, this also is stated:—
    "The same respectful and considerate treatment was very generally extended to other military and naval men whose personal action was governed by the same motives. Some officers retired into private life, others went on half-pay until a European war broke out, when they rejoined the Army, and others accepted commissions in the Militia."
    Therefore, the very least which a Government in the twentieth century, when we are threatened with civil commotion, have a right to ask is that officers who on conscientious grounds refuse to undertake that service, should be permitted to send in their resignations without forfeiting the pensions which they have earned. [HON. MEMBERS: "And privates!"] And privates. If that is refused by the Government it really means this, that we have an experience, which is not uncommon in history, that a body acting in the name of democrarcy and liberty is more unjust and tyrannical than a body which acts under the authority of a despotic sovereign. The whole question hinges upon what is going to be done to General Gough and the officers who have resigned The question has been raised in an acute form, and, in my belief, nothing can save the Army now—[Interruption]—nothing can save the Army now except a clear declaration on the part of the Government that officers

    79
    will not be compelled—[HON. MEMBERS: "And men!"]—and men will not be compelled—to engage in civil war against their will. [HON. MEMBERS: "Strikes!"]
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What about industrial war?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is the position. It cannot be met either by ignoring it, as the Secretary for War has done, or by placable phrases like those used by the Prime Minister in his statement yesterday. It is a serious position, and it all arises, as I believe, from this fact, that the Government are attempting to coerce a part of the population of this country without the authority of the electors. Whether hon. Gentlemen opposite believe me or not, I do not desire to gain political advantage—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!"]—out of the destruction of the Army, and if the Prime Minister has any way which he can suggest by which this impossible position, if the country is to go on, can be got rid of, the difficulties in which the Government are placed will not make me, and, I hope, will not make any of my hon. Friends, less willing than we have always been to try and meet this question fairly.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has taken a somewhat unusual course, but I do not complain because, in view of the doctrine he has enunciated in the latter part of his speech, I think it is eminently desirable that the House of Commons and the country shall, at the earliest possible moment, realise what is the kind of issue that is going to be presented. I will deal with that matter more fully before I sit down. First, I will reply very briefly to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me as to the particular facts which have led up to the situation in which we stand to-day. May I, by way of preface, say this, that in my opinion, and I think in the opinion up to now of all responsible politicians in this country, the duties of the Army in relation to the civil power are very simple, very intelligible, and hitherto have never been contested? What are they? It is the duty of the Army when called upon, obviously, to protect military property and stores in any area where, from the circumstances of the moment, there is ground for apprehending any special risk. No one, I think, will dispute that. It is further the duty of the Army, if and when the resources of the civil power in any given place are for
    80
    the time inadequate, to deal with riot or disorder or disturbance of the public peace, and to render the necessary assistance for the maintenance of order. No one, I think, will dispute that proposition, and it follows that any military officer, and not only any military officer but any man in uniform—it applies to privates as much as to officers—who refuses such assistance or declines to obey an order to render such assistance is guilty of a breach of duty and is liable to be dismissed. When you have said that I think you have said all that need be said or that can be said with regard to what I may call the normal relations of the military and naval forces of the Crown to the civil power. That being, as I should hope, common ground between us, let us look for a moment at the circumstances out of which this Debate arises. They fall under two heads—first, the movement of troops, and next the proceedings in regard to these particular officers. The right hon. Gentleman has been at great pains to elaborate what I may call provocative ground for these movements of troops. He has acquitted me personally—I do not desire to be acquitted at the expense of any of my colleagues—of any such intention. Whatever guilt there be in the matter, I share equally with them. As a matter of fact, as far back as December last instructions were given to the general officers, particularly to the General Officer Commanding in Ireland, pointing out that it might be his duty, subject to what I have described, to come to the assistance of the civil power, and that he must be prepared for that eventuality, if and when it should arise, and adding the point on which the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress, that officers—I agree the same thing ought to apply to men—who were domiciled in the area of disturbance, wherever it might be, might be and ought to be excused from taking part in any necessary operations. That had nothing whatever to do with civil war. I think it is a most excellent regulation, which would apply to a strike just as much. Suppose you had, for instance, in South Wales a strike of miners, such as we had before, it would have applied to the use of the officers and men, say, of the South Wales Regiment.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Was it done then?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that any question arose, but I think it is a very good rule and ought to be universally applied that, where a military force

    81
    is called in to render assistance in exceptional cases to the civil power—I think it is a very good rule of policy and of common sense, whether as regards officers or men, as far as you can do it—you cannot, perhaps, always do it—to avoid the employment of those who are locally connected by personal, or domestic, or social ties. That is and ought to be, so far as it can be applied, the universal rule in dealing with military or naval assistance to the civil power, and, at any rate, be it a good or a bad one, it is a rule which was laid down in this particular case, not in regard to these circumstances which have recently arisen, but as far back as December of last year, and it would apply in whatever circumstances or conditions the aid of the military in Ireland is called in. For instance, in the South, suppose there had been a disturbance, it would have applied there just as much as in the North. I come now to this particular movement of troops. The right hon. Gentleman represents it as one of a series of incidents which began with the speech of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, which he worked up in a kind of crescendo. As a matter of fact, these matters were being considered long before my right hon. Friend made his speech at all. It was pointed out to us that there were certain scattered positions in the North and East of Ireland in which there were large quantities of arms and ammunition and stores which were very insufficiently protected, and which, very possibly, without anything in the nature or a concerted or organised movement, in the state of public excitement which from time to time prevails—certainly there are not many signs of diminishing—in that part of the world, might be vulnerable and subject to attack. At Dundalk there were a number of guns. In other places, the names of which have already been given by my right hon. Friend, there were large quantities of small arms and ammunition. [Mr. HAMILTON BENN "Newry."] Not in Newry. Newry is an outpost of Dundalk, and I am told the inhabitants of Newry are delighted to see the soldiers.
    As I have pointed out already to-day, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, if there had been any intention of what is called an aggressive movement against Ulster this is the last step which would have been taken, for it involved, from the strategic point of view, a most ridiculous and wasteful diversion and dispersion of force. It was a purely protective operation designed to guard these particular
    82
    spots, with the Government stores which were contained in them, against the possibility of some sudden attack. That is the simple history of the whole transaction. It has been for a long time under consideration, and it was carried out during the past week. It is now over; all these positions are now adequately occupied and guarded, and there is no intention or contemplation on the part of the Government under existing conditions of making any further movement of troops. [An HON. MEMBER: "How about the Cavalry?"] No orders have been given for the movement of any part of the Cavalry Brigade. It was never contemplated. When the General Officer Commanding in Ireland received instructions, as he did in the course of last week, to carry out these movements, he appears to have assembled his divisional generals and brigadiers, and to have announced to them the movements which were about to take place, and to have intimated to them that those movements might cause a certain amount of excitement and possibly misunderstanding, as apparently they have among hon. Members opposite, and that they might be followed by consequential or supplementary movements. He emphatically denies that he ever used any such language as that this was the first step in a series of operations for the purpose of conquering Ulster.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I never said so.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I took down the right hon. Gentleman's words: "They were going to conquer Ulster."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not say so. What I read was, "Sir Arthur Paget stated that active operations were to be begun against Ulster, that he expected the country to be in a blaze by Saturday, that he had been in close communication with the War Office, and had the following instructions from the War Office," and so on. That is all I read as coming from Sir Arthur Paget.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am in the recollection of the House. I am very glad it is not represented as having been said by Sir Arthur Paget.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I can put that right. I gave it as my interpretation that he was going to conquer Ireland. May I read another sentence from Sir Arthur Paget's own statement which made me use that explanation? May I read the sentence from the report of Sir Arthur

    83
    Paget's statement, which was made by one who heard it?—
    "Officers who are not prepared to undertake active operations against Ulster."
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman. He certainly used the expression, and I thought he was quoting it. That is the effect of Sir Arthur Paget's statement. Sir Arthur Paget emphatically denies that he ever intended anything of the kind. He certainly never received from the War Office any instructions of any sort or kind bearing out any such statement.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: What instructions did he receive?
    The PRIME MINISTER: He received no instructions from the War Office except those to which I have already referred last December, and those which were given last week.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: What were the instructions last week?
    The PRIME MINISTER: To effectuate these particular movements in Ulster.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Were they in writing?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Arthur Paget came over here for a consultation with the Secretary of State for War, and he was told to effect these particular dispositions. With regard to Ulster, that is the whole story of the supplementary instructions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Were they in writing?"] So much for the movement of the troops.
    Earl WINTERTON: Always throw over the men on the spot.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is the whole account of the matter. Then, as regards the officers, I think it is an undoubted fact—I have made such inquiries as I could in the matter—that Brigadier-General Gough, one of the most distinguished Cavalry leaders of the day, a man of very great and well-deserved influence in the Army, and some of his officers who think with him, interpreted the observations and the questions addressed to them by Sir Arthur Paget in a larger and wider sense than the sense of that paper which the right hon. Gentleman has read. [An HON. MEMBER: "Put the blame on the subordinates!"] They are now satisfied that the Army Council proceeded in a per-
    84
    fectly correct and proper way. They summoned the officers concerned to come at once to London. They summoned Brigadier-General Gough and the three colonels of Cavalry regiments. The Army Council also summoned Sir Arthur Paget. They heard the statements of all of them, and the Army Council is satisfied, and they are satisfied, that there was a misunderstanding between them. All that was demanded by the War Office was that if and when orders should be given—there was no question of giving any particular order at that moment—they would be ready to do the duty which lies, as I have said, upon all persons in the military service of the Crown to proceed to any part of Ireland, be it Ulster or any other province, either for the protection of Government property, or for the assistance, if and when the need should arise, of the civil power, the maintenance of order, and the preservation of peace.
    Captain FABER: Will they be reinstated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a question of reinstatement, because they have never been deposed.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: What does that mean? Is it not the case that General Gough's successor, if not formally appointed, was actually chosen, and it was intimated that he was chosen?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That was Brigadier Gough's explanation.
    Mr. CROFT: Have we not had enough of this?
    Mr. AMERY: Is it the usual rule to appoint a successor?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House generally is very anxious to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, and I would like to assure them that it would be very much easier for all of us, myself too, if we had an opportunity of hearing him without so much interruption. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham is carrying on a running commentary the whole time. It would be very much better for everybody on his side of the House, as well as behind the Prime Minister, to have a better opportunity of hearing what is said. There will be plenty of time afterwards for anyone to ask questions as to any points.
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. I ask whether your attention was called to the fact that when my right hon.

    85
    Friend the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, the Labour party, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent in particular, kept up a running commentary, without any sort of appeal from the Chair of any kind.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is no reason why the Noble Lord should imitate them.
    Earl WINTEHTON: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is really a very simple matter. It is a matter of routine. The Brigadier-General required to come over to London to report to the Army Council in regard to the matters as to which they had summoned him. It is the universal practice to make provision for another officer to take his place, and that is all that happened. The Brigadier is returning to his brigade, and there is no question whatsoever of— [Interruption.]
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I point out that owing to interruption by hon. Members the most important words of the Prime Minister cannot be heard by the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will repeat I hem. As a matter of fact, the Brigadier is returning to his brigade, and so are all the other colonels concerned.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: And the other junior officers too?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. [HON. MEMBERS: "On what terms?"]
    Mr. G. D. FABER: Unconditionally?
    5.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Brigadier and the officers having had pointed out to them once more what are their duties—duties which I have already defined to the House—which they can be called upon to perform, have returned, expressing their full willingness to discharge these duties. Having dealt with these personal and local considerations, I must say two or three words with regard to the more general aspect of this question. The right hon. Gentleman talked of a new danger. If the doctrine which he laid down in his speech is going to be preached and endorsed and practised by one of the great political parties in this country, we are indeed in the face of a danger hitherto unsuspected. I have laid down in terms which, I believe, would, at any rate, a short time ago have been universally accepted, what are the duties, responsibilities, and functions of the military and
    86
    naval forces of the Crown in relation to the civil power. It is not their business, any more than it is the business of a judge or of a magistrate who sits upon the bench, to discriminate between the relative validity of different parts of the law of the land. A judge or a magistrate is often called upon to interpret, to administer, and to enforce a law which his judgment, and perhaps even his conscience, disapproves. He holds his office by the tenure of observing his duty to the Crown in that matter, and in the same way the naval and military forces of the Crown, when they are called in to assist the civil power, have no more authority than a judge or a magistrate to discriminate between this law or that. If it is the law of the land, it is the law which they, like all other subjects of the King, must obey until it is constitutionally changed. Just consider, if this doctrine is going to be recognised and adopted, how it is going to be applied. This dispensing power—for such it amounts to—is to reside in the bosom of the individual officer, or, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, you must carry it further, in the bosom of the individual soldier—this dispensing power to appraise different degrees of value to different injunctions of the law, to regard one and to disregard another—if that is to become part of our Constitution, then the whole fabric by which society has hitherto been bound together will crumble. The right hon. Gentleman talks of civil war, or what he calls civil war, as if that were a special and exceptional case. Civil war is abhorrent to both sides of the House. But in what respect, from the point of view of constitutional and of legal authority and responsibility, would the situation which you describe as civil war—some people might describe it probably by a very different name—this is relevant to the argument I am now pursuing—in what respect would that differ from the situation of acute labour trouble in this country? Suppose you had, as we have had in this country, and may have again, a hundred thousand or half a million, or even more, of the men engaged in a particular trade who in the pursuit, as they believe, of legitimate ends—shorter hours, higher wages, better conditions of labour—combine together to refuse to work and bring society in regard to some of its most elementary requirements—food, transport, fuel—within measurable distance of impoverishment and even starvation—
    Lord HUGH CECIL: No one would shoot them down.
    Mr. W. THORNE: They will shoot you down some day!
    The PRIME MINISTER: That sort of thing has happened in the past and may happen in the future. Suppose there were turbulence, disorder, commotion, even riots, and the soldiers are brought in because the civil power, with its normal police, is inadequate to deal with the situation—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the rioting now?"]—are you going to say to the soldiers, officers or men, "Because you sympathise with these men, because you believe that their cause is just, and because your sympathies and judgment are enlisted on their side, you are entitled to refuse to obey the call of the magistrates, you are entitled to disobey the injunctions given to you, and to leave the civil power impotent to enforce the law"? That is the question which is before us. That consequence follows inevitably and logically from the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down. I, for one, hope that the vast majority of the House of Commons will support us in going so far as we can to make plain, not only in words but in deeds, our emphatic protest against the notion that the voice of the Army or the Navy is ultimately to determine the policy of this country when Parliament has deliberately enacted laws—[HON. MEMBERS: "Traitors!" and "Laws not passed!"]—or that it is competent for any of the King's servants, civil, naval, or military, to refuse their due share in support of the administration in the execution of those laws.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman divides itself, and very naturally divides itself, into two portions, one dealing with the action of the War Office and the recent events of the resignations of officers in Ireland, and the other dealing with certain general principles of high policy, which he treated briefly at the latter end of his speech. I was equally amazed at both parts of his speech. It seemed to me that he utterly misunderstood both the events which he has been trying to explain and the situation with which citizens of this country, be they civilians, soldiers, or be they sailors, be their occupation what it may, are now face to face, in consequence of the insane policy of the Government. I think that the broader question touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman's speech
    88
    is no doubt the more important of the two. But let us first consider the apology, or the explanation which he has given of recent events at the War Office. My right hon. Friend naturally, and I think most properly, associated those events with the recent action of Ministers of the Crown on the platform, and I confess that I am utterly unable to understand what has been going on behind the scenes, behind the Governmental scenes—during the last ten days or the last fortnight.
    The right hon. Gentleman comes down to this House, and in that admirable manner, of which he possesses the secret, makes conciliatory speeches and holds out hopes of peace, agreement, and amity; but while he is calling for the fire engines here to put out the conflagration, he sends two colleagues down to the country who cut the mains and destroy the water supply. What is the use of holding one kind of language within these walls to an assembly relatively small in numbers, and then to thousands of your fellow countrymen making these incendiary incitements outside? Surely you cannot carry on the two policies at once. Each may be good in its proper time, but they cannot be good together. It is absurd for the Prime Minister to use one language here while the First Lord of the Admiralty is blowing no uncertain call to arms a couple of hundred of miles off, in Yorkshire. Was my right hon. Friend in error in supposing that, as a part of these two inconsistent policies, the policy of the Secretary of State for War belonged to the incendiary policy, and not to the pacific policy? I have no doubt whatever that it did. We have been told by the Secretary of State for War that to-day nothing really has happened at all. I have listened to what he calls his explanation to-day, and you would really suppose that nothing had occurred in the War Office outside the ordinary familiar day-to-day routine work of that Department. Why should he trade on our credulity? He knows perfectly well that somehow or other, he and his subordinates have given the impression to all the officers at the Curragh, if nowhere else—and I think in many other places, too—that they have got to choose, or will have to choose between resigning or being dismissed from the Army, or taking part or being prepared to take part, in military operations against Ulster—not the police operations of which we have heard.

    89
    The Prime Minister began his speech by saying that he supposed or had supposed that there was no disagreement between any of the parties in this House when he laid down the ancient doctrine that it was the duty of the military authorities to protect military stores and to support magistrates in the maintenance of civil order. Of course, there is no dispute about that. Whoever supposed that there was? Whoever supposed that General Gough resigned because he had to see that some guns at Dundalk were not taken away or that some small arms and ammunition somewhere else were not imperilled? It was not for a cause of that magnitude that these officers resigned, and it is folly to suppose that there is nothing more behind this agitation than what the right hon. Gentleman has described. What does the right hon. Gentleman try to make us suppose? We have had no explanation of the statement made by General Sir Arthur Paget's officers, which was read out by my right hon. Friend, and the accuracy of which I believe remains uncontradicted.
    Mr. LEIF JONESmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. BALFOUR: There was a misunderstanding, it seems, in the House, because it was supposed that something which my right hon. Friend said as from himself was portion of Sir Arthur Paget's speech. That was corrected, and after that correction was made I am not aware that anybody suggested any other corrections. Certainly the Prime Minister did not, and certainly the Secretary of State for War did not, by interruption, suggest any correction.
    Colonel SEELY: I deny it absolutely.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Deny what?" "What did he say?"
    Mr. BALFOUR: He does not deny that Sir Arthur Paget did make a statement to the officers?
    Colonel SEELY: We had better not proceed under a misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman has somehow got hold of a version of what Sir Arthur Paget said. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, having seen Sir Arthur Paget this morning, that he denies absolutely that he said anything at all like it. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has not seen it!" "How does he know?"]
    Mr. BALFOUR: As the right hon. Gentleman had not seen the statement at the time, I suppose that he cannot have had an opportunity of cross-examining Sir Arthur Paget as to its accuracy. I suppose what he means is that Sir Arthur Paget gave him a general account of what he said which does not seem to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to harmonise with the explicit statement which my right hon. Friend read to the House.
    Colonel SEELY: No; the particular point is that the right hon. Gentleman described this as a statement of Sir Arthur Paget that the intention was to conquer Ulster. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] [Interruption.]
    Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman was not here when my right hon. Friend read out the statement. I will read, out the portion which my right hon. Friend. gave to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "From whom?"] From an ear-witness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was the witness of it?"]
    "Sir Arthur Paget said that active operations were to be begun against Ulster, and he expected the country would be in a blaze by Saturday, that he had been in close communication with the War Office, and had the following instructions from the War Office to convey to the officers—officers domiciled in Ulster will be allowed to disappear, and be reinstated in their position, without detriment to their career, at the end of operations in Ireland. They must give their word of honour that they will not fight for Ulster. Officers who were not prepared to undertake active operations in Ulster from conscientious and other scruples were to send in their resignations at once, and would he dismissed the Army."
    I will read the rest for anyone who wants it.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. Are we in order, as a House of Commons, in discussing what is supposed and said to be a statement by Sir Arthur Paget when it is not signed by him? Sir Arthur Paget is not here himself, or anybody, to tell us whether the statement is true or not.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perfectly in order.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not ask whether that, word for word, is what was said. That is what an ear-witness honestly believed he heard Sir Arthur Paget say. If the right hon. Gentleman says he did not say anything like it, and he gets it from Sir Arthur Paget—Sir Arthur Paget is a man of the highest possible honour and credit, and a man whose word everyone would quite accept—if that is so, we should like to know exactly what Sir Arthur Paget did say. At all events, let nobody

    91
    suppose that the mistake into which the House fell was in attributing to Sir Arthur Paget something really which was the sentiment of my right hon. Friend. Let that be dismissed from our Debates in future. If this is an ordinary routine business, how on earth can you explain the speech, or anything like the speech? How can you explain the condition about the men's relatives being domiciled in Ulster, how can you explain the immediate resignation of General Gough, and how can you explain the immediate appointment of his successor? How was the Prime Minister trying to explain these things? The first one he did not try to explain at all. As to the point of the domicile in Ulster, "Oh," he said, "it is a capital rule which ought always to have been in operation, and we have now started an excellent precedent." It is a new precedent; we have never heard of it before. You have not made it general. This is not the result of a discussion in the Army Council dealing with the whole community, dealing with Scotland, England, Wales, and the rest of Ireland; it is an ad hoc proposal with regard to Ulster. Never before, in going to support the magistrates and look after small arms, have you thought it necessary to lay down the condition that any persons, privates or officers, who have relatives near the magistrates, or near the small arms, may, if they please, disappear, and then, in due time, when the small arms and the magistrates have been protected, they may come back without any loss of military reputation or seniority. The thing is manifestly, if I may say so with all respect, foolish on the face of it. When that condition was put in, the man who put it in—presumably the right hon. Gentleman—thought that the operations in Ulster might be, and probably would be, of a very different kind from supporting the magistrates and protecting small arms. For what they foresaw was an exceptional emergency, they made what they knew to be exceptional provisions.
    And then the Prime Minister, I suppose acting on some whispered information from his colleagues next door, told us a few minutes ago that whenever anybody was recalled to discuss matters at the War Office from the Curragh you immediately appointed his successor, in case he could not return. Are we to take that sort of excuse seriously? That kind of excuse ought not to satisfy the House of Commons.
    92
    I am sure it will not. It is impossible to put a more charitable interpretation on what has occurred to-night. What happened was that either the Government as a whole, or one section of the Government, thought that the time had come for doing something. They thought they could have as their obedient and unshrinking instruments the forces at the Curragh. They found that they were not the willing instruments which they had expected. They came up, not for the first time, against facts which they had not foreseen, and they shrank from the consequences, and have been occupied ever since in industriously trying to cover up the tracks which they had rashly made. That explanation fits all that we know; it fits all that the Government have told us; it fits all that we have learned from public sources; all we hear from private sources. No other explanation does fit those circumstances. Until some other explanation does fit the facts as given, surely we are permitted to believe that is the case. I think it is lamentable. Observe what the result is: You have forced upon yourselves a crisis which, had the Prime Minister's hopes for a settlement been fulfilled, never would have occurred. You have forced this collision of opinion to come into the open, with infinite damage to the community and infinite damage to the Army. The loss seems to be almost irreparable.
    The Prime Minister said, at the conclusion of his general argument, that it was not the business of any soldier to discuss or consider what was the equity or character of the cause in which his superiors ordered him to engage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Law!"] If it were illegal that is another matter. But that is not the point in dispute. General Gough resigned under the impression that he would be ordered to take part in operations against Ulster. He said, practically and substantially, that was why he resigned. You send for him, you appoint his successor, you may have thought even of stronger measures; he comes over, and you patch it all up. You say to him on the principle of the Prime Minister, "We understand you are prepared to go against Ulster if you are ordered." Is that what you asked him to do? On your own principle that is what you ought to have asked him to do. You knew why he resigned. He may have been right or wrong. He made no secret of it. What he said openly was that he was ready to sacrifice a great and brilliant career to

    93
    what he believed to be his duty, and that was to refuse to take part in operations against Ulster. You knew that when you sent for him and appointed his successor, and you knew that when you sent him back. What comes of all the fine sentiments the Prime Minister has used, when you compare it with the actual policy of the War Office, as explained by him in the beginning of his speech.
    They shrank, they rightly shrank, from carrying out their own view, and they know now that if General Gough has gone back he has gone back after stating that he resigned because he said he would not fight against Ulster; that he has been dismissed because he would not fight against Ulster, and that he has been reinstated, although he still says he will not fight against Ulster. I am the last man in the House to say that that state of things, admitted by the action but not by the peroration, is not most serious. Let nobody suppose that I and those who think with me—and I am sure they are the vast majority of Gentlemen who sit on this side, and in this respect I believe the great majority of the House—that we contemplate what has been going on in Ulster, or what is now going on in the Army, with calm, placid equanimity, indifferent to its results, ready if you like to snatch some fleeting political advantage from the circumstances. That is not our policy. There are times, and there have been times in the history of every country when sometimes circumstances over which men have no control—sometimes circumstances which are the result of folly, and sometimes the result of crime, bring about the condition of things in which the ordinary rules and maxims that ought to govern, and must govern, civil society, have to be laid aside, and each man has got to ask himself, "In these new and exceptional conditions, what is my duty to my country and to society?" Never is that question put, never does society get into that condition, without infinite evil, infinite harm, dangers and troubles, which go on far beyond the crisis which was originally provoked, and which may echo for generations after the original cause has gone.
    Such crises occurred, as everybody knows, at the time of our own civil wars. They arose at the time of the contest with our American Colonies; they arose in America at the time of disruption of North and South. They are occasions which put brother against brother, father against
    94
    son; they are occasions in which the ordinary maxims, behind which no citizen ought ever to look in the ordinary conduct of life, whether he should obey, whether he should carry out the ordinary duties of his profession whatever they may be; they are occasions on which those are temporarily and most unhappily but inevitably abrogated. Sometimes these great moments of crises seem to be the long matured result of causes which it is beyond the power of men or of parties or of churches to control, and in that case you can only bow your head and say these misfortunes had to come, they have come, we must meet them as best we can, and we must gradually extricate ourselves from their inevitable result. Sometimes they are brought on by what seems to be the insane folly of those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs. They are brought on by people absolutely refusing to look patent facts in the face, or to see what are the realities up against which they find themselves, and then the community suffers ills which it might have avoided. I think that is our present case. In my judgment, if hon. Gentlemen opposite had condescended to look a little further than the play of parties in the Division Lobbies in this House—I am not making any charge of office-seeking or office-holding or any charge of that sort—but I do make a charge, a charge at least as grave as that when I say that those who have been responsible for our destinies, so far as I can judge them, really have taken far more trouble to see how this or that proposal would affect the play of majorities in the Division Lobby, or the movements of feeling in the constituencies, than really to discover what it was that Ulster thought, and what those who think as Ulster thinks, were ready to sacrifice in Ulster's cause.
    After all, Ulster may be right or wrong. She may be utterly wrong; she may utterly mistake her whole situation and what is her interest and what her ideals ought to be. She may do that, it is possible, but she is fighting exactly the same battle which has been fought by men of our race over and over again. She believes—and can you honestly say she is wrong?—that you are forcing her under a Legislature which she abhors, and driving her outside a community which she loves. Grant that she is wrong if you like, that is what she believes to be the marrow of her bones, and there are millions in this country who believe with her.

    95
    When you get to root convictions of that kind, and when you get down to the very depths of men's hearts and beliefs, and when you deliberately attempt to violate them by the methods you have adopted, or by any methods, then you will find yourselves face to face with the situation which I have endeavoured to describe, and in which these ordinary maxims necessarily fail, and by the way you have treated General Gough, you know yourselves they have failed. You know now if you did not know before. You are up against feelings, prejudices if you like, convictions undoubtedly, which make men sacrifice their interests, their professions, their future, and the future sometimes of their wives and families, because they will not do the thing they think you are going to command them to do. It is a lamentable state of things, we all admit, and when I reflect that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War only a few weeks ago explained to a Committee of this House how his Expeditionary Force never was more perfectly prepared than it is now, how every military preparation was brought up to the highest pitch of polish and efficiency, and now he sees either that his army is crumbling in his hands or that he has got to make concessions such as he has made, then I think the Government have begun to see that they are really dealing now with something far greater, deeper, and more difficult than the ordinary problems which meet the politician through the difficult work of government, and that they have aroused forces which nothing can pacify except a broad and statesmanlike treatment of a kind which, so far, they have given no indications of being ready to adopt.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I desire to contribute one point of view from which this discussion has to be viewed. It has been referred to by the Prime Minister, but I desire to put it with somewhat more emphasis, the important issue concerned, than he has been able to do. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated that the Prime Minister's speech divided itself into two sections. The first section was an explanation, or a defence or an apology, which ever word may be chosen, for certain incidents that had happened regarding General Gough and various other officers. So far as that section is concerned, I am bound to say I have very little interest in it, except
    96
    in this respect, that I do think the Government ought to have taken into consideration the wider matters which the right hon. Gentleman himself had in his mind towards the close of his speech. If General Gough is not prepared to do his duty, General Gough ought not to be an officer of the British Army. I will not discuss that part of the Prime Minister's speech, because whatever conclusions we may come to regarding the first part, and my own are not acceptable probably to many Members, must be determined by the conclusions we hold regarding the second part. I was perfectly amazed, and if the situation had not been so very grave I would have been very much amused, by the doctrines that were promulgated from the Front Opposition Bench this afternoon. It reminded me, and the only thing I could think of as I heard both speeches, and certainly the first, was the somewhat incongruous spectacle that we saw the other day when a very peaceable and welcome face appeared from behind your Chair, Sir, badly battered and with signs of having been very badly used. The whole thing was so incongruous, that while we had sympathy, yet under the circumstances we could not refrain from a smile. That was the impression that I had when I heard the Leader of the Tory party laying down political and civil doctrines and military doctrines which would have put Mr. James Larkin to shame, or, as some hon. Members round me remind me, put him to gaol. Of course that is the difference.
    Hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite are perfectly convinced regarding their own rectitude. I know it; but when we hear those speeches, and when we find that nothing happens, and when we hear them preached by the leaders of the respectable and aristocratic and wealthy classes of the country, what can they expect us to think when speeches of a precisely similar kind, delivered at street corners in the heat of the moment by men who are not accustomed to weigh their words, by men who have not the sense of responsibility to make them pick and choose between varieties of words, when we find that those speeches condemn those men to prison, what can we think regarding them when they indulge in such language? As a matter of fact, the syndicalists, who have been trying their level best to inoculate the Labour party with their poisonous virus, have apparently succeeded in inoculating the

    97
    Tory party. We have had to-day revolutionary action defended, we have had to-day revolutionary theories condoned and promulgated, and I find myself in the most extraordinary position of being and feeling a very large amount of good old-fashioned Toryism rising up in my blood in order to resist the alluring attractions of revolutionary syndicalism, and particularly that which was promulgated by the right hon. Gentleman in his peroration.
    The contribution I want to make to the discussion is this: I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that there has been a good deal of partisan feeling in this matter. I only wish we could lay our heads together, not only in respect of Home Rule, but in respect of many other things, and eliminate this excessive partisanship that is beginning to threaten the whole of the representative institutions of this country. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that that evil, even as regards Home Rule, has been confined to this side of the House. If it has existed at all, and I admit it has, it has just been as rampant on the benches opposite, and in Divisions of hon. Members opposite, as from any other side of the House. Hon. Members must remember this, that they cannot begin to pick and choose how to apply partisan or revolutionary methods. Let me take revolutionary methods. We are told, of course, that a big strike, like the recent railway strike, cannot be mentioned in the same breath as the disturbances that are threatened in Ulster, and that in Ulster you have got historical conditions stirred up, and you have got passions and racial enmities stirred up and political feelings. The right hon. Gentleman says he is not quite prepared to say whether they are well founded or not, but he is prepared to swear they are there, and that the Ulster people think nothing but evil is going to happen to them if they are to be handed over to a Parliament in Dublin, and he says that that is an event of such a special character that all the ordinary rules and operations of civil society must be suspended, and the suspension condoned by the Tory party in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Surely that was the argument. At any rate, that is how it strikes me. But if a million men come out with the iron of poverty right away into the centre of their souls, feeling that the whole of the future of their wives and children depends upon their coming out,
    98
    feeling that they have been unjustly dealt with by the employers, by the State, by the law courts, by the legislator—feeling all that quite honestly, I am not going to say whether they feel it justly or not, but I know that they feel it honestly—then the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that the Ulster position is absolutely and essentially different from that, and that whereas the Government ought not to be encouraged to coerce Ulster, they ought to be encouraged to send the Army to shoot the men who come out. I know that some hon. Members opposite will resist that. But that is the whole point; because, whilst hon. Members laying down the revolutionary doctrine will say that it can be applied to Ulster, I, from my point of view, with my experience, and with my different view in selecting important from unimportant political questions, would put such a strike far and away ahead of Ulster as justifying that course.
    On what common ground are we to discuss this matter? I hope I may claim that it is possible to stand on common ground, because if that common ground is departed from, then farewell to all the social maxims that keep society together. Let us once say that an appeal to force is going to be an habitual event when masses of people have their souls, so to speak, stirred up in rebellion against conditions, or when their political fears stir them right to the very centre of their spiritual being, and that under those circumstances you may apply your revolutionary doctrine, where do we stand? It means that the right hon. Gentleman applies it when it suits him; it also means that I apply it when it suits me. Therefore, what is the only common ground upon which we can stand? If I might presume I would add this appeal to the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman himself made—can we not discover that common ground? The common ground is that both of us should agree that that doctrine ought not to be applied, at any rate under present circumstances. The theory of civil war and the theory of revolution remain. I heard some people the other day condemning the American Colonies for rebelling. Such an opinion is held, but I do not think it need be taken into account. Under certain circumstances I dare say there may be rebellion. But those circumstances surely cannot be circumstances that arc carefully worked up through threats and through organisations, circumstances that depend altogether upon fears—fears which have not been realised and may never be realised,

    99
    fears to which the right hon. Gentleman himself would not commit himself to-day and say that they are substantial.
    Mr. BALFOUR: That is the second time the hon. Gentleman has suggested that I do not agree with the Ulster people. I heartily agree with them.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning that he did qualify his statement, and it was on that qualification that I was speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Surely that drives me back upon this position. He thinks this is justified in Ulster, and that justifies me more than ever in taking up the attitude I do regarding these Army officers. It drives me back to this. There are simply hundreds and thousands of people, trade unionists in particular, saying it, and, what is worse, thinking it to-day, that these men are prepared to shoot down trade unionists on strike because their prejudices are against trade unionism, but they will not do their duty in Ulster because their class bias is against it, and their political prejudices are outraged by it. That is the position in which we are placed. I cannot contribute anything more. I think it is necessary to have contributed that, because it is a very important element for everyone who does not take a partisan view of the present situation. Of course we will go into our Lobby; we will support the Government. [Laughter.] Certainly. There has never been any doubt about it. Hon. Members opposite are now sailing under the banner of syndicalism, but I do not think we need live in a fool's paradise. We are in favour of Home Rule, and we want Home Rule carried. But surely it would be very much to the good of everybody, to the good of society as a whole, and to the credit of this House, if we try to settle this matter without backing up officers who refuse to do their duty, and without turning us away from the threshold of this House and telling us that these men are prepared, with your sanction and approval, to shoot our people down and that you are going to support them in their present refusal.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not apologise to the House for asking it to accompany me from the North of Ireland to the remote North of Scotland. We have heard from right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the real reason why they resist the Government's desire to give Home Rule
    100
    to Ireland is that the people of Ulster have a conviction which may be summed up in the statement that they desire to remain under the flag under which they have remained for many a long day. The conviction—and it is their sole conviction—of the humble crofters, who are unlike Privy Councillors who are not arrested, is that they should be allowed to remain upon the land of their fathers. During last week eleven humble crofters, some of whom had never before left the Island of Lewis, and some of whom had never seen a train until they saw the train which carried them to prison in Edinburgh, were deported by a ruthless Government. What for? Because they petitioned for land nearly twenty-eight years ago when the Crofters Act was passed, and they petitioned again, constitutionally and repeatedly, three years ago, when the Small Landholders Act was passed—first of all to the proprietor of the land, then to the Congested Districts Board, and, lastly, to the Board of Agriculture. On every occasion the petition was refused. Then, because they could remain no longer landless, having remained landless for so long, they went on to a farm, called the farm of Reaf, without damaging it; they removed the cattle and sheep quietly without even attempting to maim them, and they settled upon the farm. They were interdicted by the Court of Session, and because they have broken that interdict they are taken to the capital of Scotland and there sentenced in the High Court of Judiciary to six weeks' imprisonment.
    6.0 P.M.
    I cannot congratulate the Secretary for Scotland upon the reply behind which he shelters himself. He says that these humble crofters were sentenced because they acted in contempt of the High Court of Scotland. In theory, that is perfectly true. But I should have thought that to any person like the Secretary for Scotland, who himself has been in the Island of Lewis and who has had that journey across the Minch in a wretched little boat like the "Sheila," any contempt of Court would have been purged by even that experience. But what is the real fact? The real fact, surely, is that you find the Secretary for Scotland and the High Court of Judiciary punishing men for taking possession of land which they were entitled to possess, because constitutionally and repeatedly they attempted to possess it. In 1911, even before the Act was passed, they applied to the Board of Agriculture; they

    101
    sent in their application, but no attention was paid to it for two years. Even then all that was done was that a Commissioner was sent to view the farm, and they were told that because the farm was under £80 rental it was a statute farm, and therefore could not be broken up. But it is a well-known fact, and my right hon. Friend ought to know it, that this provision appears in the Small Landholders' Act, Section 7, Sub-section (16):—
    "Except by agreement a new holder shall not be registered (a) in respect of any land being or forming part of a farm, not exceeding 150 acres, occupied by a person who has no personal interest in any other farm"
    and so on. And then comes the proviso:—
    "Provided that nothing herein contained shall operate to prevent the registration, otherwise than by agreement, of two or more new holders in respect of the whole of such farm not being a farm wholly or mainly pastoral where no other land is available in the neighbourhood of any existing village or township."
    6.0 P.M.
    There is no dispute at all that there was an enormous demand for land among these landless cotters and squatters of this locality. There was no attempt made by the Board of Agriculture to secure any land in that locality, even though the Board had the power under this Section not only to secure more land but to secure this very farm, because there was no other farm available. When the summons was first of all served upon these poor men they did not realise what it meant. I visited them in the Calton Prison on Saturday morning, and found eleven of them there dressed in prison garb. I was told that when they were served with the notices of the breach of interdict, a man called a messenger-at-arms, from Edinburgh, came to them. This man did not know a single word of Gaelic. When these men were served with this summons to appear at the High Court of Judiciary, the answer which they gave to the man was out of the kindness of their Highland hearts to offer him hospitality. They did not know then what the result of their action was.
    My grievance against my right hon. Friend is this: That when these men were tried and were asked to give an undertaking that they would never enter upon that farm again, there was, and has been, no attempt by the Board of Agriculture to come forward and assist them to give that
    102
    undertaking by saying that the Board would in the immediate future provide them with land upon which they could live. These men are, to the very backbone, all related to the forces of this Empire. From that remote Island of Lewis alone there are 4,000 men at the present moment who are serving in the fighting forces of the country. Because of a mere technical blunder, through the ignorance of these people, the Secretary for Scotland is perfectly prepared to see the best blood of the Empire being driven to an unfriendly country or across the sea. Why? Because he does not force the Board of Agriculture to perform their duty and provide these men with that land which constitutionally they have asked for during the last three years. I do ask the Secretary for Scotland now, before it is too late, before he drives more of the best blood of the Empire abroad to the Colonies, before we encourage them to go forth, to consider whether he should not now make it possible for these men to be released at once. If we accept the doctrine of hon. Members opposite, that the warders no doubt are of the same kin as the men in prison, and we believe that these men have been unjustly cast into prison—accepting that doctrine which we heard enunciated from the other side of the House to-day—the warders of the prison would be perfectly entitled to set these men free.
    We stand here a united Scottish front, and we demand that these men shall be treated with justice. We demand that these men should be released, and released on honourable terms. We have to lay this case before the Secretary for Scotland, and say that he must now give us a guarantee that these men will have the land for which they have legitimately and honourably asked. There is plenty of land available for them in the Island of Lewis. The right hon. Gentleman has got powers under the Act to give them the land they require. Under that Act there has been no single small landholder instituted in the North of Scotland, although the Act has been in operation for three years. That is a scandal which no speech from the Secretary for Scotland can ever cover over. Here he is satisfied to allow the Board of Agriculture not to perform its duty, without, so far as I know, ever raising his voice to protest against the dilatoriness of that Board; against a Board the members of which are accepting

    103
    handsome salaries, even though the demand and clamour for land in the North of Scotland has been enormous. The Secretary for Scotland, so far as I know, has never raised his voice in or out of this House to urge them to perform their duty, and by all means to provide land so as to keep the best blood of the country within its shores. Nothing will efface from my mind the scene which I saw in Calton Gaol on Saturday morning. When you see an old man of seventy years, and young men who at any moment are ready to fight for their country, instead of having the opportunity of being attached to the soil, miserable and poor though it be, to fight the battle of life on an ungrateful soil and a relentless sea, when you find them forsooth, in a gaol, somebody has got to answer to the Members for Scotland, and somebody has to justify the action of the Board of Agriculture, and I ask the Secretary for Scotland to justify that action.
    Mr. HOGGE: My interest in this particular matter is somewhat close and personal, because a certain number of voters for the constituency of my hon. Friend has been transferred to mine without any voting qualifications. We are extremely concerned that we should have some proper explanation of why these men have been detained in prison from the evening of Thursday until now. The Secretary for Scotland has no excuse in this matter. He was perfectly aware of what was going on about a month ago. He had information sent to him from the agent who was employed to defend these crofters telling him exactly what were the facts. The excuse that has been offered in reply to questions put on these benches has been confined entirely to the fact that this particular farm is statute-barred. My hon. Friend has shown that that is not the case. Apart altogether from agreement, the Secretary for Scotland knows that you can take that kind of land compulsorily. My right hon. Friend shakes his head. I hope he will be able to shake the Sub-section out of the original Act as effectively. Undoubtedly there it stands. Assuming, however, that such were the case, the further fact remains that the proprietor of this particular farm has been and is perfectly willing to sell it to the Government. The Government have bought farms before in those islands in the North-West of Scotland. There is also a history connected with land reform there which is known to
    104
    every Scotsman in the House, and which I need not recount. It surely might have been possible for the Secretary for Scotland, knowing all these facts, to have instructed some official in Edinburgh, or, for the matter of that, to engage the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General to make some kind of appearance in the Scottish Court and so prevent eleven men, absolutely unaccustomed to proceedings of this kind, being committed to prison.
    I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to picture to yourself what it means to these men. They are far removed from even the shores of Scotland; that is, from the mainland of Scotland. As a matter of fact, some of these islands—not this particular island—are cut off from communication from the mainland for long periods of time. In one case brought before the notice of this House, one of these particular islands was isolated for six months at a time. No literature reaches these men. They never see the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House. They do not know at all what is going on on the mainland unless it is communicated to them from time to time by the minister, or the missionary, or the school teacher. These men, forsooth, are brought across from Lewis to Edinburgh, and in the Court of Session, with all the paraphernalia which exists, they are practically brow-beaten from a legal point of view, and are committed for contempt of Court to a gaol which stands for all that is reprehensible in the life of Scotland, and in which, by the way, all kinds of criminals are kept. We consider that an insult to the peasantry of our native country. We consider it a gross insult that these men should have been not only committed to prison, but should have been forced to wear the ordinary convict garb. When we heard from the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, who took the trouble—and we were all delighted at it—to go to this prison and interview the men who are reduced to sitting in a cell in convict garb because of only asking to be allowed to live on a piece of land they have known from childhood, well, I say the Secretary for Scotland has got to have some good excuse why these men have been sent there before we are prepared to accept any explanation at all. The only thing that will satisfy us before we dine with the right hon. Gentleman tonight—as we are invited to do—is that he shall release these men absolutely from that prison, and that they shall be allowed to return to that home from which they have been dragged.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I certainly should like to add my voice to what has been said from my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty and the Member for East Edinburgh. It is within the knowledge of the House that these people belong to an extremely poor class, and it is absolutely essential in the interests of Scotland and of the United Kingdom that we should in every way give them a reasonable opportunity of living on the soil of their country, instead of their being obliged, as I am afraid they often are, to emigrate to some other part of the British Empire. I hope my hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland will be able to give us an encouraging reply. These men ought to be at the present time on their own land, looking after their farms.
    We debated a Bill here the other day asking for an improvement of the Small Holdings Act, and we then did all we could to impress upon the House of Commons the necessity for such improvement. The fault we find with the Small Holdings Act—and we want to impress it on the Secretary for Scotland and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland—is that the machinery is too limited, that the money is too small, and that the principle of settling the people on the land where they have always lived, is too much hedged in with difficulties in carrying out the Act. We asked the Secretary for Scotland to recognise the absolute necessity for amendment by the Bill that we brought forward the other day. We ask the right hon. Gentleman now in the first instance, to sympathise with us, and with the people in Scotland. I take this opportunity of reminding the House of the need for a spirit that will continue the loyalty of those people who are so hard working and well behaved, and whose families have helped, not only to fill the ranks of the Army, but to populate the Colonies as well. These people are very hard working members of the population. I earnestly hope that the Secretary for Scotland will adopt the line which I think he ought to adopt, seeing that the machinery we have at present under the Small Holdings Act is too slow as the result has shown, and is in many respects too costly. I hope and trust when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will be able to say that this particular case will have immediate attention from the Board of Agriculture, and that no difficulties will be put in the way of carrying these matters, which every friend, and the Army,
    106
    and every friend, not only of the United Kingdom, but of the Colonies, would be most anxious to see as soon as possible carried into effect. I hope my right hon. Friend in his reply will take the lines suggested.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I think it is germane to the subject on which the adjournment of the House is moved to call attention to the extraordinary licence that is allowed to Privy Councillors, Members of this House, and Members of the House of Lords in Ulster, and the severity with which the law is enforced against the poor and humble crofters in Scotland. It is said that feeling is very strong in Ulster with regard to the political situation at the present time, but feeling is strong in the North of Scotland. The complaint, and it is of the essence of the case in Ulster, is that the Protestants, by the Home Rule Bill which is now before Parliament, are being driven out of the Union, and that if they are placed under the power of an Irish Parliament they will suffer injustice. Opinions may differ as to whether they are being driven out of the Union or not, but the question as to whether they will suffer injustice under an Irish Parliament is a hypothetical question. They are not suffering injustice. They are only actuated by a fear that they may suffer injustice; but the feeling in Scotland, right through the Highlands, has a much more substantial basis—it is not due to fear or apprehension, it is due to actual facts. In these congested districts of Scotland people are threatened not only with being driven out of the Union, but are being driven out of their country. They are not allowed to live on the land on which they were born, and which is associated with the history of their fathers. They are being driven into exile, not by any decision of the Imperial Parliament of these realms, but by the action of landlords who have this power, and who deny to the people the right to live and earn their bread on the land where they were born.
    These men who have committed this illegality and who seized this farm, and who have in their ignorance of the language disobeyed the injunction of the Court are in a condition of starvation, of real physical need, and they are only kept up by the charity and by the assistance of their friends; and many of their kinsmen who were serving in the Army, in the Fleet, and in the prison service, are now being used to coerce them. I say when

    107
    we remember that fact, when we remember that the Army, so far as it is recruited in Scotland, consists largely of men from the same neighbourhood, and other neighbourhoods where similar needs exist, and when we consider that the police force consists largely of a class drawn from these very men, what are these people to think of the incitements delivered to-day from the Front Bench opposite? It certainly would be wrong if any member of the Army or of the police force or the prison service in Scotland should refuse to administer the law, but when they hear this doctrine preached from the benches opposite to-night who can blame them if their passions overcome them and if they allow themselves to be stirred by the real grievances of their kith and kin whom they have helped to support in their state of starvation? It may be asked, "Why should they not emigrate or go to some other part of the Empire?" But it must be remembered that these men can hardly speak English, and emigration is no help and no remedy. I join most heartily in the appeal which has been made to the Secretary for Scotland. I do not make any charge against his administration of the law—I do not claim that the law should not have been enforced or that the law should not have been vindicated—but I ask him, now that the law has been enforced and has been vindicated, to consider the licence that has been accorded to those who are giving a direct incitement to law-breakers in Ulster, and, now that he has got plenty of precedents in his hands for leniency and toleration, to exercise the prerogative of mercy, and to allow these men back to the land from which they came.
    Mr. BARNES: I represent, in this House, a Division of Glasgow—an urban area—and therefore it may be thought that I have no business to intervene in the matter which concerns people in the North of Scotland. But I join most heartily in the appeal that has been made by my hon. Friend to the Secretary for Scotland, not only to consider this matter, but, as has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken, in considering this matter to take the view that the law has already been sufficiently vindicated, and that these men should be released and be allowed to go about their business and to earn their living. The seriousness of this matter can scarcely be realised by those who have not studied the figures for Scotland in the last
    108
    few years, and do not know the effect of this sort of thing which we are now discussing upon the industrial conditions of Scotland, and even upon the urban areas. I do not know whether it has already been mentioned in the course of this Debate, and if so it will bear repetition, that during the few years of this century the stream of emigration from Scotland has increased at such a rate that it is now almost equal if it does not exceed the emigration from Ireland in the days of the so-called famine.
    In the first year of this century, if my memory serves me right, the excess of Scotsmen going away from Scotland over people coming in was 900, and last year the figures of emigration went up to 46,000. I do not know what the figures from Ireland were after the so-called famine. I am now told there were 400,000. Well, if that be so, we do not want to get up to 400,000 in Scotland, and we think that 46,000 per year is a figure that ought to sink deep into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland in such a way as to induce him to take some definite action in this matter. I represent a Division of the City of Glasgow, and it so happens that many of those poor people, forced from the soil on which they have not been able to get a living, are now living in the centre of the city of Glasgow, and are intensifying the contest for employment. Therefore, although I do not represent a sparsely populated area, I represent a part of Glasgow which is vitally affected by a question of this sort. I was one of three who voted for a much more drastic measure than we have now got. I only wish these three had been thirty, and that would have prevented that which is now taking place. We do not want to enter into the question as to the measure of the offence of these men. I suppose we are all willing to admit that they did commit an offence. After all, it ought to be in favour of these men that they did not know the language of the Court in which they were convicted, and possibly they did not know anything about the offence, because there was no interpreter to put their case. Having regard to all these circumstances, and to the statement we have had from the other side in regard to those in high places, I join in the appeal, in fact, I almost say in the demand, that these men should be released as speedily as possible.
    Mr. MORTON: I should like to join with my hon. Friend who brought this matter forward in asking that leniency

    109
    should be shown towards these men. The real difficulty is that the Board of Agriculture have done nothing in this matter. I do not want to blame the Secretary for Scotland too much, but he is the master of the Board of Agriculture, or at least he ought to be, and he ought to put his foot down, and say, "You shall bring forward schemes for dealing with the land in order that people may be able to get a decent living." It is not as if there was no land there, because there are hundreds of thousands of acres in the Highland counties which might be made available for small holdings, for increasing crofts, or creating new crofts. You have in the Library here maps prepared for Royal Commissions showing land to the extent of millions of acres, and proving that there is plenty of land in the Highland counties which would enable these people to get a living, and prevent all this emigration.
    I hope the Secretary for Scotland will use his influence and his position to free these men at once, because that is what we want. We want them treated in a humane and civilised manner. We do not want to compare their circumstances or ours with what occurs in Ireland, but we do say that these men have not had a fair trial, and that they ought not to have been convicted at all. I hope that some of these hundreds of thousands of acres of land will be speedily given to the people who know how to make use of them. I do not know why the Board of Agriculture is so tardy in doing its work. Is it a fact that they do not want to do any work? Apparently they put every possible obstacle in the way of getting the land. I am interested in the representation of the adjoining county, and I do not know how soon some of my Constituents may be locked up because they are already threatening to take possession of the land. I hope something will be done to prevent anything of that sort happening in Sutherlandshire. For these reasons I join heartily and sincerely with my hon. Friend in asking that some leniency may be shown towards these poor men.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I do not think that all the facts have been placed before the House in regard to this case. It is not a fact that this part of Scotland has been neglected by the Board of Agriculture, nor is it true that this particular case has been neglected. One hon. Member said that I had heard of this case a month ago. I
    110
    have heard of it many months ago. The Board of Agriculture sent down a Commissioner to deal with it some considerable time ago, and all the facts were made known to these particulars cottars or crofters. When the first raid upon this farm took place, and the cattle were driven off, a Gaelic-speaking Commissioner was sent to explain the matter fully, and to point out that they would gain nothing by breaking the law, and he stated to them the reason why this particular farm could not be taken for their particular benefit. Of course, we all know what the condition of things is in Lewis. Anybody who has visited there must have been sadly impressed by the state of affairs. You have not enough land, or anything like enough, to satisfy the people of Lewis. The difficulty is that they choose a particular piece of ground, and they will have that and nothing else. One can sympathise with them, but it makes the solution of the problem of settling them in a manner that will result in anything like prosperity an extremely difficult one.
    When I first heard about this case I inquired into it, and I was told two things. First of all, that the Board of Agriculture had twice sent down their expert officials to look at this land, and they came to the conclusion that it was not suitable land for small holdings, nor likely to bring prosperity to those who occupied it. The other thing—and this absolutely answers the charge of neglect on the part of the Board of Agriculture—was that under the Act they are not entitled to take this land. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes they are."] Surely it is not the intention generally that we should turn one small man off and put two other small men on. This is a little farm with a rental under £80 a year. In view of the congestion in the Island of Lewis, we might have thought it right if this had been a suitable farm, and not Statute barred, to take a small farm like that and divide it up among small holders. But this farm was Statute barred, and it is no use talking about the neglect of the Board of Agriculture in the face of these facts. They have done their best to assist these men. We have asked them not to commit illegal acts, and not to cultivate the farm illegally.
    The other point is the question of the offence for which these men were sentenced. They have not been sentenced for having desired this farm, or even for having driven the cattle off it, or having

    111
    squatted upon the land. I have read the newspaper report of the trial, and one thing apparent is that the Court was most anxious to avoid punishing these men, and no one could read the report and come to any other conclusion. The agent for the landlord says that if these men will promise not to disturb the tenant, and not to drive off the cattle or sheep, he will not press the case, but the men refuse to obey the order of the Court. Their counsel, at the request of the judge, asked the men individually if they would give an undertaking to obey the order and not commit this offence again, and he came back into court and said that none of the men would give the undertaking required. That is the position. Those men are sentenced because they will not obey the order of the Court, and I do not think comparisons and parallels are very convincing. I ask my hon. Friend who raised this question whether he will not make it his duty to go to these men and advise them on this matter, because I am sure they will take his advice. I hope he will advise them to submit to the order of the Court, and then this difficulty will be at an end, and at any rate I shall feel very sympathetic towards these men. We are all very sorry for them, but this is a clear case of the men refusing to obey the order of the Court, and there is nothing else in it. I think hon. Members will see that there is nothing in this case to justify talking about a ruthless Government. I am certain that the Board of Agriculture has not been negligent in regard to this case.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There are several points with which the right hon. Gentleman has entirely failed to deal. I have considerable sympathy in this matter, because the Scottish legislation dealing with it has been taken from the Irish example, and I believe it was an Irish Member who proposed the Amendment fixing the period of years. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a Section of the Act which excludes the particular farm in question; but he has not mentioned the fact that the landlord offered to sell this farm to the Board of Agriculture, and that the Board of Agriculture have therefore failed to meet this particular demand. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that they had not the money we could well understand it, but by the course he has taken he has entirely failed to battle with this particular point. We made the law of Ireland such
    112
    that a person sent to gaol for contempt should be treated as a first-class misdemeanant, and now we find these Gaelic speaking peasants in Scotland who have been respectably conducted men all their lives, arrayed in prison garb because they do not understand the case. Why did you not mete out the same treatment to Sir Starr Jameson, who placed a whole continent in disorder? I am amazed that with regard to respectable and decent men the Government do not say, "We will give you the same as you would have got if you had been born in Ireland instead of Scotland."
    I see an enormous similarity between General Gough and the case of these peasants. The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that it is no use drawing parallels and analogies. In this House parallels and analogies are the breath of our nostrils, and it is by them that debate is conducted. There is the case of General Gough. He breaks the law and he defies the King's Government. He is a man of station, he is a man of intellect, and, what is more, he is at the head of five or six hundred or a thousand men, and he has given a bad example to every one of these men. How has the case of General Gough been met? He is not hauled to a prison in Dublin Castle; he is brought over to. London; he is fêted here in London; he is coaxed, and then, apparently, as far as we can make out, he is sent home patted on the back by the War Office. There is a rumour—I hope it is not true—that he has got a written guarantee that he will not be asked to obey the War Office on the next occasion they desire his service. I do say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I do say that these crofters of the Island of Lewis, men who are starving, Gaelic-speaking men, are entitled to at least as much consideration as this gallant gentleman. We are told to-night that there are 4,000 men from the Island of Lewis serving in the forces of the Crown. That is a very remarkable statement. I wonder whether they will draw an example from the conduct of General Gough. I wonder whether the Scottish Highlanders in the police force of Scotland, or the men who are the warders in the Scottish gaols, will turn round and release these crofters from the Island of Lewis! That is the position. Therefore I desire to say that, in my opinion, the case has been utterly unmet and utterly inadequately dealt with by the Government, and I trust that the Scottish Members, who have so powerfully urged

    113
    this case to-day, will compel the Government to distribute this land among these people, to see that these men are decently treated in gaol, and, I hope, speedily released therefrom.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I am sure that the people of Scotland, and especially the crofters, will be indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down for raising his voice on their behalf at the present time. No one who heard the Secretary for Scotland can believe for a moment that the case can rest where he has left it. There was not one single word of Sympathy throughout that speech for these poor men—misguided they may be, but at any rate honest men—in the position in which they find themselves, two of them over seventy years of age. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, when he talks to us about the limitation of his powers, Has he got power at this moment to telegraph the President of the Prison Commission to take them out of prison garb and give them their own clothing? Has he got power to do that? He has that power at this moment. I would put it to the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate has just been up at Wick demanding land for the people, but now it appears to be gaol for the crofter. Will the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to take part in this Debate, tell us if the Scottish Office have got the power to give instructions for these men to be taken out of prison garb?
    It ought not to be necessary for the Members for Scotland to draw the attention of the Government to this matter. I think it is a scandal that it should be allowed to exist for a single hour. It is not the kind of thing we expect in the House of Commons. It is not the kind of thing we get at election times in Scotland. It is then all sympathy for the crofter and for the poor people. Let us put it to the test now. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do? He has the power, as I say, to do away with the convict garb, and he has also the power to reduce the sentence. Is he going to do anything to reduce the sentence? It is six weeks' imprisonment. Is he going to reduce it to one week? Or is he going to do nothing at all? It is not enough to say that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Macpherson) ought to go up there and intercede with these men. My hon. and learned Friend has already been up there. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman go himself up there and examine into the whole circumstances? My hon. and learned Friend,
    114
    who visited these men in prison on Saturday, takes the view that they did not understand the exact questions put to them, and that if they gave this undertaking they would be immediately released. My hon. and learned Friend informs me that there was no interpreter, and that these men did not understand a word of English. How was it possible, therefore, to inform the men what the charge was and what was expected of them? The real root of the question is not their being in prison, so much as the situation which exists in Lewis itself. These men would not thank you for being released at this moment, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to deal with their social condition in their own homes.
    What is the position? There is a farm there which the proprietor is willing to dispose of, and there are men there who are willing to take the farm at a fair rent. It is about three years they first made application, and nothing has been done. I say that is a very serious matter. If the right hon. Gentleman has not got enough commissioners and sub-commissioners, why does he not ask Parliament for more? Why is it necessary to go on year after year with a willing seller and a willing buyer, or, at any rate, one willing to lease the land, and yet nothing done? Last year 7,000 people left Scotland because they could not get land to live on. That is a serious matter, and I think it ought to demand the immediate attention much more than it has done of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) said just now that had these men been in society we should have had a doctor by this time certifying that their health was in such a condition that they ought to be released. We demand that the right hon. Gentleman and the Cabinet should do something immediately in this matter. It cannot be left to rest where it is. It is not only their release we want; we want special commissioners sent there at once to settle this matter immediately and without further delay. If the Government do not take action with regard to that, I hope my hon. Friends will do everything in their power to delay the business of this House until these men are released, and, so far as I am concerned, I shall be willing to help them.
    Mr. PIRIE: The House, after the cold and unsympathetic answer of the Secretary for Scotland, will not be surprised to learn that had this matter been treated

    115
    with sympathy or with any due regard to its importance it might have been thrashed out last Friday, or, anyhow, before this. On Friday last, you, Sir, in answer to a question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) as to whether a Minister was not bound to be present when a Member put a question to him on Friday, very justly stated this:—
    "It is entirely a matter of arrangement between the Member and the Minister as to whether the Minister is here or not."
    Yes, but when the question is one in which the liberty of the subject is at stake, and when it is one of men remaining three or four days longer than necessary in prison, or of a Minister giving up his golf in order to be present, we are able to judge of the calibre and character and the sympathy of the Secretary for Scotland for Scotch interests in face of party interests. A question was put to-day by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) to the Prime Minister with regard to the salary of the Master of Horse of £2,500 a year and the salary of the Secretary for Scotland of £2,000 per year, and had not the House been so crowded and had not you the other day found fault with the number of supplementary questions, I should have asked whether it would not be more appropriate in place of one Minister for Scotland at £2,000 to have two Ministers at £1,000 each, one of whom at least would be charged with putting Scottish interests before party interests. After the eight or nine years' experience we have had of the Secretary for Scotland in this House, I think that every Scottish Member will hope that office will come to an end soon by process of devolution. During that time the office has been held by a nonentity in one case and by a fraud in another. I should like to know whether these men were asked by an interpreter or not as to their sentence. I understand that they were brought over here by the police, and that they had never landed on the mainland before. They had never seen a railway, and they had never been out of Lewis. They had never known what it was to have a criminal charge made against them. They are now degraded by having to wear prison clothes, and the Secretary for Scotland, in his answer, does not touch on that point. The disgrace to these men, even greater than being in gaol, is their having to wear prison clothes. It is a scandal. If he had at all grasped the feeling of the House, he would have said at once,
    116
    "I will make inquiry into things," but his answer was as cold and hard as the cells of the prison in which these men are placed.
    Mr. J. WARD: I think the latter part of this Debate is interesting in view of the first part. We have in this case some men who thought that the law was not being administered in the interests of the class to which they belong, and they decided, because they seemed to get no sympathy from those in authority in Scotland to squat down on a certain piece of land. They are taken, evidently after some considerable time, to the Courts in Scotland, and, if the statement that has been made by my hon. Friends from Scotland is correct, they are, after a farce of a trial, sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. The strangest part of the story—it has not been denied so far by the Secretary for Scotland—is that the Scottish Office was offered this farm by the owner. The Secretary for Scotland, in replying to his hon. Friends who raised this question, has not attempted in any way to deal with that part of the accusation.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware of having received any offer.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. J. WARD: Certainly, that is the statement that has been made, and I would point out that, though that statement has been made by his hon. Friends, the right. hon. Gentleman did not think fit even to refer to it, although it is the main part of the whole question. It seems to me that the gravamen of the whole case is in the fact that the farm was offered to the Board of Agriculture or to the Secretary for Scotland, that they neglected their duty, and thereby caused these people to squat on the farm, to defy the Courts, and get landed into prison. It would be well if a representative of the Government would answer the most important part of the case. But is not this an illustration of the kind of view we hold on all the topics we discuss? Do not our views depend on whether we happen to be Liberals, or Conservatives, or Labour men, or Socialists? Are not our views practically decided by that consideration, and is it not in pursuance of those views we come to a conclusion whether or not the law of the country should be enforced? I do not know whether the Opposition and the Government are anxious to avoid a prolongation of the Debate initiated this afternoon, but,

    117
    in my opinion, my hon. Friends on these benches would be wise in carrying on the discussion for the rest of the evening. We have had a statement made to-day that under certain circumstances the officer or authority which represents the final word in human society—and I expect we all agree that in human society law and order eventually rest upon force—whether under given circumstances, they shall decide for themselves whether or not force is to be at the service of the State. There was an observation made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) this afternoon—probably it was not intended for this side of the House—but it was made when the Prime Minister was referring to the kind of case in which society might almost be brought to a standstill by a great effort on the part of the working men of this country to secure better conditions for themselves. The Prime Minister drew a picture of a great railway strike, or, as may soon be the case, of a joint movement by railway, transport, and colliery workers, who might absolutely hold up society unless their demands were satisfied. The Noble Lord suggested that society would take great care to protect itself against a combination of that description.
    But what are the laws relating to matters of that description? They are laws which were mostly passed at a time when working men were not represented in this House. Nearly all those laws, and certainly all those relating to what one may call the rights or wrongs of labour, from the beginning of the last century—the Conspiracy Laws were altered in 1824, and modifications were made in 1870 and 1876, which enabled trades unions to be established as legal entities. But the Common or Statute Laws, the laws relating to conspiracy, were all passed at a time when we, as working men, had no voice in the legislation of the country at all. We hold we have just as much right, if once it is admitted—
    Lord HUGH CECIL: What is the hon. Member attributing to me?
    Mr. J. WARD: The Noble Lord said the case I am referring to was not the same as the case of Ireland, and he suggested that society would be entitled to repress such a movement.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I said just the opposite; I said they would not shoot men down for striking.
    Mr. J. WARD: And they would not shoot men down in Ulster, merely for protesting against Home Rule. It is only when they take to arms against organised authority that there will be any attempt thus to deal with them. So it is with us on strike. Each individual is entitled to "down tools," to refuse to render service to society. Sometimes another man comes forward and takes the job, and they think they are entitled to insist on him standing with them. If he will not listen to reason, they think they are entitled to insist by force on his joining them. Then in you come with your legions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Peaceful picketting."] Is it peaceful picketting that is going on in Ulster? I never heard you had to get bandoliers and rifles for peaceful persuasion. One can quite see that it is a peculiar axiom, the truth of which we are finding out, that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. You had a strike at Tonypandy, you had a discussion in this House, you had the Adjournment moved by the Opposition in order to call attention to the fact that the then Home Secretary, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, having heard that the civil authorities would be able to deal with the difficulty held up a train, conveying the military, at some wayside station, and declined to send the soldiers straight into the area of trouble unless he was compelled to do so. For that reason Noble Lords and hon. Members on that side of the House protested, and declared that the moment there was the slightest possibility of disturbance, the whole forces of the Crown should be at the disposal of the civil authority. Of course, the reason was that in that case only poor colliers were concerned. They were not party men in the strict sense of the term, they were not buttresses of the Conservative party. Had they been some protest might have been made on their behalf. I am bound to confess I have always felt something like the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), a bit conservative about these matters. I used to think that force should be met by force, but my belief in that is getting shaken. I begin to feel it is useless believing in it, for while it is applied to my own class, hon. Gentlemen who belong to the wealthy classes have no intention of allowing it to be applied to their class.
    Mr. CROFT Mr. CROFT rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Christchurch is not entitled to interrupt

    119
    simply because something strikes him in the argument. He must remain silent in his seat, and hear things which he may consider disagreeable or with which he cannot agree.
    Mr. CROFT: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent has all the way through this Debate been interrupting speakers on this side.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is no reason for following a bad example. The hon. Member should set a better example.
    Mr. J. WARD: I am bound to confess I am beginning to be shaken in my belief in using force against force in civil disturbances. I can quite see, if you belong to the richer classes of society you can do absolutely as you like, and that is one of the great dangers of an aristocratic Army. This danger has been brought to the attention of this House by myself and by one of the hon. Members for Sunderland, who sits behind the Government, on occasions when Ulster has not been under consideration. We have more than once called attention to the possible danger of an Army officered by only one class of the community, and that the wealthiest class, when dealing with interests which may clash with their own. We understand here to-day that the War Office have consulted with certain generals as to whether they will carry out orders. I am bound to say that the very first thing a recruit in the Army is taught, as a common soldier, is the necessity for absolute obedience to his superiors. He never gets a lecture upon the goose step to start with, unless it is drummed into his ears that henceforth he ceases to be either a Socialist, a Liberal, a Tory, or a Labour man, and is, for the future, a soldier who must obey any order given to him. He pledges his word to do that. I do not know whether officers do the same. I noticed for the first time the other day that in this matter there was a distinction between a soldier and an officer. I do not know whether the oath is the same, but I have described the training which the ordinary soldier gets, and I am positive that everybody has believed hitherto that the Army was above party. It might have aristocratic influences, but it was never affected by party influences, and could not be lead merely by the Tory party to object to a law just because the Tory party objected to it. Here, however, is a case in
    120
    point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes, absolutely. Does anyone pretend for one moment that if this had been a labour dispute, like that at Tonypandy, or a great railway strike, if common soldiers had been brought in to weight the scales against the workmen, and had declared, at Clapham Junction or some other place, that it was against their conscience to fight against their own class, they would have been taken to the War Office, have had a lecture given them, and then been asked to take on the duty again? Would common soldiers have been given that choice? No, they would have been provided with an escort at once, they would have been disarmed and court-martialled, and, most likely, sentenced to years of imprisonment, if not something worse. Is it not then the case that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor? I wonder, after all the protests that have been made in this House, that the War Minister has not taken his courage in his hands. Here is an Army, absolutely officered by rich, wealthy men, trained practically to be Unionists or Tory in politics—there is no doubt about that. A great political controversy arises between political parties, and thereupon certain of these officers throw over their allegiance to the King and say that they are going to be a law unto themselves. We have always protested against one class controlling and managing the Army in the way that it does, while the competent private soldier or non-commissioned officer is excluded from any chance whatever of holding a commission. Here was a chance for the Minister for War, and I should have imagined that he would have embraced the opportunity at once. Here was an aristocratic body of men—more aristocratic than the ordinary Line regiment, because I suppose it is impossible for other than wealthy men to become officers in one of the Cavalry regiments—who declined to obey orders, while everybody knows that there are non-commissioned officers, staff-sergeants, and others who are quite competent to take these posts.
    Earl WINTERTONmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. J. WARD: I would not suggest that the Noble Lord is any authority on the subject.
    Earl WINTERTON: Why do you always run away?
    Mr. J. WARD: The Noble Lord had better behave himself and listen to what I have to say. My opinion is that the moment these officers said they were not prepared to carry out the orders of headquarters they ought to have been dismissed, and the following morning their names should have appeared in the "Gazette," without any prospect of their being sent back. There is no doubt that these men are mere party conspirators. They are in a position where they can create any amount of difficulty for the Government later on. They are probably given positions for the purpose of creating all the difficulties they can later on. The right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to get over the difficulty by getting these men to agree to come back and take up their posts again. You should have treated them just as you would have treated the common soldier. You send him about his business. He would only be too pleased to get off without a court-martial, if he had been a common soldier disobeying his superior officer. This Debate is the best illustration that we workmen have ever had in this House that all the talk about there being one and the same law for the rich and the poor is all a miserable hypocrisy. Hon. Gentlemen belonging to the wealthy classes have no more intention of obeying the law that is against their interests than they have of flying to the moon. The law is for us—the poor men. [Interruption.] That interruption of the Noble Lord is on a par with his objection to poor men getting into the Army and holding official positions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite always look upon this House as their special perquisite. The reason they object to the £400 a year is because it enables poor men like ourselves to come here. I believe that there are only nine Members who refuse the £400. Of course, the Noble Lord is one of them, although, I suppose, that if I tried to get the list I should not succeed. I take the £400 a year because it is necessary to keep me here. The Noble Lord and hon. Members opposite are against the payment of Members for the simple reason that they know that if a man has no salary for attending this House then the whole representation of the country is left to them. We workmen have had an illustration in the Debate to-day that the laws are for us, that we are the people to obey them, but that the moment we get the authority to impose our will on the country in the shape of law then the aristocracy are prepared to use force in the
    122
    shape of the Army or anything else to maintain their position. The law and force are for us only; the privilege is for hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite and the class they represent in this House.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): In the very few observations which I propose to address to the House I shall limit myself simply to the question which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) this afternoon. I am sure that every Member of this House, in what ever quarter of it he may sit, must feel very great regret when he thinks of the position of these hitherto law-abiding citizens who are to-night in the prison at Edinburgh. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, especially when I recollect that it fell to my lot before I was a Member of this House, to represent the interests of the people who were known as the Vatersay raiders in somewhat similar circumstances, I, at least, am not lacking in sympathy for these men in the position in which they find themselves. But one must remember what the present position precisely is, and how it came about. These men, as has been pointed out to the House, were not sentenced because of any agrarian disturbance of which they had been guilty; they were sentenced for one reason, and one only, and that was because they had not only disobeyed the order of the Court, but because they plainly intimated, after representations had been made to them, that they would decline to give any undertaking not to disobey it again if no sentence were pronounced upon them. So far as I have gone, I have not offered any opinion upon that position, but have simply stated the facts.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the language in which that offer was made? Does my right hon. Friend realise that these men are not Englishmen but are Gaelic speaking, and that the only language they understand is Gaelic?
    Mr. MUNRO: All I have to go upon is a report of the proceedings As my hon. and learned Friend has raised that question, perhaps the House will bear with me if I inform them how that matter stands precisely. If there had been any misunderstanding about the language, then the report from which I am reading would certainly not be couched in the terms in which it is. The first thing that happened

    123
    was that the counsel for the proprietor intimated to the Court that if the respondents gave an undertaking not to repeat the conduct for which they had been hailed before the Court, he would not press for any penalty. After he had spoken, counsel who represented these men—counsel with whom I am personally well acquainted, and in whose hands their interests were safe and secure—got up and made a statement to the Court, in response to a question put by the Lord President, my learned predecessor in office, now Lord Strathclyde. The question he put to the counsel appearing for these men was:—
    "Do I understand that you have deliberately considered and refuse to give the undertaking which is asked for?"
    Whereupon, Mr. Robertson, who appeared for these men, said:—
    "I have no authority to give that undertaking."
    Lord Mackenzie, who was also sitting on the bench, this being a Court of four judges, said:—
    "I should like to understand what that means. Have you consulted each of your clients upon this matter, or do you desire an opportunity to do so?"
    The answer was that they had not been consulted individually but collectively, whereupon, on the suggestion of the Lord President, the case was adjourned till after lunch, on the footing that in the meantime counsel who represented these men should have a full and ample opportunity of consulting them, not collectively, but individually, and reporting to the Court whether or no they would give that undertaking. After lunch the case was again called, whereupon Mr. Robertson said this to the Court:—
    "I have now seen each of the respondents individually and explained the position to them, and they are unable to give the undertaking."
    It is idle for my hon. and learned Friend, after that statement made publicly to the Court by the counsel who represented these men, to suggest that they did not understand the point that was put to them, and that, not understanding the point, they had refused to give the undertaking.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I saw these men in the Court-house gaol on Saturday morning, and I spoke to them in the only language they could understand for quite a long time, and went through the case thoroughly with them. I asked them if they understood what was being asked of them, and I was told that they did not
    124
    understand it. They all told me that. May I further point out that their counsel does not understand a word of Gaelic.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have no doubt that the last observation of my hon. and learned Friend is quite accurate, and that Mr. Robertson does not understand Gaelic. All I say to my hon. and learned Friend is this: That it is very difficult to understand the statement which was made by their counsel after lunch, when he said that he had seen them individually and explained the position, and that they had refused to give the undertaking. I do not think that is a statement at all likely to have been made by responsible counsel if he thought at the time he was discussing the matter with the men that they did not understand what he said. But I will add this, in order that my hon. and learned Friend may have no anxiety on that score: I propose to go to Edinburgh myself tomorrow morning; in point of fact, I have to go to Edinburgh on official business, and if there is the slightest confusion or misunderstanding with regard to this matter, then is the time for my hon. and learned Friend, and those whom he represents, to clear it up. I shall be most happy to meet either him or the solicitor who respresents these men, and hear any representation with regard to any confusion of thought which may have occurred, and to deal with the point, and when that explanation, if it is forthcoming, is made, I shall deem it my duty to convey what has been told me by these men, or on their behalf, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. I have no doubt, if there was any misunderstanding, and if this undertaking which was asked for, and voluntarily refused, is now given, that my right hon. Friend will most sympathetically consider the case with a view to the revision of these sentences.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: What about their point of view? Are you going to send them out there again to misery? Is nothing to be done by the Secretary for Scotland?
    Mr. MUNRO: We had better deal with one matter at a time. My hon. and learned Friend is now shifting the ground on which we stand discussing this matter. That is a matter which I have no doubt will be taken into consideration. If any possible remedy can be found, I doubt not that it will be found. But in the meantime let us deal with the question of

    125
    which my hon. and learned Friend has raised—that conceivably there is some confusion on the part of these men as to whether they were asked for an undertaking or not. There need not be no difficulty at all in regard to that. I have made an offer to my hon. and learned Friend which I hope on reflection he will consider to be satisfactory. As regards the other points which were raised with regard to the attire of these men and the grade of their imprisonment, we in Scotland are not familiar with these grades, and, so far as prison dress is concerned, I am not at the moment able to say whether my right hon. Friend has or has not power to remit that no doubt ignominious part of the sentence at his own hands. With regard to that also I propose to make inquiries, and if it be found that my right hon. Friend has that power, I have no doubt at all that he will sympathetically consider this case with a view of relaxing it in the case of these unfortunate men.
    Mr. J. WARD: What about the offer of the estate to the Board? That is the point that is most important.
    Mr. MUNRO: Personally, I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend any information about that. It does not fall within my Department. I cannot tell him how that matter stands, but I have no doubt that, having been raised, the matter will be further inquired into, but my information is that no such offer in point of fact was made. I must make one thing clear—that it really must be a precedent to the exercise of clemency that the defiant attitude which has been taken up by these men, quite mistakenly perhaps, should be abandoned. In the Vatersay case, if my recollection serves me aright, the men who were concerned submitted themselves to the Court, and thereupon, I think, they got a measure of relief. If my hon. and learned Friend can persuade his constituents to do what I rather think he suggests they would have done if they understood the position—if he comes to see me in Edinburgh, or sends a solicitor who represents him to see me, and if that undertaking is forthcoming, I shall have the greatest pleasure in conveying to my right hon. Friend, who no doubt will reconsider the case most sympathetically in view of that undertaking.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The Debate which has taken place this afternoon will, I think, have convinced nearly everyone on both
    126
    sides of the House that the reply given by the Secretary for Scotland was quite unsatisfactory. We ourselves had hoped that when the Lord Advocate rose to reply, on the first occasion on which he represented the high office which he now holds, he would at least have advanced matters somewhat further, and that those of us who have been anxious regarding this question would have had some more serious attempt made to meet their case. We regret, however, that in my right hon. Friend's speech we have only had the smaller issues, and the subsidiary issues, dealt with. The question as to the undertaking to be given, which was asked for at the trial, and which the Lord Advocate now suggests might be now obtained at the instance of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Macpherson), is, after all, an extremely small matter. It is probable that had these men understood at the time exactly what was demanded of them they might then, instead of refusing the undertaking, have offered an undertaking to the Court. While that may be the case, I do not think the Government are justified in requesting the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend now to obtain that undertaking.
    What is to be the position of these men? If they give an undertaking and if they are released from gaol, are they to go back once more to the Island of Lewis to these hard conditions, with little for their subsistence, and little for the subsistence of their wives and families? Has my hon. Friend to say to them, "The Government are willing to let you out of gaol, but they have nothing to offer you by way of a remedy for your grievance?" I am quite sure that if the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland reflect upon the matter from this point of view they will see perfectly clearly that it is impossible under these conditions for my hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) to make this application to these unfortunate people. After all, the essential matter in this case is the conditions under which these men have been living, the conditions which have driven them to a breach of the law, and the conditions which have driven them to invade and trespass upon this farm. Are these conditions to continue? The question has been raised as to whether this farm should have been obtained. The Secretary for Scotland indicated that nothing could be done to obtain it, but he apparently forgot a question which was put in the House last week by my hon Friend (Mr. Hogge), and

    127
    not only did he forget that but he forgot his own reply. My hon. Friend asked:—
    "Whether he is aware that nineteen landless cottars from the neighbourhood of Reef, in the parish of Uig, in the island of Lewis, are having proceedings for interdict taken against them for having seized part of the arm of Reef; whether it is the fact that these men have repeatedly petitioned the proprietor, the Congested Districts Board, and the Board of Agriculture for land without effect; whether the proprietor is willing to treat with the Government for the sale of the farm outright; and whether, in those circumstances, something can be done to avoid the law being put in force against these men?
    "Mr. McKinnon Wood: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are in the affirmative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1914, col. 1848–49, Vol. LIX.]
    Then he goes on to raise a local difficulty in regard to the rental of the land. I think a fair reading of Sub-section (16) of Section 7 proves that even in the absence of agreement it was possible for the Board of Agriculture to have obtained this land; but, even apart from that, it was possible to obtain it by agreement. We know that the proprietor was willing to treat in these circumstances. It would have been got by agreement. The answer to the question indicated that that is so.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; we must clear this point up. The proprietor refused to treat. There is no doubt about that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: There may be some misunderstanding, but it is consistent with the answer.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Nothing else would be consistent with the answer. The answer was that we could not compulsorily take the farm. If we could have got it by agreement there would be no occasion to take it compulsorily.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The answer which I read seemed to indicate that the proprietor was willing to treat. However, I will deal with it on the basis that agreement was impossible. The proprietor states that the limitations as to size and rental do not apply in regard to registration, otherwise than by agreement, to so many new holders in respect of the whole of such a farm not in a place where no other land is available, nor in the neighbourhood of any existing village. The conditions there are that no other land is available. That being the case, it was within the power of the Board of Agriculture to obtain the land by compulsion. It is true the right hon. Gentleman said that, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, this land was not suitable for a
    128
    small holding. These people forsooth could not earn their living upon the farm if it were turned into a small holding. That may be so, but the men were prepared to take it. After all, they are not men of luxurious tastes, like the gentlemen who are members of the Board of Agriculture. They are, after all, men who are accustomed to a hard existence, and accustomed to a hard fight with nature to obtain their living, and if they were willing to take the risk, surely it was the duty of the Board of Agriculture in these circumstances to take action, and make the land available for them. In these circumstances we ask for something further now from the Scottish Office. We say that if my hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) is to be asked to go again and urge upon these men the advisability of giving an undertaking, he should have something in his hands from the Government to offer, and unless he gets something I think he will be very ill-advised and extremely foolish to do anything of the kind.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I desire to support the views of hon. Members on these Benches in regard to these men who have been imprisoned because they have seized upon the land which for so long has been promised them. I have seen this country, and I know the conditions under which these men live, and I know that for long years now some promise of redress has been held out to them. We have heard to-day of the so-called wrongs of people who feared that they were to be driven out of the Union. Many hon. Members opposite consider that people in Ulster have a right to arm themselves, and to virtually set up civil war and rebellion in that country. They claim immunity from the law as it exists to-day, and they protest if a few soldiers are moving from one part of the country to another, and they resign and refuse to do their duties. But here there are a few poor crofters who take barren land which they are told by right is theirs, and was theirs in days gone by, and law and order is at once proclaimed and enforced, and they are cast into gaol. I can see no better evidence than this of the fact put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. John Ward), that there is, indeed, one law for the rich and another for the poor. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will take very prompt action in regard to this matter. These men have had these promises held out to them for many years past, and they are in a condition of

    129
    absolute despair. What is before them is either to get some small foothold on the land, however little, or to be driven overseas into exile. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has done much in recent speeches to raise the hopes of the people that the day was coming when at last they should have the land, or some slight access to the land. Surely he can see to it that these crofters at least shall have these barren rocks. If they can wring some small livelihood from that inhospitable soil, surely they should be given a chance of doing so. I do not think hon. Members below the Gangway here in many respects can be altogether pleased with the declarations made from the Front Bench.
    I agree with the statement made by the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward) that he would have liked to have a declaration from the Minister for War stating that these officers who refused to do their duty except under certain circumstances, or tried to make terms, should be treated as the common soldier would be treated. I think any man will always have respect for the humanitarian spirit of men who are guided by that sentiment. I have the greatest sympathy with an officer or a soldier who refuses to shoot down his fellow men because of humanitarian sentiment, and because he does not desire to shed blood. But we have reason to believe that these men are not guided by humanitarian sentiment, and that they are being made the tools of the party opposite for political purposes. Not long ago we saw British officers and soldiers doing duty, not at the command of the British Government, but of the Boer Government. We saw them shoot twenty Johannesburg citizens, and wound four hundred others. They turned the streets of Johannesburg into a shamble, shooting down British workers. No humanitarian sentiment was then in evidence, and I have yet to learn that British officers refused to act, or threatened to resign, or that British soldiers laid down their arms. We have reason fully to believe that there is something far more behind this issue than merely British officers and soldiers refusing to act against Ulster. What is the position? Is not this an endeavour on the part of the Tory party to defeat the Parliament Act? We have repealed privilege by that Act. We have limited the power of the landed aristocracy to control legislation in this country. For the first time in its history this country has become a democracy in which the people have the right to rule.
    130
    But the people want to see evidence of that. They want to see the laws which this House has passed, and which we are passing, under the Parliament Act, placed upon the Statute Book. If a Dissolution by any means could be forced at this particular juncture, and the Parliament Act could be defeated, then, no doubt, it would be regarded by hon. Members opposite as excellent tactics to achieve that result. People would say, "What is the use of electing the Liberal party and having a Liberal Government if even after two elections this legislation cannot find its way on to the Statute Book?"
    I think there are many democratic forces in this country who believe that all this promotion of so-called civil war in Ireland is simply an endeavour of the Tory party to bring about a condition of affairs which, by some means or by some influence or other, exerted from some quarter or other, a Dissolution will be forced. That being the case, I am confident that the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent does represent the view of the rank-and-file of the Army and the view of the Liberal party in this country, when he said that determined action should be taken by the Government, and that officers should be treated in the way the common soldier would be treated. The workers in this country are glad to think that at last they are on the side of and can stand for law and order. They feel that no action the Government can take in this case can be too drastic for the sentiment of the democratic forces in this country. I hope that in future there will be no calling of generals over from Ireland to see that they will do their duty in such and such circumstances. I hope that the Government will realise that the sentiment of the democracy is against what has been done in this case, and that they object to the ruling of this country by a privileged class maintained by the standing Army.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I rise not to prolong the discussion at this stage, but rather to make an appeal to the House. I can assure my hon. Friend that the observations he has urged upon us are fully present to our minds, and that we will not forget one of them. My present object is to appeal to the House to bring this particular discussion to an end in order that we may proceed to the discussion of Supply. I hope my hon. Friends and the House generally will consider that this subject has been adequately treated,

    131
    and that, for the time being, we may proceed to the discussion of the Navy Estimates. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion proposed by the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I think it is very significant that this question should have been raised this afternoon, and that not a single Member of the Opposition should have taken any part in the discussion for or against the poor Scottish people. I was not here, unfortunately, to hear the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, but, judging by the commentaries made upon it by my hon. Friends from Scotland, he does not seem to have been very conciliatory in the matter. I heard the speech of the Lord Advocate, and we have, at any rate, one thing in it to congratulate ourselves upon, namely, that quite fortuitously his official duties will take him to Scotland to-morrow, and that in the interval of other pressing engagements he proposes to ask the solicitor who acted for these men whether he fulfilled his duties properly or not. There are two points upon which it seems to me we have not heard a proper explanation. One is, whether these men committed this technical offence at all. In the speeches I have heard we have been told by my hon. Friends that there is no certainty as to the charge for which they were imprisoned. The second point is this, even supposing they had consciously committed this offence, have they not adequately suffered for it? It is in the power of the Secretary for Scotland to let them out of prison. At any rate, an offence of this kind does not seem a very criminal offence in these days, and it does seem monstrous that the men should have to wear prison dress. I think the House and all who have the interests of justice at heart will be grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this matter.
    Mr. MORRELL: I do not wish to intervene in any way in the discussion of this matter between the Scottish Members and the Secretary for Scotland, because I do not understand the merits of the question. I wish to draw attention to the extraordinary position in which the House finds itself in regard to the question of the Army. During the last two Debates we have had on Ulster, we have heard from the Front Bench Opposite extraordinary sentiments expressed. We have heard the
    132
    Leader of the Opposition say that if any man refuses to serve in Ulster he is only fulfilling his duty. That seems to me nothing but a direct incitement to officers to refuse to serve for political reasons. A remarkable thing to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is, that although hon. Members opposite were very willing to interrupt in every way they could, and to make interjections across the floor of the House when the Prime Minister was speaking, there has not been, with the exception of the right hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the Front Bench, a single Member of the Opposition who has got up to support the principles they profess, and I should like to know how the Conservative party, which calls itself the party of law and order, does stand in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) made, I think, one of the most remarkable speeches that have been made recently in this House on this subject. He asked how it was possible to distinguish between a case where perhaps thousands of men come out on strike for what they believe to be their rights, and where the Army is moved to keep order, if in connection with that great industrial fight disturbance should occur, and the case of Ulster, where you have some rich men organising disturbance.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London endeavoured to justify his support of mutiny and disorder by saying that after all this is one of those uprisings and rebellions with which the Liberal party had always sympathised in the past, and that we cannot judge this by ordinary maxims. He quoted the rebellion in America, the Civil War in America, and so on. There is one great distinction in all these cases—in our own Civil War, in the case of the insurrection of the American Colonies, and in the case of the insurrection of the South—we have always had men rising against actual wrong committed—against what they believed to be actual wrongs at that time. In the case of Ulster we have a movement against the carrying of a law to which they object. That entirely distinguishes the case of Ulster from any previous civil commotion we have had in the past. These men in Ulster do not pretend to be suffering from any actual wrong. They are only afraid of what may happen after the Home Rule Bill becomes law. I say, for that reason, I am very sorry indeed that the Government have been willing to make any conditions with those

    133
    officers who came to resign. I am very sorry to hear it said, as it was said by the Leader of the Opposition, that General Gough went back to his command on certain terms, namely, that he should not be asked—that was not contradicted—to act in regard to disorder in Ulster. I should like to know whether terms were made with this officer or not. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if terms were made it will give very great dissatisfaction on this side of the House among hon. Members who have faithfully supported the Government in carrying the Home Rule Bill, and in doing whatever is necessary to maintain order in Ulster. I say it is an intolerable thing that the party opposite should be able, or that they should dare, as they are doing on this occasion, to stir up insubordination in the Army, and that they should encourage officers to take part, as they are now doing, in party politics. I hope we may have a more satisfactory assurance on this matter than we have had from the right hon. Gentleman.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer urges the House, or the only portion of the House which seems to be interested in the relationship of the British Executive Government to the British Army, to drop this vital subject and pass on to a nominal discussion on Naval Estimates, he little appreciates the feeling among those who have supported him and his colleagues since 1906. There has been no question since 1906 that has so moved the progressive forces of this House, and of this country, as this recent attempt of the Opposition to seduce the Army from their allegiance. I for one decline to accept the invitation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or of any other Minister, to refuse to express my views, and what I know are the views of my Constituents, on a subject as important as this is. I do not for a moment question the conduct of the officers concerned. That is a matter which, speaking as one who has been an officer in the Army, both in Canada and in England, I can believe it is very difficult for the House of Commons to discuss, for the simple reason that all the facts of the case which go to the roots of discipline in any Army are such, and so delicate, that it may be that they are not all before us now. At any rate I do not question the conduct of any of these officers, except to say this: If an officer is to fix terms for his
    134
    allegiance to the Crown, which means to the Government through which the Crown acts, and not to the Crown personally—
    An HON. MEMBER: It is the other way about.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not the other way about. If he has a commission in the Army, it is a commission signed by the Minister for War, as representing the Crown. The Crown never acts personally, but acts through the Government of the day, and anyone who does not know an elementary proposition of this sort should not be in the House at all. If an officer is to fix terms upon which his allegiance depends, if he at any time fails to carry out the commands of the Executive Government, I cannot believe that such officer should be allowed to draw the pay of the nation, inadequate though I admit it is—and I have said so many times in this House—and to wear the uniform that, after all is said and done, represents some of the finest days in the pages of the history of this county and of this Empire. If there be officers who qualify their allegiance, officers who say, "We are loyal to a Government of Conservatives, but not loyal to a Government when it is Liberal," I for one would back up the Government in so democratising the British Army that such a state of affairs could never arise again. But I do not believe that it has arisen now, and I do not join in the movement, even on my own side, of those who speak very scathing words about these distinguished officers. I do not think that any officer of whatever crime he is guilty, should be deprived of the pension due to him at a particular date, because the pension is for services rendered, and not for services to come. In taking that position I differ from a great many of my colleagues. My submission is on this point, that it is the set purpose of His Majesty's Opposition to seduce these officers from their allegiance to the Government of the day, and I want to give two cases in point.
    The Opposition has got inside knowledge that is not available to the rest of us, or even to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War. The Leader of the Opposition himself, with no knowledge of discipline, or the conduct of the Army, actually reads to this House an anonymous letter from an officer, he says of an Infantry regiment. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, he did not."] I do not care what

    135
    the officer's name is. My point is this: He writes this letter, knowing that it will be used to hurt, as he thinks, the Government. Is any officer worthy of the commission he holds who has committed such a breach of the oath of allegiance which he took when he became an officer of the Crown? Take the second case, which purported to be an accurate report of some words uttered by General Paget. Let us go into this closely. The first time-General Paget gave any order, it could only have been to General Gough and General Gough alone. The second orders must have been given by General Gough to the commanding officer of the three Cavalry regiments, the 16th Lancers, the 5th Royal Irish Lancers, and the 4th Hussars. They are all the Cavalry regiments in this particular Brigade with which we are dealing. To read this report, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has done to-day, sent in, he says, by an officer who heard it, is to convict General Gough, or one of the three Cavalry commanders, of one of the most contemptible actions that can occur in a military man's career. Then, when the communication was sent out in this contemptible way, for the Leader of the Opposition of the Imperial Parliament to read it out seems to me as unworthy a piece of debating as I have seen in this long, miserable business of the Ulster question.
    I protest most vehemently against that, and I think that in those two cases, as well as in many others that will occur to the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, it is as clear as possible that the Liberal Government to-day is not only fighting the sincere antipathies of people in this country and in Ireland who are opposed to Home Rule, but it has also weighted against it, and against the progressive forces of this country, an attempt to seduce the British Army from its allegiance. The Prime Minister in his admirable speech said the whole trouble with General Gough was based on misunderstanding. In spite of the jeers of the Opposition, I accept the word of the Prime Minister. But the Leader of the Opposition and the ex-Leader will not accept it. They say more: They justify the conduct of General Gough, even if he flatly and defiantly declines to obey orders. They justify this conduct and the conduct of every officer who behaves in that way now in Ireland. They justify their conduct in disobeying before a shot is fired in anger in Ulster and before there is
    136
    a sign of this rebellion, in which I for one never had the slightest faith, and which it is said is going to upset the British Empire. My contention, on the facts before the House, is that the Leader and the ex-Leader of the Opposition are doing more harm than they think of, not only in this country, but in this Empire, when they are tampering with the non-political and, I should have thought, the invincible and irrevocable allegiance of every officer and man in the British Army. Go to this phase of the subject—the broad result of the Debate to-day is this, that certain regiments in Ireland are held by the Opposition to be unwilling to obey the Government of the Empire. That can have nothing but a detrimental effect on recruiting.
    The speeches of the hon. Member for Leicester and of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent express clearly the view, and the growing view, of millions of working people of this country that the Army is to keep them down and can never be counted on to protect them and their interests. I cannot take that view myself in its entirety, but it is a growing view. I regret it, not only because it is unconstitutional and hopeless from a civilised point of view, but because it is bound to affect the recruiting of the Army. It is difficult now to get recruits, but the Secretary for War will have to do a great deal of attractive advertising before he will encourage working men to join his Army, if they believe that it will be used against them, and not for them. I believe that a second broad result of this Debate will be the collapse of the present restriction of officers to a certain class of society and to men of a certain income. I think that it is fair criticism on the Liberal Front Bench that since 1906 they have made no serious effort to democratise the British Army, to make it a career to give every man who had the love, as many have, to be a British officer, the opportunity of serving his country without a single shilling of expense to himself, and without any question as to his father, his grandfather, or any other relative. The Liberal Government has done nothing but to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question during these long years; and to that extent we on these benches have the right to criticise the Government. Nothing is more essential, if we are going to preserve law and order, than to have the Army representing not one small class of the community, but those who through merit have this very serious responsibility put upon them of

    137
    patrolling and policing the country and protecting it in time of trouble.
    What does the House think the effect of this day's Debate, and of the last few days' work in Ireland will be on the Empire oversea? As a Canadian I can say this: that since the Confederation of 1867, not one single commanding officer from this country has stayed his full term, except the hon. Baronet the Member for South Monmouthshire (Sir Ivor Herbert). They have all had conflicts with the civil powers. They have all been compelled to leave the country before their time was up, and to-day you have not a single Imperial officer serving in Canada, except one or two instructors in the Military College. In Australia—and I was there quite recently—I found a strong prejudice against British officers—I deplore it with all my heart. Speaking as a Colonial, I believe that the British officer who is in earnest about his profession is incomparably superior to the Colonial officer of the same rank, and the same arm of the Service, but the feeling in the Dominions is this, that the British officer is drawn from a class that is antagonistic to democratic ideals, and I must confess myself that it was a great wrench to me as an Imperialist and a lover of his old Home Country to find that quite recently, when the Minister of Militia in Canada had to appoint a new Commander-in-Chief, he did not consult the War Office at home as to the appointment, and the Canadian Army, for the first time in our history, has not got a single Imperial officer serving under the Canadian flag. I speak more feelingly on this question of the Overseas Empire than I could possibly on the question of Ireland, and I must confess that, when the Leader of the Opposition and the ex-Leader of the Opposition cheer officers who they thought and hoped might defy the Government, their speeches go round the British Empire and make every Dominion and every Government of a Dominion lose any love of the British Army which they may have, and render them not only more determined upon the democratisation of their Army, but more determined on democracy and democratic ideals as the best security for any State. No one could believe for a minute that this country can be secure at home and abroad if it is, as hon. Members opposite hope it is, to be ruled by an Army, and if officers, who swear allegiance to the Crown, which is the Government, forswear their allegiance and swear allegiance to the party opposite.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Perhaps it will be convenient to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will give us a day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates. It is impossible for us in the three hours that remain to discuss these important Navy Estimates. Last week we were to have a discussion on Thursday. The day was wasted. To-day we have not been able to discuss them, though the day has not been wasted. It has been useful to us in exposing the views of the party opposite. It has shown us what the country ought to know openly and frankly, namely, what the main reason for all this difficulty is. First of all, drawing in the name of the King, then the threat of force, and now the seduction of the Army. It is because for the first time in our annals a Liberal Government is going to pass a first-class measure into law without interference, and that seems so incredible a proceeding to hon. Members opposite that they are straining every nerve to prevent them. We shall have more exhibitions of this sort before the Session is out. But in the meanwhile, we have this great and important question of our Navy Estimates, which many of us on this side of the House want to have fully and freely discussed and criticised. During last week there were only two half-days, and in that time only one Liberal private Member had an opportunity of speaking. We must have a full day's discussion to be effective, and I would suggest that either Vote 8 should be put down at an early date or some Motion should be framed on which we could debate the Whole subject of the Navy Estimates, or, alternatively, that we should have the Imperial Defence Vote put down.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The suggestion of the Government, subject to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that an extra day should be given, and that the discussion may be taken on Vote 12 for the salaries of the Board of Admiralty. I trust that that will meet with the general sense of the House, it can be done so.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Will we have a full discussion on all points?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The day to be given is to take the place of that which was thrown away—[An HON. MEMBER: "Thrown away!"]—I do not use that word in a controversial sense, and I will say which was otherwise occupied—and, as I understand, the discussion could take place

    139
    on Vote 12 for the salaries or the Board of Admiralty. I believe that would raise the whole question of policy, subject to the ruling which may be given from the Chair.
    Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when that will be?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say at present, but some day soon after Easter.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Before the right bon. Gentleman leaves, may I ask him if there is any arrangement in regard to the position of the crofters in Scotland, in the Island of Lewis?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will promise my hon. Friend to look into it.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not understand me. We have discussed the whole question this afternoon, and I understood that the Government would come to a conclusion.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If I may be allowed to say a word, I may state that we are, of course, very anxious to get as many crofters placed on the land as possible, and if this particular farm is not available, we will look about to find land. We shall be very glad to do our best to get this matter settled.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are you prepared to let these men out?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to let these men out now, and is he prepared to send a Commissioner down to the island and to do his level best to provide these men with land?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We must ask that these men shall obey the order of the Court, and I cannot pledge the Court in that way. As to the second question I am quite prepared to send a Commissioner down.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): With regard to the question of order which has been raised, it is one which must be dealt with in Committee, and it is one upon which I cannot give a ruling except in Committee.
    Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

  SUPPLY.— [FOURTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 151,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, including 18,7000 Royal Marines."
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I only rise to get clearly settled this matter about the extra men. We are giving the Government Votes A, 1, 2, and 10, on the clear understanding that we have an extra and full day on Vote A, in addition to the ordinary day on Vote 8, which comes later on. May I ask if it will be understood by you, Sir, in the Chair, that, whatever Vote is put down which would be suitable, the House will be absolutely free and unfettered in the discussion which will be allowed upon it? Personally, I do not like Vote 12, because the Opposition have generally kept the salary of the First Lord for cases of emergency, and if Vote 9 is a suitable Vote on which to take the discussion, we should be prepared to agree. I would ask you, Sir, for your ruling as to whether we can have a full and open discussion on the whole question.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Before you give your ruling or expression of opinion, may I reinforce what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said. I do not mind which Vote goes down, but we want to raise the specific point specially raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) the other day as to armour, so that we are quite willing to come to any agreement, but we require it to be of such a character as to enable us to raise that question of armour. Perhaps we may leave the matter open now if we get a definite pledge that they will meét us on that point, and that the Vote put down is a convenient Vote.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I do not think there can be the slightest difficulty in meeting the wishes of the House in this respect. The actual choice of vehicle we should use for the purpose of the discussion may, I think, be left to consideration and negotiation. There is a very large field of Votes, and there will be no difficulty whatever in choosing a Vote which, in consultation with the Chair, will enable ample, full and free

    141
    discussion to be raised over the whole field and area of naval policy. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that there shall be another day in substitution for this day, and in addition to the ordinary day for Vote 8 which comes on usually in July.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Before this question is settled, let it be made clear that whatever Vote is put down on this particular date, it shall be a Vote that concerns the men in Lewis, who are in the Navy Reserve, in order that the House may hear what the First Lord, who is a Scottish Member, has to say about those men being driven off the Island, and therefore out of the Reserve, and confined in gaol.
    The CHAIRMAN: There are, of course, a number of precedents for taking the discussion which is usual on Vote A on other Votes, and that course is taken when special circumstances arise such as have
    arisen on the present occasion, and as Chairman I shall have no difficulty in assenting to the suggestion made from both sides of the House, and that whatever Vote is set down, whether it be Vote 9 or Vote 12—and I think it need not be decided at the moment, though I should have thought Vote 9 was the more suitable for the purpose—when that Vote is set down, I shall allow as wide a discussion as would have been open on Vote A. That is the usual arrangement, and that is what I propose to carry out.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: As a rule we have a full discussion on any subject connected with the Navy Estimates on the First Lord's salary, and if we take Vote 9, shall we be able to have a general discussion?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes 217; Noes, 35.

    Division No. 52.]

    AYES.

    [8.29 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Dillon, John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Donclan, Captain A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Doris, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Armitage, Robert

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Joyce, Michael

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Duffy, William J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kelly, Edward

    Barton, William

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Falconer, James

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Leach, Charles

    Boland, John Pius

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Field, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lundon, Thomas

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    McGhee, Richard

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Maclean, Donald

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwick)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

    M'Kean, John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hackett, John

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Middlebrook, William

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Crooks, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Molloy, Michael

    Crumley, Patrick

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Culliman, John

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Mooney, John J.

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

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morison, Hector

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hinds, John

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Muldoon, John

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Delany, William

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Tennant, Harold John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Scarborough)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Reddy, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterfard)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Dowd, John

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Webb, H.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    O'Malley, William

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Rowlands, James

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    O'Shee, James John

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Williams Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T McKinnon (Glasgow)

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

    Sheehy, David.

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Radford, George Heynes

    NOES.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Snowden, Philip

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hogge, James Miles

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hudson, Walter

    Thomas, J. H.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Brace, William

    Johnson, W.

    Wardle, George J.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Clough, William

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Glanville, H. J.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Pointer and Mr. Richardson.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS, SEAMEN, AND BOYS, COASTGUARD, AND ROYAL MARINES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,800,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    Mr. J. HOGGE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    There are certain observations which come to one in connection with this particular Vote which are very serious in view of the Debate that we have had to-day. If what is true of the Army is also to be potentially true of the Navy, it is increasingly important that there should be the fullest opportunity for all the men drawing wages from the Admiralty to rise from the post of common sailor to that of Lord High Admiral of the Fleet. We have no assurance that the system which at present obtains in the Navy affords such an opportunity. I do not think that we can reasonably be asked to vote to-night with-
    144
    out a word of discussion a sum of so many million pounds because although, presumably, it would not be in order to discuss the wider question of whether or not you can get at these wages sufficient men to man the Fleet that you have, or the potential Fleet that you may have, there is the extremely important question of the encouragement of men to join the Navy. For instance, take the town which I represent. Edinburgh is not a seaport itself, but it is adjacent to and connected with the seaport of Leith. It is very important that we should be able to recruit men for the Navy from both those towns. I happened to be in Edinburgh a short time ago, and after great effort I discovered the recruiting office of the Admiralty. Instead of being in any way adjacent to the population that one might expect to join the Navy on the wages advertised in the windows of the recruiting office, I found the office tucked away Under the shadow of Edinburgh Castle, in a street through which not more than a few hundred pedestrians pass each day. I asked myself whether this was the up-to-date method in which the Admiralty

    145
    propose to recruit Scotsmen for the Navy. As a matter of fact, the average Scotsman has a prejudice against joining the Navy. That prejudice is one that ought to be overcome. I cannot for the life of me see why the Admiralty should not transfer their office from the place where it exists—
    The CHAIRMAN: This appears to be a matter which should have come on the Vote that we have just passed. It is only on that Vote that the wider discussion can take place. Here we are dealing only with the question whether we shall pay the men whom we have already decided to engage for the year.
    Mr. HOGGE: I submit respectfully to your ruling. But am I not entitled to discuss on this Vote, not the wider questions which might arise, but the method used by the Government to obtain the services of men? After all, that is a question of wages.
    The CHAIRMAN: It would have been in order on Vote A, and will no doubt be in order on the substituted Vote which it has been arranged to take on another occasion. But it is certainly not in order on Vote 1.
    Mr. HOGGE: If I may not pursue the question of recruiting, may I turn my attention to the Royal Marines? It is extremely important that the Admiralty should bear in mind the fact that, in Scotland, a very large number of the men who belong in any way to the Naval Service, belong to the Royal Marines. I think we are entitled to claim for these men considerations which are riot meted out. You find, for instance, that in the Island of Lewis, which has been referred to for several hours this afternoon, that no fewer than 4,000 of the male population belong to either the Naval Reserve, the Territorials, the Royal Marines or the Army. You find that this Government has so much sympathy with that small island that produces 4,000 men to whom they pay wages, that by way of making a bold move on the land question they lock these men up.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be making a second speech following one he made on another Motion this afternoon.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is astonishing to me that when so many millions of pounds of public money are to be voted
    146
    that you see the benches opposite absolutely destitute of all but a solitary Member, who is sitting right at the back. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, I protest against a Vote of this magnitude being hurried through during the dinner hour. There are certain items here in which personally I am deeply interested. I find on page 18 of the Naval Estimates that the Recruiting Expenses have gone up nearly £10,000 in the year. I am anxious, Mr. Maclean, to find out from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why there is such an increase in one year. We are well aware that the Army, in order to encourage recruits to join it, has had to completely change its modus operandi. We have the Army now advertising in the various newspapers, in the half-penny Press, the magazines, and even in the Labour Press, in order to induce stalwart young men to join. Is there any proposal to be made on behalf of the Naval authorities to advertise in the same way? I cannot make out from the voluminous Paper which I have got in front of me whether the Naval authorities are satisfied with their recruiting. In any case there must be some explanation.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member seems to me to be dealing with the Vote which has just been passed dealing with the number of men. I have not yet noted any reference to the wages of the men.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I point out that I am dealing with Vote 1, page 18. On that page I find—
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Do I understand you, Mr. Maclean, to rule that the question of recruiting cannot be raised on this Vote? On this page there is an item for recruiting.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I see on page 18 there is an item, Item H, Recruiting Expenses. I might have taken up the hon. Member wrongly, seeing I have just stepped into the Chair, but I understood his remarks to have reference to the Vote which has just been passed by the House.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I was referring to Item H, Vote 1, which includes Recruiting, Coastguard, etc., and I think I may very properly draw attention to this matter. In 1913 the recruiting expenses were £35,800, and I want to ask my right hon., Friend what is the cause of it? May I ask, further, whether the recruiting officer for the Navy is in receipt of a larger salary

    147
    than he has been in the past? I understand that the salary of the recruiting officer for the Army has been raised, and I want to know whether the same has taken place in relation to the recruiting officer for the Navy, and whether that would be justified by the additional Navy recruits? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is meant by Item J at the foot of page 18? Where does the money come from? I see that last year it was £138,000. This year it is less by £12,000. I want some explanation of that. Before I sit down I should like to say once more how preposterous it is that Imperial Parliament with so few sitting here should pass all these Votes. Where are all the Little Navyites? I do not see a single well-known Member, except my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. Where is the Suicide Club? I have never been identified with the little Navy clamour, but, on behalf of the public taxpayer, I want to know why this enormous amount of money is to be spent on these special branches of the Service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh, who raised the question of promotion from the ranks, may I draw his attention to the fact that the matter was dealt with very fully last Wednesday on the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." I then did my best to state what had been done in the matter. And, if I may direct my hon. Friend's attention to the Debate that then arose, he will see that this difficulty in regard to recruiting was dealt with. I understand it is not quite in order now, or I should deal with it, but I will look into the proposition—
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it in order to raise this point now, when I was not allowed to discuss it awhile ago?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I said I understood it was not in order, and I was just saying that I was therefore prevented from going into the matter, and that if it was in order I would have been glad to make a statement upon it, but, in the circumstances, I will make a note of it. With regard to the pay, we raised the pay in December, 1912, by something like £340,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty called my attention to the increase of £10,300, as shown in the Estimates. He
    148
    said, "Does that mean that you are spending more upon recruiting than you spent last year?" What it means is this: There were a number of recruiters who were paid up to the present Estimates under Subheads A, D, and E—that is to say, their pay was charged under one or either of these sub-heads. What we have done is this: We have transferred the pay of these men, who are devoted to the work of recruiting, to Sub-head H, and it is entirely a matter of rearrangement of the Estimates. We have in one respect added to the cost by the purchase of an enamel advertising poster for recruiting. If the hon. Member gives attention to these matters he will notice that poster, and he will see the better character of it, but the great bulk of the addition is due to the transfer from certain sub-heads to this particular sub-head. Then he dealt with Item J, Appropriations-in-Aid, and he said I do not understand what that is about.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I want to know why is it larger this year than last?
    9.0 P.M.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We estimated last year we would get £138,000– this year we got £126,000—that is a reduction. Let me tell my hon. Friend the sources from which we get that £126,000 in aid. It is, of course, a decrease of £12,000. In the first place, we appropriated for this Vote part of the contribution of the Government of India on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters. There is no variation in that. There is a diminution on account of the withdrawal of the "Philomel" engaged in the suppression of the Arms Traffic in the Persian Gulf. There is a decrease due to the cessation of the contributions paid by the Commonwealth Government. There is no variation in respect of the contribution by the Union of South Africa, or the Australian Commonwealth, and there is a certain increase in charge due to the increased number of men. There is no variation in respect to the amount we receive, and there is an increase of £400 in respect of coastguard buildings, for which provision is made under Sub-head C of this Vote. If my hon. Friend takes all these items together, one with another, he will see that the Appropriations-in-Aid are decreased by £12,000.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am quite sure we are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his extremely lucid explanation of

    149
    the points put by my hon. Friend and myself, but since I sat down I notice on page 18, at the foot of the third column, a little word in italics, which shows £12,000 in aid, is an Appropriation-in-Aid of this particular case. I should like to ask, does this refer to the £12,000 purloined from the coffers of the Admiralty for the pay of these men, and if that is the way in which the Admiralty recoup themselves for the money stolen in a particular way?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: What way?
    Mr. HOGGE: I understand that the Secretary to the Admiralty does not remember that this money was stolen, but surely it is notorious that a large amount of money was stolen from one of our large ships! The case went into the Police Courts, and presumably somebody had got to find the money. I do not imagine my right hon. Friend made it up himself, or found it by some method or other. I daresay he left it to somebody else to find. Apparently, at the moment, he is unable to suggest what this £12,000 is for, but me should like to have some elucidation of this question of the purloined money. I think it is an extremely bad principle to try and secure this money in this particular way. I should like to have a statement from the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the principle on which he acts in regard to the various Colonies. For instance, how do you deal with the Appropriations in India as compared with the Australian Commonwealth? There are different kinds of Colonies involved. Presumably the Australian Commonwealth would not allow us to interfere in domestic matters connected with their shores. We would have an entirely different claim in dealing with the Crown Colonies like India. On what basis are Appropriations obtained? What distinction do the Admiralty draw between the different kinds of Colonies, and how far do we lose control of what we ought to have full control of by securing these Appropriations-in-Aid from these different Colonies?
    I should like also to have some explanation of the items of purchase of discharge. The hon. Member referred to recruiting men for the Navy. Here he seems to have some money repaid to the Navy for men who leave. Obviously it is well for this House to get at the root of this particular question, because undoubtedly, if we find the cause that induces men to seek for discharge, we will obtain know-
    150
    ledge of a cause that ought to be obviated if we want to be successful in recruiting. I do not like such items as "Miscellaneous Receipts." Can my right hon. Friend tell us what £1,200 on page 23 is for? It is a sum of £1,200, three times the salary of a Member of Parliament, but not half that of a Cabinet Minister. Does that item involve such things as the cost of visits to the Navy? Does it include any money spent upon refreshments of any kind? This House ought not to be asked to pass £12,000 without a great deal of explanation in detail. Then there is an item for the stoppages of pay of men in cells. This seems appropriate on this Vote, because we have been discussing the habits of men confined in cells. What is the nature of the offence? If a sailor stops off a night without leave and is fined in any way, what difference is there in the stoppages of his pay and the stoppage in the pay of an officer attending the Goodwood meeting? I remember on one occasion one of the junior Whips on the Opposition Bench asked the First Lord if he could make adequate arrangements so that the Fleet might be within distance of Goodwood while the races were being run, and he answered by saying that he would do all he could to bring the Fleet within reach so that the officers could attend that particular meeting. I am anxious for similar privileges for the common sailor. Here you have a stoppage of pay for the men while in cells. If you put a man in a cell, why should you stop his pay as well? It seems preposterous to both fine a man and confine him in solitary confinement.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot debate cells on this Vote.
    Mr. HOGGE: Then I will leave the cell and deal with the officers and men. How much money is stopped in this way out of the pay of the men as compared with the officers? How do you deal with the delinquents? Is one dealt with in the third class and the other in the first class? I submit that this question would require to be adequately dealt with, otherwise I shall insist upon a Division.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I explained this item of £12,000 in answer to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). There is no question whatever of that being money purloined from the Navy, because I gave every detail showing the total amount. With regard to the £12,000 that was stolen, I assume it would be written off as an irrecoverable balance.

    151
    My hon. Friend asked a question about the Appropriation representing Colonial contributions. If he will look at the general Estimates he will find there a statement showing all these contributions.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is there anything in that from Canada?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think not. What we do is to take a portion of those amounts and apply it to certain Votes. For instance, we take Vote 1. Under this Vote there are certain men engaged in dealing with the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf. We take a sum representing the value of those services, and that goes to make the Appropriation-in-Aid in reduction of Vote 1. Our expectation is that we shall get £12,000 less from all those sources than we did last year. With regard to stoppages of the pay of men in cells, that is an increased Appropriation-in-Aid, because of the larger number of men in the Fleet, although I am glad to say that the number is very small.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are they put into convict garb?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why not?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Up to a few years ago, when a man in the Navy offended against military discipline, he might have been sent to a naval prison, but we have adopted the Army system of detention in barracks, under which the men do not put on any uniform but their own, and they are treated in a way which does not interfere with their self-respect. I am glad that we have substituted detention in barracks for the old system of sending the men to prison.
    Question put, "That the sum of £8,800,000 be granted for the said Service."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: On a point of Order. A reduction was moved.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no record of the reduction at the Table; but, of course, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to move, he can do so.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,799,900, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 4; Noes, 229.

    Division No. 53.]

    AYES.

    [9.15 p.m.

    Barnes, George N.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    James Hogge and Mr. Macpherson.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Field, William

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Alden, Percy

    Cowan, W. H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Crooks, William

    France, Gerald Ashburner

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Armitage, Robert

    Cullinan, John

    Glanville, Harold James

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Barton, William

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

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Delany, William

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Gulland, John William

    Boland, John Pius

    Devlin, Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Hackett, John

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Dillon, John

    Hancock, John George

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Brace, William

    Doris, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Duffy, William J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Falconer, James

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Clough, William

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charle

    Hewart, Gordon

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hinds, John

    Muldoon, John

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Sheehy, David

    John, Edward Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Shortt, Edward

    Johnson, W.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Snowden, Philip

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Jones, William, S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Dowd, John

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Malley, William

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Shee, James John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

    Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Wardle, George J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Pointer, Joseph

    Webb, H.

    McGhee, Richard

    Pratt, J. W.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Radford, George Heynes

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Reddy, Michael

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)

    Middlebrook, William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Millar, James Duncan

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

    Molloy, Michael

    Robinson, Sidney

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Mooney, John J.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Morison, Hector

    Rowlands, James

    Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

    Original question put, and agreed to.

    VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,092,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    Mr. HOGGE: I desire to move, that the Vote be reduced by £1,000.
    I want some information, particularly from the Secretary to the Admiralty, in regard to the victualling and clothing contracts, so far as Scotland is concerned. I want to know what share of the clothing that is required for the Navy is obtained from the great firms in Scotland, either in the East or in the West, because we have a very shrewd suspicion, which I think is justified by our experience in the past, that too many of these orders are
    154
    given outside Scotland. As a matter of fact, Scotland certainly has never had its fair share of the military expenditure of this country. I have not gone into this point so closely in regard to the naval expenditure as I did in regard to the military outlay, and I should therefore be immensely obliged to the Secretary of the Admiralty if he would tell us what proportion is given year by year to Scotland, and what share of the orders are so given under this particular Vote. Here is a Vote for £3,000,000 dealing with victualling and clothing—very important matters, bearing in mind physique and personnel of the men in the Navy. It has been known that boots not at all above suspicion have been supplied, and it is appalling when these vast sums of money are before this House that the Votes are discussed in the presence of only about sixteen or twenty Members of Parliament, and but four are to be found voting against the money being spent in this extravagant way. The other twelve vote in the opposite way, but the figures of the Division are inflated by

    155
    several hundreds of Members who happen to be victualling themselves at that particular moment. This is a point which should be noted by the country—that personal convenience is preferred to the discussion of these Votes. I want to know how much of the victualling and how much of the clothing contracts are given to large firms in Scotland. The claims of the small firms in Scotland ought also to be considered, because, after all, Scotland is a smaller country, and is able to effect greater economies than any other country in the United Kingdom. That, at any rate, is an accusation often thrown against us in this House. It is even reported that farthings were invented in order that Scotsmen might be generous. We might be able, at any rate, to point out to the Secretary to the Admiralty how he could reduce this enormous expenditure by giving the victualling and clothing contracts to Scotland.
    Another important point is as to the conditions under which these victuals and these clothes are made for the Navy. This is a Government that is particularly keen on securing the very best conditions in connection with any labour that is done for it. It has established certain sweating boards, and by that method improved the conditions in certain trades. I should like to know under what conditions jam and marmalade are made for the Navy. A large proportion of these contracts go to Dundee. What precautions are taken to see that the articles are of proper quality, and what do the Admiralty do to ensure, under the terms of the contracts, that proper wages are paid to the workers? Do suitable conditions of employment obtain in the various factories? Those of us in this House who cannot give time and attention to the proper expenditure of these vast sums would like an assurance from the Admiralty that we may sleep quietly in our beds and not feel disturbed in our minds regarding the position of the Navy as part of the spending machinery of this Government. We would all like some assurance on that point. I would not have asked for it had it not been for the discovery that the Admiralty proved unable to look after the housing of the men engaged in building the docks at Rosyth. We are anxious, indeed, to be sure that they look after the food and clothes of the men in the Navy.
    There are other points in this Vote that strike one as requiring explanation.
    156
    Section B, page 41, deals with the wages of "Articifers." That, at any rate, is how the word is printed, and perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty understands all about it. Then there is another item dealing with the question of national health insurance. That raises very wide questions, and I am certain the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) will be glad to inform the House, if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to do so on the spur of the moment, what success has attended the national health insurance scheme in the Navy. That is an original point which has never before been discussed. We are told by critics of the scheme that the system of weekly payments is a great drawback to men entering into it wholeheartedly, and the great complaint of the Government against the Opposition is that employers are throwing the whole weight of their influence in many parts of the country against the scheme of national health insurance. I want to know what the Admiralty is doing in that respect. I also want to know who licks the stamps at the Admiralty. Whose duty is it to lick stamps in the Navy? Obviously that is a new post which very appropriately conies under the head of "Victualling." We ought to have some explanation on that point.
    There have been many Committees set up in connection with National Health Insurance, and the Admiralty might very well appoint a Committee and secure the services of the "Enchantress" to enable it to visit various naval stations in order to ascertain how these particular duties are being carried out. I may have something more to say about national health insurance, unless I get a satisfactory explanation from the Secretary to the Admiralty. I notice that for 1914–15 the Estimate is £523, whereas in 1913–14 it was £528, that is £5 less. Has the personnel of the Navy been reduced in number? If not, what is the reason the Admiralty are paying £5 less this year than they did in 1914–15? Section C, which deals with the wages of crews on victualling yard craft, is a new subject to me. I am very much interested in it. I notice that there again the National Health Insurance Act is responsible for an increase from £86 to £103. Does that mean that more men are employed in these yards now than was the case previously? What portion of that national health insurance premium is paid in the yards at home and in the yards abroad? Why, for instance, is only £5,209 proposed to be

    157
    spent in 1914–15 on victualling yards abroad, while in 1913–14 the sum was £5,613. Does that mean that we are at peace with the world and able to effect economies in our victualling yards abroad, or does it mean that hidden away in the figure of £5,613 there was a naval crisis some time last year, when food was hurried to certain places in order to meet contingencies that might arise?
    On page 42 there is an item for wages of the Police Force. I am rather interested in the use of the Metropolitan Police Force in these yards. Would it not be much better to have all this money—altogether over £6,000 was paid—by the Admiralty doing its own policing. It is quite unnecessary that the Admiralty should secure from the Metropolitan Police Force superintendents, inspectors, sergeants, and constables, as if they were going to control a suffragette meeting instead of a naval yard. Why cannot they provide their own men to control that yard? Are the men working in the yard dishonest? Has the Admiralty found that their own supervision of the discipline and work of the men is so ineffective and inefficient, that they require to call in the Metropolitan Police to enable them to effect the order they desire? The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) suggests that the men are employed to protect the yards from outside interference. I should have thought that if the Admiralty can protect the yards inside, and, as it is one of the functions of the Navy all over the world to protect us outside, that they should be able to protect their yards quite as effectually outside as inside. I am interested from a domestic point of view in Section E. I never like gas and electric current accounts to be rendered together, and always prefer them separate, otherwise we cannot effect the economies we desire to effect even in our own households. When a man is asked to pay £3,007 for gas and electric current he wants to know on which of the two he is saving money, whether he should give up light or heat, and whether he should get rid of the antiquated methods by which we utilise gas and devote the money to modern methods of electricity. I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty has those details with him, or, if he has not, that he will send for them, so that we may govern our own domestic affairs by the experience we get in the large Department of the Admiralty.
    158
    As to paragraph (g) on page 43, there is an extremely serious point, because it deals with the cost of provisions supplied to the Fleet. The sum for 1914–15 is £1,232,050, which is, fortunately, more than in 1913–14. I do not know whether they are going to get more to eat, or whether there are more men and they are going to get the same. Is the Admiralty satisfied that the best use is made of the provisions supplied for the Navy? I ask that because the Firth of Forth is frequently occupied by a very large number of ships of the Navy. We are establishing there the Rosyth Dockyard. There were in the Forth last summer a very large number of large ships and a still larger number of smaller craft belonging to the Navy. I happened to be spending a portion of my Recess on the shores of the Firth or Forth, and we could have fed the entire village in which I was stopping with the food that was floated from the Navy to the shore on the tide in the morning. It was really astounding to see the amount of good bread loaves that seemed to be thrown overboard. With his sporting instincts, the hon. Member for Pontefract suggests that that was to feed the fish. Not only would it have fed the fish, but the pigeons could have perched on the floating side or the loaves, so that they would have served two purposes at once. At this particular point of the Firth of Forth it was possible to gather up, morning after morning, all kinds of victuals thrown away from the Fleet. The explanation offered in this House before was that it was absolutely necessary to have a fresh supply for each day, and that it was therefore very difficult to know what to do with the surplus food. Hon. Members would be shocked if they had the opportunity, as I had last summer, of witnessing the amount of waste in this particular. There is good ground in what I saw myself—no doubt it will be borne out by others, for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) has lived long enough on the shores of the Firth of Forth to know that what I say is perfectly true, and I am sure he will agree with me—for saying that this is a subject on which my right hon. Friend might appoint a Committee. I think I have made it quite plain from this detailed criticism of minor points that it is possible, if one desired it, to continue the Debate for an inordinate length, but, of course, that is not the purpose for which one is addressing the House. One

    159
    is addressing the House entirely on the point of economy, and viewing these items as one does not frequently get the opportunity of doing. There is only one Member of the Opposition present, and he is one of the most recent Members. There is no competition, therefore, from that side in the way of speaking, and those of us who are economists first and Liberals second are able on these occasions to draw the attention of careful men like the Secretary to the Admiralty to points to which he ought to devote his attention. The hon. Member (Sir G. Doughty) is present, as the representative of a seaport town and as representing His Majesty's Opposition. As an economist, I am certain that he intends to follow me and to give us the Opposition view of this waste of public money. I am certain he sees it incumbent upon him to take part in this discussion.
    Mr. MORTON: I am glad we have at last an opportunity of considering this Vote from the economical point of view, and in a way which we used to do many years ago, before a good many alterations were made in our Rules. Although to-day's proceedings commenced in an extraordinary way, apparently out of evil good has come, because it has given us a few hours to discuss this Vote. Unless you criticise these Votes you will never stop extravagance. I have known a Government put a Vote back after introducing it, and I have been thanked by Ministers for bringing forward questions of this sort, because they said it helped them to overpower the permanent officials. It is the permanent officials who arrange these things mostly. On page 42 I find a Vote for Chapel allowances, and other small expenses. I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain what is "Chapel allowances" and what is "Other small expenses." On page 43 I find a sum of £24,000 for anticipated requirements of other Departments of Government, etc. Surely we ought to be told what these anticipated requirements are, and what are the Departments? I never like that et cetera. The celebrated Joseph Hume said he had inquired very closely in this House with regard to "et cetera," and he found it meant "Sherry and biscuits." I should like to know what it means here. In item K there is another anticipated requirement, and more et ceteras—£1,600. Then in the next item there is also £500 for anticipated requirements of other Departments of Government, and there is
    160
    "etc." again. I should like to have some explanation of what this means, because we are entitled to know where our money goes.
    On page 44 there is "Miscellaneous allowances, £2,500." I should like to know what these allowances are, and where they are going. I do not see "etc." there, so I suppose it is all right. In Item O there is more anticipated requirements of other Departments of Government, £6,500, and the etc. appears again. My hon. Friend will have a good many et ceteras to explain, and I hope he will endeavour to do so, because we are entitled to it. Some people think it is no good to inquire into these small amounts, but you will find the old adage true, that if you look after the pence the pounds will look after themselves, and they cannot make the bigger amounts without the smaller ones. Therefore, I think it is worth picking out these items to get explanations with a view to making economies. On page 45—I do not object to this so much, because it is a receipt—there is an item of "Miscellaneous receipts, £252." I should like to ask what they are. There is only one thing I do not notice in these Estimates. We used to find an item for stables—there was a belief that they used to keep the Horse Marines there. I am glad that appears to be done away with. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing these matters forward, because it is one of the first duties of the House of Commons to look into the expenditure of the money and we ought to take care, whenever we have the opportunity, to look into it as closely as possible.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very glad to give the explanation called for, and I greatly appreciate the detailed interest which has been taken by my hon. Friend in these Estimates. With regard to Scotland and the supply of stores for victualling and clothing, if my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) can offer us terms more advantageous than any other part of the United Kingdom, it will certainly be our duty to consider the matter carefully; but I cannot undertake to agree with his proposition that Scotland should get all the contracts for all the clothing and all the victualling.
    Mr. HOGGE: I did not go as far as that. I shall be content if my hon. Friend tries to give that proportion of the victualling and clothing which Scotland contributes to the Navy.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the Scottish contractor can offer us terms more advantageous than the contractors of any other part of the United Kingdom, it is our duty in the public interest, on behalf of the public service, to consider carefully their tenders. In regard to the conditions under which contractors do the work which they are performing for us, all contractors have to carry out the Fair-Wages Clause. In regard to the payment of artificers and hired men, you are dealing here with the victualling yards, and there are certain artificers required and certain labourers required for the packing, unloading, loading, discharging, despatching of various stores which go to the Navy and which go to clothe the Navy. My hon. Friend says, "How is it you get £49,449 in 1913–14, and £53,226 in 1914–15?" That means that the rates of wages for these various hired artificers and labourers have gone up, so that whilst in 1913–14 853 were estimated to get £49,449, 870 men in 1914–15 get £53,226. That is due to the rate of wages paid. As to the sum charged in respect of the Insurance Act, that is the contribution which the Admiralty has to pay as an employer in respect of insured persons. My hon. Friend asked how the Insurance Act is working in connection with dockyard employés. So far as I know, the Act is working quite smoothly. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty made a statement in respect of the Insurance Act recently, and I would amplify that by saying that, after carefully watching the whole operations, I have no reason to suppose that the Act, so far as the dockyard workmen are concerned, will be other than satisfactory. As to the use of Metropolitan Police, it has been a long-established custom to employ members of that force in the dockyards. This has been a matter of considerable discussion, and hitherto it has been thought necessary to have this kind of protection in connection with the stores and the yards. I may say that we are considering whether we could not have the watching of the hospitals done by some other and cheaper method, such as the employing of pensioners, rather than members of the Metropolitan Police Force. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire asked about the chapel allowances, and other small expenses. The chapel allowances, of which I can give him details, include £20 for an organist and £5 for a verger.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt so courteously and ably with the points raised that I propose, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the Amendment to reduce the Vote by £1,000. I hope he will remember that one has his mind on this kind of economy, and that the questions will be raised again when they can be gone into with more detail.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.
    Resolved,
    4. "That a stun, not exceeding £3,595,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants-in-Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I wish to ask what is the intention of the Government with regard to business to-night. Provided that they get these Votes, are they going to move the Adjournment at once?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): When we get out of Committee of Ways and Means the Adjournment of the House will be moved at once.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday); Committee to sit to-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee:-
  Resolved,
  1. "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, the sum of £2,792,053 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolved,
  2. "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, the sum of £65,645,500 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ISLAND OF LEWIS (UIG COTTARS).
  Mr. HARCOURT: I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. HOGGE: I wish to put one small point to someone representing the Scottish Office. It was not made plain in the Debate, and is very important from the Scottish Liberal point of view. We were told that the Lord Advocate is going to Scotland to-morrow on Government business, and that he would take the opportunity of seeing the solicitor who was in charge of the case against the Lewis cottars, and ascertaining from them whether they had been properly informed in Gaelic, Which is their language, of the undertaking which they were to be asked to give in order to be released from prison. I would like to know exactly what that means and what is the offer to be made to these men, because those of us who have endeavoured to put the position of those men before the House are perfectly prepared to advise them to leave prison by giving an undertaking that they will not again trespass on this particular farm on the distinct understanding that the Secretary for Scotland
  164
  will give us an undertaking that within six months, or a year at most, he will take such means as will secure land for these particular men in that particular neighbourhood. That is a fair offer. If the Scottish Office is not prepared to do something for these men, which it can do through several instruments which it has in its hands, we shall not advise those men to come out of prison. We shall allow the Government to take all the glorification they can out of locking up Scotsmen varying in age from seventy to that of young lads, dressed in convict clothes, in a criminal prison, for seeking to secure land. I do not know if there is anybody on the Front Bench who can deal with this point. It is not sufficient for either of the Ministers who are present to say, "We will communicate what you have said to our colleagues," because neither of the Ministers now on that bench has heard the greater portion of the Debate or can understand what it is all about. We cannot expect from them any guarantee. Cannot somebody be sent out for the Prime Minister or the Scottish Secretary?
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Twelve minutes after Ten o'clock, till to-morrow (Tuesday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  DRUG FUND.
  DRUG FUND.
  DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
  DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
  MEDICAL RESEARCH FUND.
  MEDICAL RESEARCH FUND.
  PANEL DOCTORS' LISTS.
  PANEL DOCTORS' LISTS.
  House of Commons (Payment of Members).
  House of Commons (Payment of Members).
  Income Tax (Appeals Against Assessments).
  Income Tax (Appeals Against Assessments).
  Vivisection.
  Vivisection.
  Customs and Excise (Preventive Officers).
  Customs and Excise (Preventive Officers).
  Custom House, Dublin.
  Custom House, Dublin.
  Ballinakill (Queen's County) Fair.
  Ballinakill (Queen's County) Fair.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Secondary Education (Ireland).
  Glenhest Police Station, County Mayo.
  Glenhest Police Station, County Mayo.
ROYAL NAVY.
  DISCIPLINARY MATTERS.
  DISCIPLINARY MATTERS.
  "DREADOUGHT" TYPE (GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY).
  "DREADOUGHT" TYPE (GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY).
  FLEET DISPOSITION.
  FLEET DISPOSITION.
  H.M.S. "PSYCHE."
  H.M.S. "PSYCHE."
  MILLWALL TRADE DISPUTE.
  MILLWALL TRADE DISPUTE.
  CARPENTERS.
  CARPENTERS.
  DOCKYARD WRITERS.
  DOCKYARD WRITERS.
  GERMAN NAVY ESTIMATES.
  GERMAN NAVY ESTIMATES.
  H.M.S. "IRON DUKE."
  H.M.S. "IRON DUKE."
  Elementary School Teachers.
  Elementary School Teachers.
BRITISH ARMY.
  REGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTER-SERGEANTS.
  REGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTER-SERGEANTS.
  DOVER GARRISON.
  DOVER GARRISON.
  FATAL ACCIDENTS (AEROPLANES).
  FATAL ACCIDENTS (AEROPLANES).
  MILWALL TRADE DISPUTE.
  MILWALL TRADE DISPUTE.
  RIFLE RANGES.
  RIFLE RANGES.
  BAYONET MANUFACTURE.
  BAYONET MANUFACTURE.
  Indian Cotton Crop (1913).
  Indian Cotton Crop (1913).
  Sitapur Murder Case.
  Sitapur Murder Case.
  Indian Coolies.
  Indian Coolies.
  Trigonometrical Survey (Trinidad).
  Trigonometrical Survey (Trinidad).
  Somaliland.
  Somaliland.
  Treatment of Consumptives.
  Treatment of Consumptives.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Portuguese West Africa (Rev. J. S. Bowskill's Arrest).
  Portuguese West Africa (Rev. J. S. Bowskill's Arrest).
  Commons (Enclosure and Regulation).
  Commons (Enclosure and Regulation).
  Examination of Sputum.
  Examination of Sputum.
  Exportation of Lymph.
  Exportation of Lymph.
  Workhouse Tasks.
  Workhouse Tasks.
  Duty Charges (United States).
  Duty Charges (United States).
  Exports to Colonies.
  Exports to Colonies.
  Sight Tests.
  Sight Tests.
  Workmen's Trains.
  Workmen's Trains.
  Railway Clearing House.
  Railway Clearing House.
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
BARONY OF WHARTON.
Report from the Committee for Privileges; read, and agreed to, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BARONY OF ST. JOHN.
Committee for Privileges to meet on Wednesday next.

CRYSTAL PALACE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Butterley Company. [H.L.]
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill:
Birkenhead Corporation. [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS.
Provisional Special. Order as to the exclusion of certain outworkers employed in Ireland (Ireland): Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 36.)
MEXBOROUGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; The Orders made on the 19th of February last and the 11th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
MEXBOROUGH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 9th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL. H.L.
Leave given to the Select Committee to continue sitting in the absence of the Earl of Harrowby.
LEIGHTON BUZZARD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Wicklow be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Oranmore and Browne; read, and agreed to.
STONE GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
  BENGAL AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]

    DIDCOT, NEWBURY AND SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported, with Amendments.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Sheffield Corporation Bill
ought to be dispensed with subject to the words "and the Local Acts" being struck out of Clause 49 of the Bill:
And also that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petitions for additional Provisions in the following Bills ought to be dispensed with and leave given to the Committees on the Bills to insert the additional Provisions
Hull and Barnsley Railway. [H.L.]
Hightown Gas and Electricity. [H.L.]
Read, and agreed to.

DEE CONSERVANCY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday the 2nd of April next.
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to Thursday next.

THE ARMY AND ULSTER.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have given the noble Viscount who leads the House private notice that I would put to him one or two questions with regard to a matter which seems to me, and I think probably seems to all of your Lordships, to be one of the utmost public importance. I refer to the movement of troops which is now proceeding in the North-East of Ireland and to the conduct of some of the officers of the units designated for this service. I make no apology for mentioning this matter to the House; for, indeed, I think few of us can recall any occasion upon which there has been greater public anxiety, I would almost say more acute distress, in the mind of the public than that which has arisen in connection with these incidents. In such circumstances we cannot maintain silence, nor can we abstain from asking questions merely because it may be inconvenient to His Majesty's Government to answer them. And if I wanted to justify the course which I am taking I should point to the action which has been taken within the last few hours by the Prime Minister himself, who at what is described as a late hour last night placed himself in communication with a representative of the leading journal in order that at the earliest possible hour to-day the public might be in possession of the statement which most of us have already read. The matter was in the Prime Minister's view so urgent that he could not wait for the usual opportunity which would have presented itself to him somewhere about four o'clock this afternoon. I therefore think that I am justified
620
in troubling the noble Viscount with these interrogatories.
The first question which I desire to put to the noble Viscount is this. Is it true that orders were lately given for the concentration of a large body of troops of all arms in the North-East of Ireland; what number of troops is it intended to employ there, and to what extent will they be additional to the force normally stationed in that part of the United Kingdom? I conceive that there is at this point very little doubt as to the facts of the case. The Prime Minister himself, in the interview which I mentioned a moment ago, admitted that there had been movements of troops in Ireland, and he described them as necessary in order to bring about a reversal of the policy of dispersing small bodies of troops in Ulster. I think, therefore, I am right in describing the operation as a concentration in the North of Ireland. But what I also desire to know is whether we have to do merely with the concentration of the troops which are normally stationed in that part of Ireland, or whether His Majesty's Government have in view the assemblage of a larger force brought into North-Eastern Ulster for the purpose of intimidation, or coercion. We hear rumours of large bodies of troops in other parts of the United Kingdom having received orders to hold themselves in readiness. There is evidence to show that camps have been laid out, or the sites of camps considered, with a view to this movement of troops. I may perhaps be allowed to add to my question this, whether any movement of ships of war is in progress or in contemplation. I have seen it stated that two vessels of war had been ordered to repair to an Irish port but had been countermanded for political reasons, and other naval movements are freely spoken of. These are matters of fact, and I have no doubt the noble Viscount will have no difficulty in enlightening us.
My second question is, For what purpose is it intended to use these troops, and is it in the contemplation of His Majesty's Government that they may be used for the purpose of compelling the Unionists of Ulster to submit to government by an Irish Parliament? Here again, my Lords, we are vouchsafed information by the Prime Minister. The right. hon. gentle-; man has explained that the object of

621
bringing these troops into Ulster is "simply to give additional protection to the arms, ammunition, and military stores which are scattered about the country and might become the object of a raid." I should like to know whether His Majesty's Government are in possession of information pointing to the probability of raids of this kind. Such information as we have goes entirely to show that the large body of men who are now being drilled in Ulster are completely under control, that their attitude is absolutely calm and self-restrained, and that there is no possibility whatever of the kind of gratuitous breaches of the peace which the Prime Minister apparently apprehends. And, my Lords, may I ask in passing why, if the object of sending these troops into Ulster is merely to protect military stores and the like, are you sending Cavalry there? I am not a soldier, but I am under the impression that that particular arm would not be appropriate for the purpose of guarding a powder magazine.
A question which really concerns us much more is this. Are these troops to be used for the purpose of coercing the Ulster Unionists? The Prime Minister brushes the statement on one side. He says that the employment of troops against Ulster is "a contingency which the Government hope may never arise." I dare say they do hope it may never arise, but I should like to suggest that they are not taking precisely the steps most appropriate to guard against that contingency. I should like to suggest that by sending great bodies of troops into Ulster at this juncture they are doing exactly what is most calculated to provoke the kind of collision which they are so anxious to avoid. These hurried movements of troops, these alarums and excursions, these summonings of the brigadiers to the presence of the Commander-in-Chief in Dublin—all these things can scarcely fail to have a provocative effect, and one not likely to lead to a prolongation of that extraordinary condition of quiet and order which has up to the present been maintained in Ulster. It should not be forgotten that these hostile demonstrations—so I think we have a right to describe them —follow immediately upon the extremely exasperating speech delivered a few days ago by the First Lord of the Admiralty. That speech concluded with these memorable words, "We should be prepared to
622
go forward and put these grave matters to the proof." I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he spoke those words, can have excluded from his consideration the possibility that these troops would be employed for the purpose of compelling the Unionists of Ulster to submit to an Irish Parliament in Dublin. I must own that the same kind of impression was likely to be left upon the public mind in Ireland by the remarkable speech delivered not many days ago by no less a person than the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, General Sir Arthur Paget. Let me read to your Lordships two or three lines from that speech. He said—
"It is not thinkable for me to contemplate even being asked to concentrate my men to move against the forces that are, I believe, in being in the North of Ireland, but, at the same time, you must remember that in our lives we soldiers have to do things that we do not like."
Then he went on—
"Discipline means that, however distasteful it may be to them, they will carry out any orders given to them by their King."
I do not think those words can have been heard without some misgiving by those to whom they were addressed.
I pass to the next question. I ask the noble Viscount whether it is the case that many of the officers belonging to the units designated for service in Ulster have been told that if they were not prepared to take part in active operations in Ulster they were to send in their papers and would be dismissed the Service. I invite the noble Viscount to tell us whether he can give the House any information as to the number of officers concerned. This point also was to some extent dealt with by the Prime Minister in his statements to The limes newspaper. He met it by denying altogether that His Majesty's Government contemplated instituting what he called a general inquisition into the intentions of officers; but unless we are wholly misinformed a general inquisition into the intention of the officers is precisely what has been taking place during the last few days. Indeed, the accounts are so circumstantial, so completely in harmony one with another, that it is impossible for any reasonable man to doubt that statements of this kind have been addressed to the officers of these units. I do not think the noble Viscount when he follows me will dispute that quite

623
recently the Commander-in-Chief summoned his brigadiers and that they left his presence under the impression that active operations were about to be begun in Ulster and that they were given a very few hours—I think from about 10 o'clock in the morning till about 7 o'clock in the afternoon—to decide whether they would undertake to bear a part in those active operations. So far as my information goes not a word was said to them on that occasion as to their duties being limited to giving assistance to the civil power. There is no doubt how these gallant officers understood what was said to them, nor is there any doubt as to the decision which the large majority of them felt compelled to take in view of these intimations. I am told that virtually the whole of the officers of the Cavalry Brigade at the Curragh asked permission to send in their papers, and I believe it is notorious that General Gough's resignation was accepted. Does the noble Viscount contradict me?
VISCOUNT MORLEY VISCOUNT MORLEY nodded.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am given to understand, whatever may be the case at this moment, that at the time he asked leave to send in his papers and was allowed to do so. The Prime Minister intimates in his conversation with the representative of The Times that there has been what he calls "an honest misunderstanding" in this matter. I rather inferred from the noble Viscount's demeanour a moment ago that he is going to tell us something of the same kind now. If that is what he is going to say, I should like him to tell us whose misunderstanding it was. Surely, my Lords, this decision of the military authorities was a most momentous decision. It must have been come to after consideration by the Army Council. There must be something on record. The thing would not have been left to chance. We press the noble Viscount to tell us exactly what did happen and what instructions were really given at Army headquarters by the Secretary of State.
I pass to my next question. I ask whether any of these officers have been informed that in special cases officers whose homes are in Ulster will be excused from serving in that Province. I am bound to say that this offer of exemption seems to me to do credit to what I would venture to call the humanity of the military authori-
624
ties, but if you ask me what I think of it in principle, I venture to say that the distinction is an absurd one and one which cannot be maintained. Why should a soldier, whose duty it is to obey discipline, be excused from waging war against his friends and neighbours in the part of the country to which he belongs, and yet not be excused from waging war against men who are his fellow citizens, whose convictions are as deep and sincere as his own, and who are actuated by feelings of the highest patriotism? I venture to say that the tie in the one case, the geographical tie of mere neighbourhood, is a less strong tie than the tie of common citizenship and common patriotism. Another observation upon this suggested exemption. It seems to me entirely inconsistent with the Prime Minister's theory that these troops are only sent into Ulster for the purpose of protecting military stores and the like. Why should a man because he has got friends and relations in Ulster have any scruple in defending a powder magazine in that Province? The exemption seems to me to exhibit what I call the insincerity of the whole of these professions in a very striking manner.
I come to my last question. I ask whether any of the officers whose resignations have been accepted have since been reinstated and upon what condition? I understand that some kind of settlement has been arrived at, or is being arrived at, with these gallant officers, and I hope the noble Viscount will tell us that one of the conditions of that settlement is that any of them who have sent in their papers shall be reinstated and reinstated upon conditions which will relieve them not only of the obligation to take part in active operations against their fellow citizens, but of all untoward consequences following from the action which they have taken. I can conceive no more cruel hardship than that an officer's career should be broken, that his professional prospect should be destroyed, because he holds so strongly to his principles that he will not sacrifice them in order to secure his professional prospects. I do not believe that public opinion in this country would ever allow an officer who had made that sacrifice from perfectly sincere conviction to be penalised by the loss of his commission and the forfeiture of those provisions which he had endeavoured to make for the support of his family.

625
Those, my Lords, are the questions to which I invite the noble Viscount to give me an answer. In less tragical circumstances I think I should have been tempted to say two or three words upon the policy which has brought the country into this predicament, but we may have other opportunities of dwelling on that, and for the moment I desire to confine myself to an endeavour to elicit the facts. I cannot, however, resist saying one thing. We may I think take credit to ourselves for having been true prophets in regard to this matter. We have told you—ever since you set out upon this disastrous policy—that it would lead you to civil war. Civil war is coming nearer to us with every day that passes. We have also told you that should we ever find ourselves engaged in such a conflict or faced by the prospect of it, you would be putting an intolerable strain upon the discipline of the Army. It has become apparent within the last few hours that that strain is getting perilously near to the breaking point. If only half of what we hear is true, it seems clear that unless you are able completely to reassure the Army you will find that you have struck a blow shattering to its discipline and disastrous to its efficiency. I trust that the noble Viscount will be able to say something to relieve our minds, but whatever explanation he gives, to whatever extent His Majesty's Government determine to recede from the disastrous policy which they apparently at one moment contemplated, I cannot help fearing that the bungling and bullying of the last few days will have done to the British Army an injury which it will take many years to repair.
THE LORD PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I have not the least intention of criticising the noble Marquess's proceeding in introducing this matter to-night. It is perfectly natural and perfectly reasonable. But I should have been glad had he left out, if he will allow me to say so, the polemical politics with which he concluded. When the noble Marquess talks of an "intolerable strain," and all the rest of it, and proceeds to impute all the responsibility for this strain to His Majesty's Government [Opposition cheers]—well I know the majority of noble Lords in the House would accept that imputation—I would ask the noble Marquess not to forget that we, on the other hand, impute
626
to friends of noble Lords opposite an enormous responsibility for all this. Noble Lords may laugh, but it is the view of the majority in the country that noble Lords opposite, by aiding and abetting avowed law-breakers and advocates of breaches of the law, are responsible for the intolerable strain, and they are responsible for what is as certain as that the sun will rise to-morrow morning—they are responsible for the use that will be made of the lawless principle of which they have been the unhappy defenders in larger issues that will confront you before any great length of time. I am almost sorry that I was tempted in those observations by the noble Marquess's polemical remarks.
Now I will do the best I can to answer all his questions, and without complaining as to the perfect justice and reasonableness of every one of them. The noble Marquess speaks of the importation into Ulster of a large body of Imperial troops of all arms. That is not true. There have been sent into Ulster, so I am told, four companies of Infantry—four companies and no more —in addition to the normal force there. That is the whole change that has been made. There has been no large concentration whatever. Orders were given for one company of an Infantry regiment to proceed to Enniskillen, to Omagh, to Armagh, and to Carrickfergus respectively—four companies in all. One battalion was moved, half to Dundalk and half to Newry. One battalion was moved from Victoria Barracks, Belfast, to Holywood Barracks, outside that town. That is the actual and literal extent of the movement of this "large body of troops."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Have no other troops been placed under orders to hold themselves ready?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: To the best of my knowledge and belief, no other orders have been given. No orders for the movement of troops have been given, I believe, except those which I have described. Then the noble Marquess asks for what purpose it is intended that these troops shall be used. Here he anticipated my reply by referring to the language used by the Prime Minister. He is quite right, by the way, in referring to the unusual fact of the Prime Minister making a communication to the Press as proof of the exciting

627
character of the news of the last two days. There is no denial of that, and no desire on our part to deny it. The troops are intended to be used for the protection of Government property, and—should the necessity arise—to assist the civil power in maintaining order.
Then the noble Marquess asks—and this is really, I suppose, the most vital part of his interrogatories—Is it in the contemplation of His Majesty's Government that these troops may be used for the purpose of compelling the Unionists of Ulster to submit to government by an Irish Parliament? His Majesty's Government, as the Prime Minister has said, are still not without hope, which I am sure most of your Lordships share, that upon the questions involved in the Government of Ireland Bill an agreement may be arrived at. The Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons has shown in the discussion last Monday that he, at all events, is quite willing to offer an olive branch. Pray do not let noble Lords think that I suppose it is an olive branch that can be without demur accepted. But at all events he has shown that he shares the hope which we entertain that an agreement even now may be arrived at. And until that hope vanishes, or is dispelled, His Majesty's Government do not contemplate the contingency named in the noble Marquess's question. His Majesty's Government—let us be quite plain upon this, and I hope noble Lords opposite will agree in this, for it will be a fatal moment for law and order and good government in England if they do not—must always retain, without any qualification, the right to use all the Forces of the Crown to uphold law and order and to support the civil power and authority, though we have no intention whatever, as things stand, to take advantage of that indisputable right against any political and ordered opposition to the policy and principles of the Government of Ireland Bill.
As to the particular case or cases to which the noble Marquess has referred and which we have all been thinking of since last Friday or Saturday, the noble Marquess will not, I think, expect me to go into all the details—though some of his language rather implied that he did—into all the details of what passed between the General Commanding the Forces in Ireland, the officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade, and the
628
Army Council. He cannot expect us to do so, and I do not believe that any noble Lord in this House would think it desirable in the interests of military discipline, in view of future contingencies, that we should now bring all these details up for public discussion.
LORD AMPTHILL: That is just what we do think desirable.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The noble Lord very often, I am afraid, thinks that everybody agrees with him and that all the public think as he does.
LORD AMPTHILL: I have never said that.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I will leave the noble Lord to his own thoughts. These are the facts. An incident occurred in connection with the 3rd Cavalry Brigade, as your Lordships all know, which was reported to the War Office on Friday evening. Not all, but nearly all, the officers of the Brigade took the same part as General Gough. The War Office then sent orders to the seniors of the Brigade to report to the Adjutant-General at the War Office. On the statement that these officers made at the War Office to the Adjutant-General it was made clear that the incident was due to a misunderstanding. [Loud Opposition laughter, and cries of "What is it?"] Noble Lords laugh, but what I am saying is the account from the officers concerned, and to think all that ridiculous—
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: What were the instructions from the War Office to the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I think it would be most inexpedient—not from our point of view, but from the point of view of the Army—to turn aside to the point raised by the noble Earl. On the statement of these officers at the War Office it was made clear as I have stated. Remember that the people of whom I am speaking are men of the highest honour. It was clear that the proceeding was due to a misunderstanding—what the Prime Minister calls "an honest misunderstanding"—on the part of the officers and the General commanding the Forces. The noble Marquess, I thought, was rather unlike himself when he pressed me to say

629
whose misunderstanding it was. What on earth does that matter? It may matter on some future occasion when you are considering the Executive Government in Ireland, if you like, or the practice of the British Army, if you like; but to say that it concerns the particular incident which has agitated the public mind and which is now engaging the attention of your Lordships is, I think, to put a completely wrong construction on the proper way of dealing with such a case. The noble Marquess will learn by and by exactly all that has passed. But let us see how it has ended. After a full inquiry the Army Council approved of these officers being ordered to rejoin their regiments.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Does that comprise all the officers, including General Gough?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Yes, certainly. I am very unwilling to introduce an august name on this point, but in saying that the Army Council approved, I am not, I think, going out of order and usage if I say that His Majesty approves of these officers being ordered to rejoin their regiments. Now if politics did not enter into these things—a matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, referred the other day—this would for the day close the incident, and, with all respect to the noble Marquess and to the House, I would appeal to your Lordships to let the incident for the time be treated as closed, because we must all desire that the question of Army discipline should be treated with great delicacy, care, and scruple. This, I dare say, is very disappointing. But I do not believe that there is any intention or desire on the part of your Lordships who are assembled here to-night to make any Party capital out of this incident. Therefore I will not, although I could, go further into details. I believe it would be most inexpedient to do so, and I do not think there is any one of your Lordships who really entertains a different opinion. The noble Marquess quoted some language used by General Paget, Commander-in-Chief in Ireland. It was, I think, at the Corinthian Club or some such body in Ireland a few weeks ago. I read every word of General Paget's speech this morning, and, though I confess that it is a speech which I should hardly have expected the Commander of the Forces to make, I cannot tell what the
630
noble Marquess finds fault with. What was wrong in that speech? The noble Marquess did not tell us.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I referred to the speech because in it, it seemed to me, Sir Arthur Paget announced that the troops under his command might be called upon, in the face of the strongest objections on their part, to undertake the duty to which they have since so much objected—that of participating in active operations in the Province of Ulster.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: What General Paget said—using the language of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches—was "I think it is unthinkable that we should have orders from London to use force against the Ulster Volunteers." Yes. But what did he say afterwards? More than half the speech was the assurance that, in spite of those, as he thought, ill-judged and mistaken orders, "We are soldiers; we have only one thing to think of, and that is to obey orders and do our duty." I cannot imagine what the noble Marquess finds wrong with that.
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I did not find fault with Sir Arthur Paget at all.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Then I do not quite realise why his speech was referred to.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Because I thought he gave a warning which was to be in the minds of officers when subsequently they were called upon to take part.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I submit that Sir Arthur Paget was perfectly right. He may have been wise or unwise in expressing a view upon politics and in saying it was unthinkable that certain orders should reach him from London: but he said, "If such orders do reach us we are bound to obey them." I should have thought that a very sensible line for a Commander of the Forces to take.
The noble Marquess made one observation about raids—that is to say, raids perpetrated or designed by the volunteers against the military posts scattered about

631
in no very large numbers in Ulster. I think that was referred to also in the Prime Minister's interview. He said, as I understood, that there is no probability of such raids. He did not say no possibility. You could not say there is no possibility of one of these raids being rushed if this unhappy temper should prevail and there should be a break-away from the discipline in which they are mercifully kept by their leaders, to whom I wish to do every justice from that point of view. I have done my best to tell the noble Marquess what he wants to know. I only beg the House to realise that if these discussions at this stage—I do not complain of the temper in which the noble Marquess has stated his case—take a sharp, acrimonious, or reproachful tone upon what is necessarily an imperfect knowledge of the facts, it will show a great want of wisdom and public spirit.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am sure that in the majority of cases the appeal which the noble Viscount has just addressed to us would have been regarded with the utmost respect, but I do not think that the answers which he has given to the questions put by my noble friend are sufficient either in quality or in directness to ensure for the Government that we should not pursue this debate and endeavour to elicit a little more clearly what actually occurred. I can assure the noble Viscount that there is no member of this House who is more open to the appeal than I am that we should not make Party capital out of the disposition of the Army, but what we are endeavouring to do is to discover by what means of misapprehension, of honest misunderstanding, or of unusual action on the part of the Government, the Army has been dragged into the vortex of Party politics. I am not going to spend time in the controversial matter which the noble Viscount raised as to this action by officers in the Army having been stimulated by members on this side of the. House—
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I did not say that for a moment. I never said that noble Lords opposite had stimulated these officers. What I said was that the language used by noble Lords opposite promising support to resistance in Ulster was, I thought, extremely lamentable language.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: What the noble Viscount said in the course of his speech was that we had "aided and abetted avowed law-breakers." When did we abet law-breakers? The noble Viscount has forgotten that he accused us of making a series of speeches in which we had abetted law-breakers. That is a very serious charge, and I think he ought to have made it good. I do not think any responsible member on this side of the House has ever introduced the Army into this matter, nor have any breaches of the law yet occurred which would in any way justify the use of the Army.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I was not talking about the Army at all at that moment. I was talking of the spirit of disregard of the law in the language used by the followers of Sir Edward Carson, to whom noble Lords opposite promised their aid.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Viscount talks about language used by the followers of Sir Edward Carson. I remember in the debate last year a similar statement being made, and I challenged the Government upon it. I submit that it is not fair to the followers of Sir Edward Carson, of whom I am one, that these statements should be made in your Lordships' House and not be corroborated.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: What I desire to come to more especially is the entire divergence between the account given by the noble Viscount of the proceedings which led to this disastrous state of affairs and that which has been given, I believe, in the other House of Parliament this evening. The noble Viscount dwelt upon the very small number of troops which had been moved, and then, in reply to a question from my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, he denied that any further troops had been put under orders. He then gave an account, in general terms, of what the intention of the Government was, and of their hope that the contingency would not arise. Above all, he appealed to us whether the first duty of every Government would not be that of preserving law and order; and he further left the impression on your Lordships and on the country that all that was in question last Friday was the movement of a very small number of troops for the purposes detailed by the Prime Minister in his

633
communication to the newspapers last night—namely, for the preservation of arms and ammunition and the like. But my noble friend behind me asked what were the exact instructions which were given, and I say we have a right to know what those instructions were. If your Lordships desire it, I will read out in full what was the communication made by Sir Arthur Paget in accordance with the instructions, and your Lordships can then judge.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Read.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Sir Arthur Paget said that active operations were to be begun against Ulster; that he expected—
VISCOUNT MORLEY: What is the date of this?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The date of this communication, or the date of the meeting at which the statement was made?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The date of the language used by Sir Arthur Paget.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I understand that it was used on Friday last.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: And the authority?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The authority —it has already been given in the other House of Parliament—is that of an officer who was present on the occasion.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Then it is third-hand hearsay.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Well, we have not got even a third-hand account of what the instructions given by the Government were. I will proceed—
"Sir Arthur Paget said that active operations were to be begun against Ulster; that he expected the country to be in a blaze by Saturday; that he had been in close communication with the War Office and had the following instructions from the War Office and from the Army Council to convey to officers:
Officers domiciled in Ulster will be allowed to disappear but will be reinstated in their positions without detriment to their career at the end of operations in Ulster, but they must
634
give their word of honour that they would not fight for Ulster. Officers who were not prepared to undertake active operations against Ulster from conscientious or other scruples were to send in their resignations at once and would be dismissed the Army. It was to be fully understood that the officers commanding, brigadiers, and any officers who avoided service on an incorrect plea of domicile in Ulster would be tried by Court Martial. Resignations were to be sent in that evening. All the brigadiers were directly to give this message to their officers and collect results by that evening."
Anybody conversant with the usual course of business at the War Office must know that instructions of that character or of any character so conveyed to a Commander-in-Chief must have been conveyed, as the noble Marquess said, in a most formal manner.
Such instructions could only have been arrived at by a Secretary of State after communication with the highest authorities. Your Lordships are probably aware of the Warrant under which the Army is conducted. In the Manual of Military Law it will be found that the power to govern the Army is annually given by Parliament, but when given is exercised, as in the Navy and Civil Service, by the Crown alone. The manner in which that power is exercised is Constitutional, subject, like the exercise of other prerogatives, to the advice of Ministers of the Crown. Such action, then, could only have been taken by the Sovereign on the advice of Ministers of the Crown. Was such advice tendered to the effect that officers were to be engaged in active operations against Ulster, and, if not, were to be dismissed the Service at a few hours notice? I understand that the noble Viscount dissents. But whether it be so or not, Parliament has a right to know. We have a right to know whether or not this grave change in the relations between the Army and the War Office was brought about by instructions from the War Office , and what was the nature of the "honest misunderstanding" of these instructions which suddenly appeared on Sunday, which was not developed on Friday before it was apparent that more than half of those who had been consulted would be unwilling to take service.
I must say I think the whole of these steps were irregular, from a military standpoint, from first to last. If the troops are to be engaged on a certain service, they are bound to be placed under order pro-

635
visionally for that service. The summoning of a number of officers, the putting to them of a number of contingent questions as to what their disposition would be in certain cases, is in itself, I believe, absolutely unprecedented. If such a council of inquisition was to be held, then the more reason that the instructions for it should be absolute and certain. We have a right to know what those instructions were, and I will myself on the earliest possible occasion move that those instructions be laid on the Table of this House. You cannot have a situation in which the Army, or a large number of officers, are called in question as to their duty unless you know on what instructions the question came to grief.
There is another point. The noble Viscount told us that the officers would be reinstated, and in answer to an inquiry from me he was good enough to say that that included all the officers and included the officer commanding the Cavalry Brigade, General Gough. Is that reinstatement without question, or has any pledge been asked of these officers? We have a right to know that. We understand that certain pledges were asked of them by a misapprehension. Well, if there was a misapprehension the sooner it is corrected the better. I do not wish to say anything which appears to reflect upon the statement of the noble Viscount as to what the intentions of the Government were, but he has absolutely failed to support them by facts. The Prime Minister talked of "probable raids." We have not heard what the nature of those raids was thought to be, and, whatever they were, they are as far removed as possible from active operations. What we want to know is, What did the Government intend on Thursday, and why was their change in intention not made known until late last night? To suppose that the policy of Thursday as conveyed to the officers was the same as the policy of Sunday night is really to ask for a stretch of our belief and imagination which only the production of the facts can possibly set right.
The whole of these proceedings seem to me to have been provocative and ill-judged to the last degree. I speak entirely from the point of view of one who has earnestly desired from the first to keep
636
the Army entirely out of this question. I have never in my life made any suggestion as to what the conduct of the Army would be under these conditions. I maintain that the Army has a right to be governed according to its own warrants. I have suggested one particular point which I think the Government are bound to make good—whether they did pursue this very delicate operation according to the recognised rules. It is for that reason that I ask them not to elude the question but to produce the instructions which were given to the General Officer Commanding in Ireland on which the whole of this trouble arose.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I understood the noble Viscount the Lord President to inform the House that General Gough and the other officers had been reinstated. Is that so?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: They have been ordered to rejoin their regiments.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I do not quite understand what the meaning of that phrase is. I want to know upon what conditions. It was a very strong and exceptional thing for officers of the British Army to find themselves placed in the cruel position in which these officers were placed by the Government. The Government have now ordered them to return to their regiments, and we have reason to believe that they have ordered them to return to their regiments because they have not got the moral courage to face public opinion and oblige the officers to act against their fellow-countrymen in Ulster. Therefore the country has a right to know, if these officers are reinstated, what are the conditions of their reinstatement. Are they reinstated under the condition that they will not be obliged or asked to act with the Forces of the Crown to coerce Ulster? I want to get a straight answer to that straight question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I have listened attentively to this debate, and I think the point which is in the minds of many of your Lordships is not difficult to define. You seem to think that the Government last week issued orders for the coercion of

637
Ulster, and that those orders have been revoked or else have miscarried owing to the refusal of officers to obey them. There is not a word of truth in the suggestion that last week or at any time the Government issued orders for the coercion of Ulster. What has happened is pretty plain. There have been going on in Ulster things —I do not wish to allude further to them— which in themselves constitute a menace to law and order. If the business of government cannot be carried on in Ulster, then it becomes the duty of those who are responsible for law and order to see that it can be carried on, and for that purpose they are not only at liberty, but they are bound, to take such precautions as are proper.
Naturally the Government have given a good deal of attention to the possibility of outbreak in Ulster, to the possibility of riot, and the possibility of interference with the ordinary liberty of the subject. With that situation and with the strongest desire to avoid anything that might lead to a conflict great care has been taken. No orders were issued, no orders are likely to be issued, and no orders will be issued for the immediate coercion of Ulster. So far as public opinion is concerned, it will be left there to make itself manifest; but if there is anything which amounts to a menace against the cause of law and order that must be dealt with. In that state of things, naturally, it has been in the minds of those responsible, and in the minds of those responsible for the military arrangements in Ireland, that there might arise circumstances which would have to be dealt with, and the arrangements for that purpose which were detailed by the Prime Minister in his communication to the Press yesterday evening, and which have been detailed to-day by my noble friend the Lord President, amount to this—that the limited number of troops of which my noble friend spoke have been sent into Ulster and the limited arrangements of which he spoke have been adopted. No steps have been taken for an active campaign in Ulster against anybody. Everything that has been done has been in the nature of preventive measures. That was the state of things last Thursday, and that is the state of things to-day.
EARL STANHOPE: Might I ask whether that includes the movements of military stores?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. There were stores in exposed places, and in a case of that kind you bring stores together. It is not good to leave large amounts of ammunition and valuable material unprotected, and there has been a concentration of stores as well as other things. In these circumstances instructions were sent over to Ireland for the removal of the troops referred to for the carrying out of these measures; and as a result—I don't wonder at it, and I don't blame anybody for it— of the electric condition of the atmosphere and the anxiety and excitement which prevailed about this matter, misunderstandings became less unlikely than in ordinary circumstances they would be. What has happened is perfectly plain. The officers concerned misunderstood.
LORD AMPTHILL: How?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They misunderstood what was said to them and interpreted what they were being told as orders, as far as I can guess, to undertake a campaign of coercion in Ulster. We have had read to the House by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, some extracts from a letter which purports to deal with what Sir Arthur Paget said. It is a valuable rule that hearsay is no evidence, and when you have a statement that somebody else said something and you do not know anything of the circumstances, you will generally find that the words have been wrongly interpreted; and when that condition of things is accompanied by the amount of excitement there is at the present time it is not to be wondered at if misapprehensions arise and lead to rash actions. At any rate this is certain, that these instructions having been explained—not altered, or qualified, or taken back, but the original instructions which were given by the Government explained—General Gough, who is one of the most honourable and distinguished officers in the Cavalry, is quite satisfied that he can resume his position with honour, and he has been ordered to rejoin his brigade and he is proceeding to do so. That extends to all the other officers concerned. So far as I am aware, there is no exception. General Paget has had a most difficult thing to do; he has discharged it with great consideration and tact, and if a misunderstanding arose over a conversation, it is not to be wondered at, having regard to the discussion that is going on in the news-

639
papers right and left. The proceedings have been characterised by Lord Midleton as irregular. What trace of irregularity has there been in the proceedings? There is nothing irregular in the conversation between the Commander-in-Chief and his officers. The noble Viscount asked whether General Gough was reinstated without a condition. Yes; without any condition except that he should do the duty of an officer[†].
LORD SALTOUN: Were the questions which were asked these officers by General Paget put off his own bat or on instructions?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to know what the questions were before answering the noble Lord. That is what we do not know. We have had a third-hand version of hearsay read out. I think it is plain that a discussion took place and these officers got it into their minds that they were about to be ordered to take part in a campaign in Ulster. But I am certain that that is not what General Paget wanted to convey to them, and certainly it was not conveyed to him. There was a misunderstanding, but the matter was settled, as far as I know, in a manner satisfactory both to General Paget and to the officers themselves. In these circumstances I can only say, speaking for myself and with some experience of these things, that the less we discuss them the better. What the House is entitled to know is whether the Government gave any instructions for the coercion of Ulster. The Government gave no such instructions and is not giving any such instructions. That the House is entitled to know. But as for what took place in Belfast between these officers and the Commander-in-Chief, there has been a misunderstanding; the misunderstanding has been cleared up, and the more we go back upon it the more mischief will be done.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am afraid we cannot allow matters to stand exactly as the noble and learned Viscount would suggest. This is a very grave matter, because it concerns honourable men, officers of His Majesty's Service, who apparently have been misled—whether on purpose or not I do not know—and whose honour we are here to vindicate.
[†] See further statement by the LORD CHANCELLOR on Wednesday, March 25.
640
The noble and learned Viscount says there has been a misunderstanding. What we want to know is, who is responsible for the misunderstanding?
Let me recall to your Lordships what happened. It is not as though the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland was there without communication with His Majesty's Government and that he misinterpreted the general spirit of their proceedings and of their policy, as shown by the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and thought that things were much graver than they were. That was not the position, because the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland was in London last week—on Thursday I think it must have been. Well, it will not be contended by the noble and learned Viscount that nothing passed between the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland and His Majesty's Ministers when he was in London. Of course the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, Sir Arthur Paget, was at the War Office and received instructions there. Then he went straight over to Ireland and called his officers together immediately. He said to them, "This is what it is my business to tell you"; and then he proceeded to tell them what has been read out by my noble friend Lord Midleton.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: How does the noble Marquess know that?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble and learned Viscount deny it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Most certainly I do. My case has been put, and it is a very plain one. These officers misunderstood what General Paget said to them.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: What did he say?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble and learned Viscount deny that the account which my noble friend read out is accurate? If so, let him tell us what Sir Arthur Paget did say to his officers. Until he does, I maintain the accuracy of what my noble friend Lord Midleton read out, because that has reached us from more than one source. Moreover, I read in a note in The Times after the interview with the Prime Minister—of course, not pretending to

641
be what the Prime Minister says, but a comment of The Times following immediately in the same column after the interview with the Prime Minister—
"It lay between taking war-like operations against Ulster and being dismissed the Service."
There is exactly the same phrase; and this is what Lord Midleton says Sir Arthur Paget said to his officers. If the noble and learned Viscount denies it, I ask him, What did General Paget say to his officers? Until he tells us that I maintain the substantial truth of what my noble friend read out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess has introduced an entirely new phrase. Warlike operations in Ulster is one thing; the coercion of Ulster may be an entirely different thing. As we do not know the basic phrase with which we are dealing any amount of misunderstanding may take place.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I may say that I heard those same words read out in the House of Commons, and they were not disputed by the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It requires a legal training to make these nice distinctions between "warlike operations" and what my noble friend read out. It is quite clear that something of the kind was definitely said by General Paget to his officers. As to the protection of stores, what do they want with three regiments of Cavalry for that purpose? The noble and learned Viscount presumes upon our ignorance of these affairs. He knows quite well what General Paget did say. He asked his officers whether they were prepared to take part in active operations in Ulster, and he told them that it was a question of their consenting or being dismissed the Service. There was no misunderstanding there. The question is, Did General Paget rightly interpret the instructions he received from the War Office? That is where the responsibility of the noble and learned Viscount and his colleagues comes in; and we want to know what those instructions were. Why should the Government be ashamed of telling us what the instructions were?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I will inquire whether we can or not. I very much think we may.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount had been good enough to say that about half-an-hour ago he might have shortened this discussion. Of course, we cannot expect him to promise the instructions without reference to the War Office. We cannot leave this matter as is suggested. It is no good for the noble and learned Viscount to say, "Let bygones be bygones." After all, His Majesty's Ministers are responsible for the government of the country, and we are entitled to know how they are governing the country; and if there have been misunderstandings in the past, we must take care that there are no misunderstandings in the future. It is of great importance that we should know exactly what passed. We have a conditional promise from the noble Viscount opposite that he will make inquiries and see whether these instructions can be laid upon the Table. We shall, of course, return to this on a future occasion.
Now I want to ask another question. The noble and learned Viscount just now said that the officers had been ordered to rejoin without conditions. I want to know—we have had so many misunderstandings—what was the understanding upon which these officers were ordered to rejoin. Upon what conditions? The noble Viscount opposite introduced a very august name just now. He said that His Majesty the King approved of these officers being ordered to rejoin. I wish I could be assured that His Majesty the King approved of all the proceedings of the Government in this matter. But what I want to know is, Upon what conditions have these officers gone back? Have they agreed to defend stores? Have they agreed to do what the noble and learned Viscount said was the only thing these officers would be expected to do? Or has it been understood that they are to coerce the loyalists of Ulster into accepting Home Rule? What are the conditions upon which these officers have gone back? Will the noble and learned Viscount tell us?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No conditions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do you mean to say that they have gone back unconditionally?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There had been a misunderstanding, and they had resigned or were ready to resign. That misunderstanding being removed, they have unconditionally gone back—
A NOBLE LORD: Unconditionally?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: After doing what they thought proper to do in the circumstances.
A NOBLE LORD: In the circumstances?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I may say that personally I entertain considerable doubt whether there has not been some understanding—I hope it is not a misunderstanding—upon what conditions these honourable men have withdrawn from the position which they took up. I think we may assume that, as these officers elected to sacrifice all their prospects in life rather than join in the coercion of Ulster, they have not resumed their places in the Army except upon the condition that they shall not be asked to coerce Ulster. That is a natural inference from the conduct which you would expect from honourable and gallant officers of that description in the circumstances. Let us earnestly hope that there may be no more misunderstandings. And let us be quite clear that when we ask, as we shall ask, the Government to make a clean breast of their proceedings in this matter and lay upon the Table of your Lordships' House the instructions which they gave to the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, we shall receive them, and that the country may be satisfied as to exactly what did take place.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am sorry to have to ask the noble and learned Viscount one more question, but it is a new one. He has stated that these officers have returned without conditions. Do I understand that to mean that not only were no conditions imposed by the Government but that no conditions were imposed by the officers themselves?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. The officers thought fit to return to their commands. They were so ordered, and they thought fit to obey the orders.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Perhaps I may be allowed to give notice that to-morrow I
644
shall move, "That there be laid on the Table of this House the instructions given by the Army Council to the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland in regard to the meeting of officers called by the Commander-in-Chief on Friday last, and also the report of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland in relation to the meeting."
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, and in what I say I do not wish to be in the least polemic. I am not in at all a polemical frame of mind. But I am living, together with, I believe, thousands and thousands of my countrymen outside, in a state of most profound anxiety, and I should like, if possible, that the incident which has taken place might conduce to some extent to the relief of that anxiety in the future. I do not wish to have any recriminations about it. I do not want to throw blame upon anybody, either upon the Government or upon the General who is concerned; but I desire to point out what the position is in which the country stands at this moment, and how we are left in the same miserable uncertainty in which we have been living for weeks by the assurances—they are not assurances, but subterfuges—to which we have listened to-night.
I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor could possibly expect us to accept his version of this incident which has taken place. May I say, my Lords, how I regard it? I believe this country is trembling on the verge of the greatest disaster which could possibly befall it, a disaster which, if it occurs, will cause unspeakable misery and bitterness in this country and absolutely undermine the Empire. That danger—let me speak quite plainly—is that the Forces of the Crown should under any circumstances be used to drive the loyalists of Ireland out of the position which they at present occupy in the United Kingdom. I say that if British soldiers were ever to be used for that purpose it would give a shock to the Empire from which it would never recover. I believe we were trembling on the verge of that disaster last week. I think it is impossible to explain in any other way what occurred. It is impossible not to take the gravest view of the situation, and it is only by a grave view being taken of it

645
that the recurrence of that danger can be averted. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that I speak. I should entirely agree with the noble Viscount who leads this House in the appeal not to call attention to unfortunate differences which have arisen in the Army which might affect the discipline of the Army. But why do I speak at all? It is in order, if possible, to prevent the recurrence of circumstances which would rend the Army from top to bottom.
Why do I say that we were on the verge of these grave dangers only a few days ago? The case surely is clear. The noble Viscount says that it was necessary to take precautions against disturbances of law and order in the North of Ireland. But why was that necessary now any more than for the last three or six months? This drilling and arming and preparing for war on the part of the loyalists of Ulster has been going on for months. It has never been accompanied by any disturbance of order or any threat of disorder. The most remarkable thing of all is that Ulster, as far as the ordinary observance of the law is concerned, has never been more peaceable and more orderly than it is to-day. These men are not going to break the law under which they live; they do not want that law altered; they will never be lawbreakers. But if the Constitution under which they have been born and have always lived as peaceful subjects is taken away from them, they will fight—not as law-breakers, but, as nearly as they can, as an orderly army of men. Until the moment comes when they have either to fight or to give up their position as citizens of the United Kingdom such as it is to-day, there is not the slightest danger that I can see, speaking from an experience of Ulster during the last few months, that there will be any breach of order. Anyway, their behaviour is not a little bit less orderly now than it has been all along. It could not have been to prevent ordinary breaches of the peace that these movements were made.
But what happened? After a speech made by a leading member of the Ministry and expressly approved by the Prime Minister—a speech of unparalleled violence of language and provocative intent—the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland came to London. He had grave
646
consultations with Ministers in London. He went back to Ireland, and immediately on his return summoned his brigadiers to a conference in which he put before them substantially what we now all know. I need not go over the words again. At the same time orders had been given to the Navy. We do not quite know the extent of them, and apparently, I am very glad to think, they have been cancelled; but orders had been given to the Navy to move. Well, the noble Viscount who leads the House and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor have minimised these movements of troops. There was really no reason for moving any. They say that there was only a detachment here and there moved, and a regiment in another place. But was that all that was contemplated? If that was all that was contemplated, if there was no intention of moving Cavalry, why in Heaven's name were the commanders of the Cavalry specially sent for and asked whether they would go or not? It really is trifling with the House and with the country to tell us in these circumstances that no further action was intended against Ulster than that which has actually taken place.
The noble Viscount says that there was no order given for the coercion of Ulster. I do not suppose those words were used. Who dreams for a moment that the Government gave orders in that particular language? But that military operations on a large scale were intended I think it is almost impossible in the circumstances to doubt. What was doubtless intended, and what has fortunately been prevented by the action of officers who may live in history as the saviours of their country, was, after warning all the troops in Ireland and possibly—though of this I am not sure—some troops in this country, slowly to dribble forces into Ulster until the whole Province should be occupied by a large military force. If that had been done it is, humanly speaking, certain that at an early stage in the proceedings the Ulstermen would have risen. What else could they do? Otherwise they would never under any circumstances have a possibility of striking a blow for the retention of their position as citizens of the United Kingdom. That military operations on a large scale were contemplated seems to me to be indicated, if by nothing else, by the fact that officers were told

647
—and this is, I understand, not denied— that if they were domiciled in Ulster they would be allowed to "disappear." Why were they to be allowed to disappear if this were an ordinary question of supporting the civil authority in the maintenance of law as against a riot Can one imagine officers being told, if there was a disturbance of the peace in London, that if they happened to be born in London they would not be called upon to take part in suppressing it? I do not know that this condition emanated from the Government but it looks to me very much like a Government decision—I hardly suppose General Paget thought of this distinction for himself—but whoever had this idea evidently contemplated, not a mere ordinary disturbance of the peace, but something like a condition of war, a condition of belligerency, under which it would be reasonable and merciful to make this distinction and to say that the men of the Army who were Ulstermen might be allowed to step aside.
My Lords, we have been on the verge of a terrific disaster. We have been saved, as I believe, by the action of those officers, who made it clear that they were prepared to sacrifice their careers and to undergo what must be the most painful thing for any soldier, a charge of indiscipline, rather than bring upon this country the irreparable disaster of civil war. But the question is, How do we stand to-day? Is it still possible that operations such as were contemplated last week, not for the coercion of Ulster but military operations on a large scale against Ulster, are still within the contemplation of the Government? Surely they must be mad, after what has happened, if they still think at any future time of trying to use the British Army to beat down the resistance of Ulstermen to being extruded from their position in the United Kingdom. If they would only recognise that fact to-day, would it not be better to say so? If they know—they must know in their hearts after what has happened—that this exercise of violence towards the people of Ulster is an impossibility, then surely it would be better to admit that position at once. Nothing to my mind will or ever can lead to a settlement of this question, to any satisfactory results in the future, but the admission, frankly made, once for all, that it is a physical and moral impossibility for the Government of this
648
country to impose by force the domination of an Irish Parliament upon the people of Ulster against their will.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I think my noble friend on the Cross Benches used a very mild phrase when he said that the spokesmen of the Government had been trifling with us this evening. Indeed, I think that the treatment we have received at their hands is little short of insulting; and I, for one, shall not feel myself bound to extend to them that consideration and respect which has been hitherto customary in this House unless they adopt a very different tone when matters of the gravest public importance are concerned. The noble Viscount who is leading the House to-day made a very vile charge against noble Lords sitting on this side, a charge which I, for one, am not going to ignore, more especially as I see that it commended itself to those friends of the noble Viscount who were sitting round him. The noble Viscount charged us with some measure of responsibility foe what has been happening in the Army in Ireland. The words he used were, that we had been "aiding and abetting" what he was pleased to call "law-breaking." I demand that he should substantiate that charge, or else that he should withdraw it. It is a charge which we here will certainly not tolerate. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack had the audacity to say that he knew what was in our minds, as if, forsooth, we did not know it ourselves. He also told us what we were entitled to know, and what we were not entitled to know. He said that what we were really thinking about, in spite of what had been said, was whether orders had been given for the coercion of Ulster; and he gave the answer to the question which he himself had put, by telling us that no such orders had been given, and therefore we had got all we were entitled to know. That was not what we were wanting to know, nor did any of us think that such orders had been given. But I deny that even the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has any right to say what it is this House is entitled to know, and what it is this House is not entitled to know. Nor can I admit for a moment that he has any power to divine what is in our minds. What we asked was, What were the orders communicated to the officers of the troops in Ireland? And if the

649
spokesmen of the Government think that they impress us with the kind of answers they have given this evening—by telling us that it is a "misunderstanding," by making jokes about "basic phrases," by suggesting that it would be very unwise and inexpedient if we were to ask a question—let me tell them that they have not impressed us in the smallest degree, and that we should think a great deal better of them if they merely said straight out "We are not going to answer you," instead of endeavouring to fool us in this way and making us feel that we have every right ho resent the insulting treatment of our perfectly legitimate inquiries.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am bound to say that I rather welcomed the contribution to this debate of the noble Lord opposite, perhaps for the very reason that has made most of his supporters on that side of the House leave it. He is apt to say rather injudicious things about what noble Lords opposite are thinking. As I listened to this debate, and as I listened particularly to the speech of Lord Milner, I asked myself whether we were sane men sanely discussing facts or whether we were talking in the air. I speak as a mere man in the street, with no responsibility. But when we on this side of the House hear it suggested that it is the Government who have stirred up strife, that the Government are provocative, that all the disorder there may be is due to the Government, I ask myself, What do noble Lords opposite mean who support this extraordinary movement in Ulster? When it comes to the point, do they intend to break the law in Ulster, or do they not? Do they intend to obey the decrees of the Imperial Parliament, or do they not? Do they intend to resist the laws of the country, or do they not? If they intend to resist the laws of the country—and that is what they have been advocating on public platforms in Ulster and out of it, in this House and in the other House—if they intend to resist the laws of the country—
A NOBLE LORD: It is the way in which the law has been passed by the Imperial Parliament.
EARL RUSSELL: I have yet to learn that after a law has reached the Statute Book a person can ask how it has been passed. Such a proceeding has never been
650
recognised in this House, and I do not think it would be recognised in the country. What has really happened is that the Party which has been in domination so long, which for so long has imposed its will upon every Government, Liberal or Tory, finds that that domination is at last passing from it. What occurs to me, as a plain man in the street, is that Ulster is merely being used as a stalking-horse for this resentment against popular government which has at last come to fruition. I know that the Orangemen are serious. They are very narrow and bigoted; they take a strong view, and are perfectly sincere in the view they take. But I am convinced that many of your Lordships opposite who agree with them are joining in this agitation merely because of your furious indignation at seeing the control of this country at last fall into the hands of the Democracy.
LORD AMPTHILL: You judge others by yourself.
EARL RUSSELL: What we have to fight for on this side of the House is the rights of the Democracy. It is not a case of the coercion of Ulster. No one has suggested that Ulster should be coerced other than by means which would be used in any other part of the Dominions. Do you mean by "coercion" obedience to a law once it has been passed? We all have to do that, whether we like it or not, whether we voted against it or not, and those are the conditions of any civilised community. It is those conditions which noble Lords opposite are subverting.? It amazes me when I hear Lord Milner saying that if troops are moved into Ulster what can Ulster do but rise? I will tell you what they can do. They can sit still. When troops are moved into West Sussex, it does not occur to me or to my neighbours that we must rise. Do your Lordships suggest, if these armed forces in Ulster begin damaging property, resisting authority, interfering with the mails, or upsetting the law and order of the country, that they should be allowed to do it? Is it suggested that Ulstermen alone are to be allowed to break the law and are not to be coerced by troops? I have not heard that argument used in the case of the strikes at Llanelly, or in other cases.
It appears to be thought, because it is convenient to shelter yourselves behind

651
the opinions of men who are sincere, I admit—I can assure you that many of the Labour men are also sincere with regard to labour propositions—that it is an opportunity to say that the Forces of the Crown are not to be used. There is to be rebellion on one side only and armed force on one side only, and a Government that attempts to do its duty, to suppress rebellion and protect the lives and liberties of the people, is to be blamed. I think the man in the street will feel that that is an attitude which cannot possibly be supported. Speaking for myself, this discussion seems to me to be too unreal for words. I find it difficult to understand how your Lordships can persuade yourselves—if you really can persuade yourselves—that you have a right to resist a particular set of laws, and that others have not the right to resist other laws. That is a very dangerous argument, and it ill becomes the Conservative Party to put such an argument before the country. It is an argument which may be used by Suffragettes; it is an argument which may be used by Labour; and it is an argument which may be pressed much further than your Lordships would like to see it pressed.
In this particular discussion Lord Milner says the officers who refused to serve may in the future be hailed as the saviours of their country. They did not refuse to obey their orders. There was a misunderstanding, which was cleared up. But does the noble Lord desire that the right of private judgment should exist in the Army? It was not endorsed by any noble Lords opposite in the case of Tom Mann when he invited the soldiers not to shoot their fellow citizens, but in this case it is endorsed. The whole of this attitude is an unreal attitude. I think the country sees through it, and believes that what is really aimed at is the control of the Legislature for the first time, since the Parliament Act has been passed, by the Democracy of this country.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I can only wonder whether any other noble Lord in this House holds the extraordinary views which have just been expressed. It is perfectly true that they have been the subject of leading articles in the Radical Press, but we know perfectly well with what
652
object those arguments are put forward. Let me point this out to the noble Earl. First of all, there is a difference between opposing a Bill which is not yet a law and opposing a law which is already on the Statute Book of this country. That is the difference between Suffragettes and Ulster, as far as that is concerned. There is this additional difference, and it is a vital one —the difference between a law which alters the Constitution of a country and any law of another kind. If the noble Earl believes that it is wrong to resist any change in the Constitution, why did he not compel Natal to go into the Union of South Africa? Why was it that Newfoundland was not compelled to join the Dominion of Canada? Why was it that Western Australia was allowed to stand outside the Commonwealth of Australia until she herself consented to go in? There are three absolutely separate occasions in three Dominions of the Crown in which parts of those Dominions have been allowed to stand outside the Constitution until they decided whether or not they would join. That is a vital difference.
Now I come to what is, after all, the point of the discussion here to-night—the position of the Army. I look upon what has happened in Ulster as a disaster to this country. What has happened is this. It may have been a misunderstanding or it may not, but the officers were given to understand that they had no alternative between taking an active part in operations in Ulster or, not resigning their commissions, but being dismissed the Army. The officers were given the alternative between sacrificing their principles or their pensions. Now, the officers may have been right or wrong, but every officer I have met who has heard what was said to the officers in Ireland has taken that as a gross insult to their profession. They will not undertake to do anything for any Government who put such a suggestion as that before them. The Army as a whole object most strongly to be made the pawn of any political Party, either my Party or the Party of noble Lords opposite. They object to being insulted, as they have been insulted, by being ordered to sacrifice their principles or their pensions.
Another point. The officers were told— there is no question about it—that those who were domiciled in Ulster would be

653
"allowed to disappear." They were further told that if they made a false statement as to where they were domiciled they would be court-martialled. I ask any noble Lord who has had anything to do with the Army or Navy whether he has ever told any man under him that he would be punished if he would not do any certain thing? It is an invariable rule that the Army is expected to do the right thing, and they are not threatened as to what would happen if they did not do it. To imagine that any officer of His Majesty's Forces would deliberately make a false statement to save his own skin is enough to make the whole of the officers of the Army resign their commissions. I make these statements now because it has to be cleared up by His Majesty's Government exactly what they meant and what they said. It is not sufficient to say that there was a misunderstanding, and that that misunderstanding has been cleared aside. The officers know perfectly well what was said to their comrades in Ireland. They are not prepared to sit down under those insults until those insults are not only explained away but withdrawn.
I ventured to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to ask him whether the movement of stores could also be considered as part of the methods of precaution which were referred to by the Prime Minister. I happen to know that stores were moved in England as well as in Ireland, and stores have been moved up to ports in England and Scotland, opposite to Ireland, in very large quantities. If they have not been actually so moved, at any rate warnings have been given that they should be moved. Those warnings have, no doubt, been countermanded. It is perfectly obvious, from even a statement such as that, that the Government were preparing for military operations in Ulster. That has to be explained away. It has to be explained to those officers who were acting admittedly, so we are now told, under a mistake as to what was actually meant by His Majesty's Government. It is not only the point as to whether those officers were threatened whether they would undertake active operations in Ulster or not that has to be explained, but the further point whether those officers were given an insulting alternative, and also accused of being likely to make a false statement in order to save their own skins.

MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships' attention is already known to you, and for that reason, if for no other, I shall make very few observations about it. It is, in fact, substantially the Bill which I had the honour of submitting to your Lordships some seven years ago. When I moved it the second time I then asked that it might be referred to a Select Committee, to which request your Lordships were good enough to agree. The Bill is one for the permissive adoption of the principle of proportional representation instead of the principle of majority representation in the election of municipal councils in England and Wales, including therein the borough councils of the Metropolis. The Bill, as I have said, was referred to a Select Committee, who recommended approval of the Bill with certain modifications as to the machinery. The Bill came up again the next year, when certain Amendments were adopted and incorporated in the Bill, and it passed through all its stages and went to the other House. It naturally arrived there too late for that session. Although the Bill has been introduced again since that time, and attempts have been made to obtain days for discussion, those attempts have been fruitless.
Now, after a lapse of six years, I come to your Lordships again and ask you to consent to the Second Reading of the Bill in the hope that it may pass through the subsequent stages in a short time and be sent down to the other House, where there is a slight expectation—I will not say a very confident one—that some attention may be paid to it. We have no power of enforcing the consideration upon the other House of Bills which have been twice passed through this House, and we must take the result as we find it. Meanwhile I beg to ask your Lordships to consent to the reading of this Bill a second time, with a view to accelerating its passage through this House and enabling it to be sent down to the other House in good time, where we hope it will receive different treatment from that which has been accorded to it previously.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has been, as your Lordships know, a consistent and enthusiastic advocate of the principle of proportional representation. He and the late Lord Avebury—whose loss we all deeply deplore—had in fact made this subject their own. Lord Courtney has given your Lordships the history of the Bill, and has stated that it was referred to a Select Committee, on which I had the honour of sitting, and that the Select Committee recommended it to the consideration of the House.
The primary object of the Bill is to secure more adequate representation of minorities, and the Committee in their Report pointed out that as they were limited by the terms of reference to the consideration of the proposals of the Bill, they did not form or offer any opinion on the merits of this scheme as compared with others having the same object. I do not think, if I may say so, that the evidence taken before the Committee showed that there was any real demand for the alteration in the system of elections proposed by the Bill. Still, as Lord Courtney has reminded the House, the Bill is optional. But I very much doubt whether many local authorities would be willing to disturb the present system by adopting what, after all, must be admitted to be an extremely complicated system. The larger part of the Bill appears to be in the schedules, which occupy a good many pages and which will need a good deal of studying by all concerned to explain the system of counting the votes. I venture to think that returning officers and all those engaged in elections where this system is adopted will have a very arduous task; and although I think it is probable that, after a little while, the officials charged with the conduct of elections under it might carry out the duties without any serious mistakes, I am not at all sure that the average voter would not have difficulty in deciding the order in whish to distribute his preferences; and I am sure it would be difficult to persuade him, at first at all events, that his votes had been accorded their full value in the way he wished.
Another disadvantage which appears to the Local Government Board is that this system would involve town councils going out altogether every
656
three years, thus involving a risk of a serious break in continuity of administration. At present, as your Lordships know, in provincial boroughs one-third of the councillors are elected every year. I have drawn the attention of the House to some of the objections to the Bill as they seem to me. At the same time the Bill is optional, and before it could come into force it would have to be adopted by a three-fifths majority at a meeting of the council, and if it were not found to work satisfactorily it could be abandoned. The Government will certainly not offer any opposition to the present Bill in your Lordships' House and are quite willing that it should go to a Second Reading. I think the noble Lord, from his concluding remarks, is not very much more sanguine than I am as to its going any further than this House during the present session, but if it ever passes into law it will certainly be interesting to watch how many town councils try the scheme and with what results.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

THE ISLAND OF DOMINICA.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether a scheme for improving the roads in the island of Dominica has been submitted to the Colonial Office; whether a loan, and if so of what amount, has been promised for the proper construction and maintenance of roads in the island; and whether, having regard to the urgency of the matter in the interests of the island, His Majesty's Government can now complete the arrangements so that the scheme may be proceeded with as soon as possible.
THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, the more recent history of the question about which the noble Duke has asked is this. In November, 1912, the Governor of the Leewards wrote a Despatch to His Majesty's Government drawing attention to the question of the roads and asking for a vigorous policy of road construction and improvement. Early in February, 1913, a most sympathetic reply to that Despatch was sent

657
by the Secretary of State. I will quote one passage from it—
"The question of a programme of construction of roads has been postponed from time to time on various grounds, but now that the Colonial Engineer is available I consider that there is no reason for further delay, and that a definite programme of road construction, to be spread over a period of years, should be drawn up."
Major Burdon, the Acting Administrator, worked with great energy. He rode or walked over nearly every road in the island; he also climbed the mountains, descended into the gorges, and forced his way through the forests looking for possible roads; and on December 20 he submitted to the Secretary of State a comprehensive programme calculated on the basis of an expenditure of £28,000 during the next five years, and asking for leave to submit to the Legislative Council a proposal for an expenditure of £5,681 for the financial year 1914–15.
Before the final decision was taken on this proposal a telegram was received from the Governor of the Leewards saying that he heartily agreed with the programme, but that he considered the cost had been under-estimated. The Secretary of State replied by cable expressing his high appreciation of the work done by Major Burdon in preparing this Report, and sanctioning the submission to the Legislative Council of a proposal for spending £5,681 during the forthcoming financial year; but he said he could not sanction the details pending the arrival of the new Administrator, Mr. Drayton. In the Despatch confirming this cable he pointed out that it would be hardly proper to commit the Government to an expenditure of this amount before the arrival of the principal officer who would have to carry out the expenditure. On February 3 a Despatch was received from the Governor confirming his telegram, and throwing considerable doubt on the reliability of the estimates that had been submitted in Major Burdon's Despatch. He thought an insufficient amount was allowed for the maintenance of the roads, and he thought whatever amount was spent on the maintenance of roads should not be put to capital. The Secretary of State replied suggesting that further expert advice should be obtained, and that a competent road engineer should be selected, and he said that he would try to find one on receipt of the Governor's reply. The expert was in the first place to make detailed estimates with regard to the roads
658
suggested, and not to undertake construction until the programme was approved. There has not yet been time to obtain a reply to our last communication.
With regard to the question of the loan which the noble Duke mentions, no proposals for a loan have been put before us. The Secretary of State has expressed,, in the Despatch of February 5, 1913, an opinion adverse to a loan. He said that whatever programme may be adopted it should be financed out of general revenue and accumulated balances without recourse to a loan or entrenching on the reserve. Major Burdon's Report also says that it is not necessary to resort to a loan. The intention is to use a considerable part of the surplus of revenue and some portion of the surplus balances, which amount to about £10,000, the condition of the island having been very prosperous during the last ten years. The roads in Dominica want constant repair because of the exceedingly heavy rainfall, amounting to between 100 and 200 inches in a year, and in some parts greater than that. In fact, there is rather a tragicomic story of a boiler getting away down one of these roads and running over two children. The children were found, when the boiler had passed, to be practically uninjured, because the ruts into which they had fallen were so deep that the boiler did not hurt them. That is the kind of road that prevails here and there in Dominica.
I think it is a much sounder system for Dominica, where the repairs are so heavy, not to use borrowed capital for the purpose of providing roads. The wear and tear of the floods there is so great that the roads require constant heavy repairs. Fortunately the financial position is such that it seems highly probable that an expenditure of £28,000 may be made in the next five years without any recourse to a loan at all. I should like to say, in conclusion, that the Secretary of State is most anxious to see the work proceeded with. The cause of the delay that has occurred has been the necessity for reliable estimates to be prepared, the desirability of waiting for the arrival of the new Administrator, the necessity for the proposal to spend £5,000 odd going before the Legislative Council, and the fact that we are waiting for any local criticism that might be made on the scheme put forward by Major Burdon. I can promise on behalf of the Colonial Office that there will be no delay when we get an agreed programme.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Can the noble Lord tell us how many roads can be made for the sum which he has mentioned?
LORD EMMOTT: I am afraid I cannot. The expense of making roads through the forests is, of course, very large. I think it costs £350 a mile to cut a track through the forest, and about £200 to make the road; but I do not give those as reliable figures. The cost of making roads is very heavy; but in the case of the roads to which the programme refers, many of those are roads already existing in some form or other.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: May I ask how soon the Administrator will be there, so that he can commence his work?
LORD EMMOTT: I do not know exactly, but I think he is due to arrive about this time. No doubt after he does arrive he must make himself master of the situation before he can reply.

SMALL HOLDINGS (TENANTS ACQUISITION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.