Sitting of 24 March 1914

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND).
Mr. LYNCHpresented a petition from the Urban District Council of Kilrush, county Clare, praying for legislation for the provision of financial aid to assist municipal authorities in carrying out schemes for the better housing of the working classes in Ireland.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Market Rasen Water Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed.
Ashington Urban District Council Bill, Read the third time, and passed.
Bedwas and Machen Urban District Council Bill,
Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill,
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Kidsgrove Gas Bill (by Order),
London Electric Railway Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
South Suburban Gas Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Commons Regulation (Gosford Green) Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed. Preston Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 10th March, 1914, granting a Retired Allowance to Mr. James Cuff, Salaried Sub-Postmaster, Killucan, Mullingar [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Act, the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, etc., for 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 24th March, 1914, made by the Board of Education, entitled the Mental Deficiency (Notification of Children) Regulations, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
Copy presented of Thirty-first Report of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, with Appendices, for the year 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]
ARMY.
Copy presented of Correspondence relating to recent Events in the Irish Command [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
Address for "Return of the net Income and Expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the eleven years from 1902–3 to 1912–13."—[sir George Scott Robertson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Tokyo (Arrest of Mr. A. Pooley).
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information about the case of Mr. Andrew Pooley, who was arrested in Tokyo on 29th January and has since been detained in prison; whether he is aware that Mr. Pooley has been denied legal aid in the recent examinations to which he has been subjected; whether the judge of the preliminary Court was in favour of releasing Mr. Pooley on bail, but the procurator objected on the ground that he had not yet confessed; and whether the Government, in view of the assurances given when extra-territoriality was surrendered, will make representations with a view to his release on bail?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Mr. Pooley was released on bail of £200 on the 22nd instant. I am informed by His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo that Mr. Pooley, who has been visited in prison by His Majesty's Consul-General, has been treated in precisely the same manner as is usual with untried persons. He has been at liberty to see counsel in the presence of a prison official, but as the principle of the preliminary examinations is secrecy, has not been allowed to discuss his case with them nor to obtain legal advice. According to the Japanese criminal code bail could not be granted until the procurator had given his opinion on the case.

  Armaments.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether His Majesty's Government have yet made any proposals to the German Government for an agreement with regard to armaments, either by way of a year's naval holiday or of a limitation of the size of capital ships, as suggested by the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  Sir E. GREY: No proposals have been made on these subjects otherwise than in public speeches.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of Admiral Von Tirpitz calling attention to those public speeches and saying that they have not been followed up by proposals, and that any proposals would be received with due consideration; and is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to follow up by definite proposals what they have said on the public platform?
  Sir E. GREY: I think that question ought to be more conveniently dealt with on the Navy Estimates than by question and answer. I understand there is still further debate on those Estimates, and I would rather leave it to the First Lord of the Admiralty or whoever his deputy may be to explain. I will say at once that the impression my hon. Friend has received from the report he has read of what Admiral Von Tirpitz has said is not really the same impression as that which is conveyed by the official report of what was actually said.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many extended references were made in the debate by Admiral Von Tirpitz and ether speakers expressing regret that official representations had not been made?
  Mr. J. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this question is raised on the Navy Estimates the First Lord of the Admiralty refers to the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Secretary refers to the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  Sir E. GREY: What I remember to read was that my right hon. Friend did say that either he or I would deal with this point on the Navy Estimates.
  Mr. MORRELL: May we take it that if any proposal is made it will be made through the Foreign Office and not through the Admiralty?
  Sir E. GREY: That would be the channel undoubtedly through which any official proposal would be made.

  Medical College, Lahore.
  Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Under-Secretary for India whether there is a

  169
  strike of students in the Medical College, Lahore; if so, what was the cause of the strike; and whether lie can say if there is an immediate prospect of its termination?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): I have seen certain conflicting reports in the Press as to the causes of the strike, but am not in a position to make any statement. It is stated in the latest papers that the strike is now ended.

  Sitapur Trial (Bachan Singh).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether at the trial of Bachan Singh, the record of which has now been laid before the House, the witness Kedar, upon whose information the police charged Sangha Singh, Bachan Singh, and two others with murder, has now been completely discredited by the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh; whether the Session judge of Sitapur also disbelieved the witness's story and acquitted the accused; whether it was largely upon the faith of this man's testimony that Sangha Singh was sentenced to and is undergoing transportation for life by Judicial Commissioners who did not see or examine Kedar; and whether, under the circumstances, it is now intended to carry out the sentence?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Judicial Commissioner doubted the credibility of Kedar Singh's evidence only in so far as it related to Bachan Singh. In the trial before the Sessions Judge of Sitapur the judge found discrepancies between the evidence given by Kedar Singh and that of other witnesses, and concurring with two of the three assessors acquitted the accused. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative, but I must point out that the accused was represented before the Appellate Court by the counsel who had defended him with the two other accused in the Sessions Court, and that no application was made on their behalf for the hearing of evidence at the appeal. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on the 17th February.
  Sir W. BYLES: Has the India Office satisfied itself that this man is justly condemned, and is not suffering imprisonment for a crime which he did not commit?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: Yes, the India Office has most carefully considered the matter.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has the India Office taken into consideration the fact that this man is suffering imprisonment after a hearing at which no evidence was heard or taken?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: All the circumstances of the trial have been most carefully considered.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that counsel on the trial did not adduce any evidence or ask witnesses to be present, because they were confident of an acquittal?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: No, Sir, I am not aware.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the observations of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, who acquitted Bachan Singh, about the allegations made to the police as to the connection of one Mathura with the murder for which Bachan was tried, and as to the motive attributed to Mathura, and as to the duty of the police to have inquired into these allegations; whether they have been at any time inquired into; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has no information as to whether the allegations mentioned by the hon. Member have or have not been inquired into by the police. The Assistant Judicial Commissioner attached no value to them as made to him.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is it not becoming perfectly obvious that this great Dependency cannot be governed from Whitehall?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: What is becoming obvious is that it is hopeless to retry an Indian murder case by question and answer in the House of Commons.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it possible for my hon. Friend to ascertain whether or not it true that this man has been on two or three occasions accused of murder?
  Sir W. BYLES: Has the India Office satisfied itself that this man is justly condemned, and is not suffering imprisonment for a crime which he did not commit?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not know that I can inquire into that now. The point was not dealt with at the trial at all.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not possible to find out from the police?
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the man Kedar, who was held by the Judicial Commissioner at Oudh, in the trial of Bachan Singh, to be a witness unworthy of belief, was the man upon whose information the charge of murder was brought against the three men originally tried by the Sitapur Sessions judge in this case; whether the evidence of this man Kedar was disbelieved by that judge and the two assessors, with the result that the prisoners were acquitted; and whether this acquittal was set aside on appeal by the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh without hearing any evidence at all?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The report of the murder was conveyed to the police station by Kedar Singh. With regard to the last two parts of the question I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the trial of Bachan Singh in the Sitapur murder case, which resulted in his conviction, was conducted in the absence of the principal witness, Kedar, who had absconded; whether the two assessors who sat with the Sessions judge disagreed with him and were in favour of an acquittal; whether, in the appeal which was heard by the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, he insisted upon the absent witness, Kedar, being brought before him; and whether he then came to the conclusion that this witness was wholly unworthy of belief?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The answers to the first, second, and third parts are in the affirmative. With regard to the last part the Assistant Judicial Commissioner doubted the evidence of Kedar so far as it implicated Bachan Singh in the murder.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether the trial of Bachan Singh, who was the fourth prisoner charged in the Sitapur murder case, was removed from the jurisdiction of the Sitapur Sessions judge, by whom the. other three prisoners had been acquitted, and transferred to another province; and, if so, by whose orders and for what reason this was done?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: If my hon. and learned Friend will look at page 9 of the Paper recently placed in the Library he will find the order of transfer. Lucknow is in the same province as Sitapur. The reasons for which such a transfer may be made are stated in Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can my hon. Friend say what were the actual reasons in this ease for the transfer?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: No; it is not necessary to state them.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Was not the reason in this case that the Sessions judge had acquitted the three other prisoners on the same charge?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: No. My hon. and learned Friend is confusing two trials.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: No.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: Yes. He is confusing the trial of Bachan Singh with that of the three previous prisoners.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Why was not Bachan Singh tried for the same offence by the same tribunal as that by which the other prisoners were tried?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am afraid that I cannot answer that. The order can be referred to, as I have suggested.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will my hon. Friend make inquiry into this important fact?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I will make inquiry; but it is not necessary to state the reasons at the time, and the reasons were not stated at the time.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Was the Judicial Commissioner who acquitted Bachan Singh the Judicial Commissioner who convicted the other three prisoners; and was Bachan Singh acquitted because Kedar was there to give evidence, while in the other case he was not?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: That is not the case. My hon. and learned Friend is right in the fact that it was the same Judicial Commissioner, but it was not on the same evidence. He altered his opinion on a point of evidence which concerned the one man, but did not concern the other three.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Did he not alter his opinion because he saw the witness in the one case, whereas in the other case he never saw him at all?

  India Council Bills.
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked when and how many times during the last twelve months has the price of Council Bills fallen to 1s. 3 15–16d.; and how long is it, anterior to such date, since Council Bills were sold for less than is. 4d the rupee?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: Bills were sold at 1s. 3 15–16d. on six occasions during June and July of last year. They had been sold at 1s. 3 31–32d. once in June and twice in March in the same year. Before 29th March, 1913, they had not been sold below 4d. since 7th June, 1911.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Can my hon. Friend state the highest price which a purchaser of Council Bills finds it profitable to pay in London at ordinary times rather than ship gold to India?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: It depends upon a number of varying circumstances, but believe the price might range to about ls. 41–16d.

  Indian Bankruptcy Acts.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Bankruptcy Acts contain in their enumeration of acts of insolvency nothing corresponding with a bankruptcy notice as provided by Chapter 52, Section 4 (g), of the English Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and that, in consequence, debtors having no goods to be distrained on are enabled to set their creditors at defiance because of the impossibility of making them bankrupt; and whether he will have steps taken to relieve the trading community from this difficulty?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State is advised that the difference is more apparent than real, and that the remedy provided to creditors in India is equally effective.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether headquarters and divisional staffs have been appointed for the Home Defence Army on mobilisation; to what extent small-arm ammunition and general stores of the Territorial Army have been reduced; whether it is intended to make any further redactions; and whether it is intended to appoint Territorial officers as brigade-majors or whether these appointments in future will be filled up by fully-qualified Regular soldiers with knowledge of staff work?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Officers have been selected for the headquarter units of the Territorial Force on mobilisation, though notifications have not in all cases been
    174
    issued. There has been no reduction in general stores nor in small-arm ammunition, and no reduction is contemplated. The majority of the brigade-majors are Regular officers, and funds have been provided which will enable the remainder of these appointments to be similarly filled.

    COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE (PAMPHLET).
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a recent pamphlet by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education on the subject of compulsory military service; and whether, in view of the fact that this publication is likely to have an adverse effect upon recruiting, he will take steps to counteract the statements made therein on the subject of Army life and discipline?
    Colonel SEELY: I have seen the pamphlet referred to. It does not seem to me to have the tendency which the hon. Member attributes to it.
    Mr. SANDYS: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the statement on pages 18 and 19 of that pamphlet?
    Colonel SEELY: I have read a good deal of the pamphlet, but as I read it it does not seem to have the tendency which the hon. Member attributes to it.
    Mr. SANDYS: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's unsatisfactory answer on this important subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Adjournment of the House to-morrow night.
    Colonel GREIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to this statement in the pamphlet; and, if so, does he agree with it: "The danger in these days may arise—"
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

    CONTINENTAL FIELD GUNS (RANGE).
    Captain FABERasked whether the Field Service Pocket Book of 1913, page. 245, is correct in stating that the range of the French field gun is 9,000 yards; and whether the ranges of Austria, Holland, and Sweden are 6,800, 6,600, and 7,650, respectively
    Colonel SEELY: As far as the information in my possession goes the figures quoted represent, approximately, the

    175
    extreme ranges. The corresponding range of the English field gun is about 9,000 yards.
    Captain FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me which is the accurate reply—that which he has just read or the reply of the week before last, which is totally different?
    Colonel SEELY: Both replies are accurate.
    Captain FABER: Is there no difference between 6,200, as stated the week before last, and 9,000, as stated now?
    Colonel SEELY: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the questions asked and the answers given he will find that there is no discrepancy.
    Captain FABER: May I read the previous answer of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot enter into a debate at Question Time.

    SOUTH AFRICA GARRISON.
    Viscount VALENTIAasked if is the intention of the Army Council to bring home this year either of the two Cavalry regiments quartered in South Africa; and, if so, which of them?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the Noble Viscount to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the North Dorset Division on the 6th inst. There is nothing that I can add.
    Viscount VALENTIA: Will the same order be observed in bringing the troops home as obtained when they went, out from this country?
    Colonel SEELY: I could not be expected to answer that question without notice.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: How does the War Secretary explain the continued existence of British troops in South Africa now?
    Colonel SEELY: I have stated that the policy of the Government is to make a progressive diminution in the garrison in South Africa, but I cannot hold out the hope that the garrison will entirely disappear, in view of our special responsibility to the Protectorates and the native races.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Have not the Boers proved during the recent trouble
    176
    quite able to protect the native races themselves?
    Colonel SEELY: I referred to the Protectorates under our control.

    COLONEL REPINGTON.
    Sir HAROLD ELVERSTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether Colonel á Court Repington is still connected with the War Office in any capacity; whether Colonel Repington still has the use of a room in the War Office building; and, if so, whether he will explain why Colonel Repington is allowed to do this in view of his position as military correspondent, of the "Times" newspaper?
    Colonel SEELY: Colonel Repington is not connected with the War Office in any capacity. His connection with that Department ceased on 31st December, 1912.
    Sir H. ELVERSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman has been in communication with certain people who have organised forces in Ulster to defy the mandates of the House of Commons, and may I ask whether he will see in future that no person—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argumentative sort of question.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Has this gentleman still a room at the War Office?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir. As I have said, he ceased to have any connection with the War Office on 31st December,. 1912.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War how many petrol-driven chassis have been supplied to the Army for transport or aviation purposes, to date; the average cost per chassis; and whether of British or foreign manufacture?
    Colonel SEELY: For general transport and aviation purposes 203 petrol-driven chassis have been supplied at an average cost per chassis of between £650 and £700. Twelve of these are of foreign manufacture.
    Colonel BURN: Would it not be advisable, so far as possible, to give this work for the Army to British workmen?
    Colonel SEELY: As I have said, out of the 203 petrol-driven chassis, twelve are of foreign manufacture. I do not think

    177
    it would be wise to entirely limit oneself in this rapidly progressive art to none but what are made in this country. The figures I have given will show that the vast majority of the work in this case has been given to our own manufacturers.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Would it not be advisable that some of this work should be given to the Army Ordnance factories; they are slack at present?
    Colonel SEELY: That is another matter; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a further question?
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Were the twelve bought recently, or are they old stock?
    Colonel SEELY: I cannot carry in my head the dates on which all the various 203 petrol-driven chassis were obtained. The policy in this, as in all similar matters, is to obtain warlike material of all sorts in this country whenever we can get it as good as from abroad.
    Mr. CROFT: May the House take it that, as a general rule, the right hon. Gentleman always gives the advantage to the home-grown product?
    Colonel SEELY: We have given the advantage to the home-grown product, as will be seen by the twelve out of 203. I cannot go further than the statement I have made, that in the purchase of warlike material it is considered advisable, for obvious reasons, to obtain the bulk of that warlike material in this country.

    Small Holdings (Scotland).
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a suitable applicant, on communicating with the Board of Agriculture with reference to the holding of Off Knowhead, in the county of Banff, was informed that his application would be entertained if he applied for it as a small holding; that he consequently made such an application and the Board refused to entertain it; and whether he will state the reason, if any, the Board gave for such a refusal?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Board promised the applicant in question to make inquiries if he made application for the holding, and upon his doing so the inquiries showed that the land was not available under the Small Landholders Act. The land had already been given
    178
    by the estate authorities to a neighbouring small holder as an enlargement.
    Captain WARINGasked how many applications, under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, have been received by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland from the county of Banff for the enlargement of existing holdings, for the establishment of new holdings, and for loans or Grants for buildings or other improvements; whether the applications have been. considered; and what steps are being taken for their satisfaction?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Fifteen applications for new holdings and eight for enlargements have been received. Most of the applicants have been interviewed, and schemes are in preparation providing for several applicants, but difficulty has been experienced in securing suitable and available land. One application for a loan for buildings from an existing holder is under consideration by the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can induce the Scottish Board of Agriculture to do something to get the Scriberscross land, Bogart, Sutherland, for the extension of small holdings; and whether lie is aware that practically not an acre of land has yet been got for the people of Sutherland under the Small Landholders Act, 1911?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Sciberscross farm has been considered by the Board, and they determined to delay action in it until some compensation cases are settled by arbitration. In reply to the second part of the question, I may say that one scheme for seven holders has been settled by agreement, and two schemes are before the Land Court which should provide for about fifty-six people in the county of Sutherland.
    Mr. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me where this land is that he speaks of having been got by agreement?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the hon. Member will give me notice, I shall be-glad to answer a question.
    Mr. MORTON: I will put down another question.

    Damage by Trawlers (Scottish Coast).
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether complaints have been received by the Fishery Board that

    179
    on 1st March a trawler operating about two miles off the village of Whitehills, Banffshire, destroyed fourteen cod nets, and on 11th March twenty nets were destroyed by a trawler in the same vicinity; when the fishery cruiser last visited this district; and what steps he proposes to take to protect drift-net fishermen against the depredations of trawlers engaged in illegal fishing?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that no complaints of damage being done to cod nets near Whitehills on the dates mentioned by my hon. Friend have been received by the Fishery Board. The locality was visited by one cruiser on the 15th inst., and by another on the 16th inst. With a view to preventing damage to cod nets, so far as practicable, the Fishery Board have drawn up a system which provides for the uniform marking or lighting of cod nets when in use, and which has been communicated to foreign Governments in order that their vessels may be aware of the system adopted. The Board have also arranged that special attention shall be given by their cruisers to the cod-net grounds during the present season.
    Captain WARING: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the fishermen to cast their nets within the Three-Mile Limit, where no trawlers are supposed to be?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This question arises outside the Three-Mile Limit. It is necessary that the places should be marked, because they arc often deserted all night.

    Scottish Rents (Lord Kennedy).
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any representations have been made on behalf of the Scottish Office to Lord Kennedy to lower all rents irrespective of whether the subjects concerned were too low rented or too high rented?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly not. No such representations have been made. The Land Court is an independent tribunal, and it would, of course, be quite improper for me to make even a suggestion of the nature indicated in the question.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the words in the latter part of my question are
    180
    quoted directly from the speech of the hon. Member for West Perthshire, who alleges that these instructions were given to Lord Kennedy?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I believe some such statement was made.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Does Lord Kennedy act in his judicial capacity, or is he merely a tool of the Radical party?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; that suggestion is an extremely offensive one. Lord Kennedy is as much an independent judge as any other judge in Scotland, and his rank is that of a judge of the Court of Session.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Member in order in imputing dishonest motives to a judge of the High Court?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly not. I am sorry to say that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the law of Scotland, and the Judiciary, to know exactly in what position Lord Kennedy is. If I had thought that he was in the same position as a puisne judge in this country—
    Mr. MACPHERSON: So he is.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should have stopped the question.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that Lord Kennedy's status is by Statute that of a puisne judge of the High Court?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If that is so, then the observation was a most improper one to make. It shows how very undesirable it is to fire off supplementary questions without giving me an opportunity to see them.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I am in the same position as yourself, Mr. Speaker. I am really seeking information. The question was a very curious one, and I wanted information about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is possible to ask for information in a more courteous manner!

    West Benhar (Lanarkshire) Closing Orders.
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the sheriff of the county of Lanark has issued an order for the closing of 150 houses in West Benhar; whether lie is aware that the owner is threatening to put the order

    181
    into operation and turn the inmates out; whether he is aware that there is no other accommodation in the district and that the county council have done nothing to provide accommodation for the people who are to he dispossessed; and what action he proposes taking in the matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The information which I have received on the subject of my hon. Friend's question is to the following effect:—The sheriff-substitute has found that the houses referred to are unfit for human habitation or use, and has ordered the owner, on or before the 28th May, 1914, to close them until his prohibition is altered or recalled by further order. This order was pronounced after proposals to arrange for the removal of the nuisance by remedial works had failed. The owner of the houses has given notice to the tenants in accordance with the sheriff-substitute's order. Some time ago the local authority held a local inquiry into the housing conditions in the locality which includes Benhar, and they are now formulating a scheme for the erection of houses. The insufficiency of accommodation is, I believe, recognised, and the situation has been receiving and will continue to receive the close attention of the Local Government Board.
    Mr. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman prevent the turning out of these people pending the provision of other houses?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The order, of course, has been given, but in view of the fact that houses can hardly be built in time perhaps the order may not be pressed. But the matter is one for the public health authority.
    Sir MATHEW WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the local authorities to make sure that they will provide suitable accommodation for any persons turned out of their houses?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes; I believe a scheme is in course of preparation with that object. It certainly shall have my sympathy. But, of course, it is a matter for the county council.

    Public Health Acts (Ayrshire).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Secretary for Scotland (l) whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the national health county insurance committee of Ayrshire condemning the public health authorities for their
    182
    inactivity with regard to the administration of the sanitary provisions of the Public Health Acts; and, if so, what action he proposes to take; and (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the housing and sanitary conditions of the Ayrshire mining rows; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to compel the public health authorities concerned to effectively exercise their statutory rights for the removal of such a state of matters?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The attention of the Local Government Board for Scotland has been directed to the resolution mentioned, and they have communicated with each of the Landward local authorities in Ayrshire. These local authorities have all replied that the matter is being considered, and that they have instructed their sanitary officers or public health committee to report fully thereon. In these circumstances, the Board do not propose to take further action until the local authorities concerned have had reasonable opportunity of dealing with the question. The Board will, however, continue to keep the matter under careful observation.
    Mr. BARNES: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting a limit upon the time?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes.

    Small Landholders (Scotland) Act.
    Mr. FALCONERasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, under the award which has been pronounced in the arbitration under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, between the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the proprietor of the farm of Lindean, the arbiter has found that the return received by the proprietor from the new holdings and from the price of the buildings belonging to him will exceed the return previously received by him from the subjects taken, and that no injury has been caused to the amenity of the mansion house and grounds, and that he has, notwithstanding, awarded £4,600 as compensation to the proprietor in respect of the creation of small holdings on one farm of his estate; and what action the Government propose to take in regard to the award?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend is correct in stating that the return to the proprietor will be increased, that no injury has been caused to the amenity of the mansion house and grounds, and

    183
    that the arbiter awarded £4,600 as compensation to the proprietor in respect of the creation of small holdings on one farm of his estate, but subject to the substitution of a smaller sum for £4,600 if the claim for depreciation in the value of the estate should not prove in all respects well founded. The Board of Agriculture. through their counsel have made representations to the arbiter on the subject of this claim, and have asked him to state a special case thereon to the Lord Ordinary.
    Mr. FALCONER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that this award of £4,600 is made in respect of the depreciation of the owner of this property of his rights—of his right of arbitrary eviction—which is supposed to be the public services of the Act?
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it is nothing of the kind, and that, as a matter of fact, there is only £20 difference in the rental, the depreciation of the property from the point of view of the number of years' purchase is very great?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think all these questions are questions I should not answer, as the matter is one before the High Courts.
    Mr. J. M. HOGGE: Was anything given for moral and intellectual damage?
    Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will endeavour to get the Board of Agriculture (Scotland) to consider the applications for the farm of Achaphris, Shinness, Larig, Sutherland, which have been before that Board for many months?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Negotiations regarding this farm have taken place between the Small Holdings Commissioner and the proprietor and tenant. A scheme for the constitution of new holdings is at present under consideration.

    Fishery Problems (Scientific Research).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a conjoint scheme of scientific research on fishery problems has been prepared by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Scottish Fishery Board, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and forwarded to the Treasury for submission to
    184
    the Development Commissioners; and, if so, whether any communication referring to this scheme has been received by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries either from the Development Commissioners or the Treasury; and, in particular, whether the scheme has been referred back for further consideration, either wholly or in part?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No official communication has been received from the Development Commissioners or the Treasury in reply to the application. I understand, however, that the application is being carefully considered, and that representatives of the Departments concerned will shortly be asked to discuss it with the Commissioners.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask whether the present Commissioners have already made a Grant for the purposes of this Fishery Department?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: An interim Grant was made last year. I cannot give the particulars.

    Small Holdings (England and Wales).
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many approved applicants for small holdings are still waiting for allotments?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of approved applicants who on the 31st December last had not received small holdings was 6,271.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether it is possible, as suggested in this question, that applicants for small holdings should be provided, not with small holdings, but with allotments?
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many acres of land have been provided for applicants under the Small Holdings Act; and how many of such acres are in England and Wales, respectively?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total quantity of land acquired by county councils and the councils of county boroughs up to the 31st December, 1913, is 182,020 acres, of which 157,104 acres is in England and 24,916 acres in Wales.

    Bovine Tuberculosis.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state when the promised modification of the Tuberculosis Order, 1913, will be made, and an incentive thereby provided to farmers and small holders to aid the Board and the local authorities in the elimination of bovine tuberculosis?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The revised Order will be issued as soon as possible, but I am not at present in a position to name a date.

    Pluralities Act (St. Peter-le-Bailey and St. Ebbes, Oxford).
    Viscount VALENTIAasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he is aware that the Oxford trustees are arranging a scheme whereby the livings of St. Peter-le-Bailey and St. Ebbes, Oxford, should be held in plurality; whether he is aware that the income of each of these livings is upwards of £200, and that the aggregate population of the two parishes is over 1,500; whether he has considered Section 14 of the Pluralities Act, 1885, and Section 8 of the Pluralities Act, 1850, in this connection, and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter; whether he is aware of the opposition of the congregation of St. Peter-le-Bailey to the scheme; whether all the correspondence that has taken place between all the parties concerned may be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether the Simeon trustees have admitted the illegality of a similar scheme affecting the churches of St. Aldate's and Holy Trinity, in Oxford?
    Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are cognisant to the proposed arrangements. The income of each of the livings at present exceeds £200, but each is giving up something (the amount not being yet settled) for the endowment of a newly formed district of St. Matthew Grandpont, and after that surrender the income of one, and possibly of both, will not exceed —200; the aggregate population exceeds 1,500. The action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is limited to the formation of the new district of St. Matthew Grandpont, and the arrangements necessary for effecting the apportionment of the incomes of the other cures to afford an endowment for the new district, and consequently they have not been concerned
    186
    to consider in this connection the Sections of the Acts to which the Noble Lord refers. The latter of the two Sections, however, relates only to permanent Unions of Benefices, and the conditions there mentioned do not govern the holdings of livings in plurality. The Commissioners have received representations that there are objections to the proposed arrangements on the part of members of the congregation of St. Peter le Bailey and have considered them, but they are not prepared to refrain from carrying the arrangements into effect so far as action on their part is concerned. The correspondence between all the parties is not in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and they are therefore not in a position to cause a complete record to be laid on the Table of the House. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the alleged admission by the Simeon Trustees.
    Viscount VALENTIA: Am I to gather that this does not collie within the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners?
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: This question does not come within our jurisdiction.
    Viscount VALENTIA: Does it come under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: That is so.
    Viscount VALENTIA: Could not the question be dealt with so as to save the parishioners from other legal expenses?
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: I think application should be made direct to the Archbishop's secretary.

    Post Office Classification (Gloucester and Worcester).
    Mr. GOULDINGasked the Postmaster-General whether the outdoor and the indoor staff of the postal employés at Gloucester have recently been raised to Class 2 B; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that at Worcester, a city of about equal population, and where the cost of living is the same, the employés do similar work, he will raise the Worcester office to the same class?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): Gloucester was raised to Class 2 B as from the 1st January, 1913, because the number of units of post office work then reached 950. The number of units at Worcester, according to the latest available returns, is 528,

    187
    and a higher classification is not warranted according to the standard of classification in force. The classification is not based on population and the cost of living; but, primarily, on the amount of work modified in accordance with the cost of living.
    Mr. GOULDING: Is not the work done by the officials in either case practically the same?
    Captain NORTON: I scarcely think that can be so, inasmuch as units of work in one place are close upon double the number of units in the other, and the amount of work is arranged by units. Unit is an arbitrary measure taken in order to measure the amount of work done in each office.
    Mr. GOULDING: If the number of units increase does it not naturally follow that the number of employés are increased to meet that work?
    Captain NORTON: It also means the work is more complex.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if the Government has any intention of reconsidering the basis of classification of the units system which is now in existence?
    Captain NORTON: I should like to have notice of that.
    Mr. GOULDING: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, in view of the very grave dissatisfaction amongst the employés both in regard to classification and employment, to use his endeavours with the Prime Minister to give a day for the discussion of the grievances of those deserving employés?
    Captain NORTON: I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that.

    Northern Nigeria (Death Sentences).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what number of the 56 persons sentenced to death in Northern Nigeria during 1911 were tried before the chief justice; what were the tribunals at which the others were sentenced; and how many of them were defended by counsel?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answer to the first and last questions is none. Of the fifty-six persons sentenced to death in Northern Nigeria in 1911, forty were tried before provincial Courts and sixteen
    188
    before native Courts. No death sentence was carried out until confirmed by the Governor, who in practice consulted the Chief Justice or Attorney-General.
    Sir W. BYLES: Does my right hon. Friend consider that these prisoners get as fair a trial there as here?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Oh, I think so.

    Office of Works (Maintenance Staff).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the number of workmen employed on the maintenance staff of the Office of Works has been greatly reduced during the last three months; and, if so, will he state by what number it has been reduced?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The number has been reduced by 200.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Will there be a reduction in the number of supervisors?
    Mr. BENN: I cannot say that.

    Telephone Service (Automatic Exchanges).
    Mr. LARDNERasked whether any automatic telephone exchanges have been worked by his Department, if so, will he state where and for how long; whether he is now in a position to state the result of the experiments; and whether it is proposed to increase the number of automatic exchanges?
    Captain NORTON: In May and July, 1913, experimental exchanges equipped with automatic telephone plant of the Strowger type were opened at Epsom and at the General Post Office, London. These experiments have proved fairly successful; and in order that types of equipment manufactured by other companies may be tried and the practical and financial results of replacing manual by automatic equipment may be more fully investigated, automatic exchanges varying in size from 65 to 6,800 lines are to be installed in the following places:—Accrington, Chepstow, Darlington, Dudley, Grimsby, Leeds, Newport, Paisley, Portsmouth, and Stockport.
    Mr. LARDNER: Has the Postmaster-General considered the advisability of utilising these automatic exchanges for small installations in Ireland?
    Captain NORTON: We must first see what results we get from the places in which they are about to be tried.

    Road Board Staff (Ireland).
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what officials or staff are employed under the Road Board in Ireland for advisory or inspection purposes; will he give the names of these officials; and, if any of these officials are in the employment of Irish Departments or local authorities, will he state on what terms and conditions the Road Board have obtained their assistance?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): At the present time two engineering inspectors on the staff of the Road Board, namely, Messrs. J. P. J. Butler and R. W. Butler, are employed in Ireland for advisory and inspection purposes. In addition, Mr. P. C. Cowan, chief engineering inspector of the Local Government Board for Ireland, is a member of the Advisory Engineering Committee of the Road Board, the constitution and duties of which were set forth in the Board's First Annual Report. He receives no payment for his services as a member of that committee.
    Mr. LARDNER: Is Mr. Cowan the only member of the Local Government Board staff employed on the Road Board staff in Ireland?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes. There was an Advisory Engineering Committee appointed last year, and Mr. Cowan is a member of it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Who decides as to the Grants?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know that they actually advise.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ULSTER.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the report of the Notts and Derbyshire deputation of twelve Unionist and twelve Liberal working men, after a tour just concluded in Ireland, to the effect that they are of opinion that the people of Ulster are determined to resist the domination of an Irish Parliament, that they are unanimously of opinion that if the Government of Ireland Bill as now framed is forced on the people
    190
    of Ulster there will undoubtedly be civil war, and that they unanimously agree that this subject of national importance should be submitted to the country by Referendum; and whether the Government will give effect to this request?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have not seen the report referred to. The general question of a Referendum is not one with which I can deal in answer to a question.
    Mr. COWANasked whether, having regard to the amount of support extended from various quarters of the House to proposals that common ground of agreement should be found for the settlement of the-Ulster difficulty, the Government will now take into serious consideration the suggestion put forward in the Amendment moved in last Thursday's Debate by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can only say that I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to give the fullest consideration to any proposals which seem likely to afford a common ground of agreement.

    Civil Servants (Public Companies).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether, in order to avoid the growing scandal of officials of the Civil Service and officers of the Army and the Navy leaving the service of the Crown to take up posts. in public companies and private firms which have large contractural relations with the branches of His Majesty's. service with which such officers were previously connected, he will consider the advisability of making it known that in future no contracts will be placed with any company or firm which employs officers or officials of the Government who have quite recently left the Government service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question is one which is of difficulty and requires-serious consideration. I am afraid the remedy proposed by the hon. Member might in some cases deprive the Government of the power of entering into contracts beneficial to the public service.

    Income Tax (Stocks and Shares)
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue claim that Income Tax is payable on a casual profit made in the purchase or sale of stocks or shares by a person who is not a broker, even when

    191
    limited to one transaction, but that, on the other hand, if a loss is made it is held to be a loss of capital, which cannot be set off against another transaction in which a profit resulted?
    Mr. MONTAGU: An isolated transaction of the nature indicated by the hon. Member, unconnected with the ordinary avocation of the person effecting it, does not come within the provisions of the Income Tax Acts for purposes either of assessment or of allowance.
    Sir H. ELVERSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioners have been demanding statements showing the profits made during the last three years, and have they any authority for making that statement?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The question refers only to isolated transactions. If the hon. Member thinks that any principle has been contravened and will favour me with the particulars, I will make inquiries.

    National Debt Commissioners.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked from whom the sum of £1,030,000 was borrowed on temporary loans by the National Debt Commissioners in the year ended 31st March, 1913, in respect of the Local Loans Fund, and at what rate of interest?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The sum referred to was borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners under the provisions of Section 13 (5) of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887. The rate of interest paid was3½par cent.

    Local Loans Stock.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked at what price the issue of Local Loans Stock, producing £1,305,937 10s. in the year ended 31st March, 1913, was made; and whether it went to the public or how otherwise it was dealt with?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The sum referred to was raised by the issue of £1,500,000 Local Loans Stock on 13th January, 1913, at the average price of that day, namely, 87 1–16. The whole of the stock was taken up by the National Debt Commissioners.

    British Museum.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked if the hon. Gentleman will ascertain the reason why one of the principal
    192
    galleries of the new building of the British Museum is partly fitted with cases of oak and partly with cases of mahogany; if he will ascertain why all the cases in the same gallery have not been constructed of the same species of wood; whether, at that point in the gallery where the oak ends and the mahogany begins, the oak has been partially veneered with mahogany or the mahogany partially veneered with oak; whether this mixture of the two woods at this point was shown in the original drawings; whether any extra work upon this woodwork has been added since the first drawings were approved; and, if so, if he will state the extra cost, if any?
    Mr. BENN: In the students' room all the fittings are mahogany, in the remainder of the gallery they arc entirely of oak. The fittings are not all new, and it has been necessary to make the new cases to match the old. No veneer has been used, except to complete work which was originally veneered. No material alteration has been made since the original drawings of the fittings were made.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether the hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the vibration now so noticeable in the Asiatic gallery of the British Museum; whether he is aware that in certain central cases valuable objects exposed for exhibition can be seen to shake and move; and whether any part of the machinery required for lighting, heating, or ventilating the new buildings has been fixed underneath this gallery without clue consideration having been given to the dangers to which the objects exposed above might be subjected by almost incessant vibration?
    Mr. BENN: The attention of the First Commissioner has been called to the vibration and steps are being taken to remedy this defect. The machinery which causes the vibration is not directly under any of the galleries.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn, among others in the Asiatic Gallery, to one particular case in which some valuable mosaic work has been already damaged by the jewelled pieces being shaken out of their original settings?
    Mr. BENN: The First Commissioner regrets to learn that some mosaic work in the American room has been slightly damaged.

    Sight Tests.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen the appeal to the Board of Trade, signed by over 10,000 captains and officers of the merchant service and presented by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, protesting against the methods of conducting the Board of Trade sight tests on the ground that they are neither practical nor just and inflict, hardships on British certificated captains and officers; whether an appeal is also made to him to abolish the present tests in favour of tests of a more practical nature; and whether, providing it is justified by the tests which lie has ordered to take place at Shoeburyness, he will then introduce practical tests in place of those existing?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): I am aware of the appeal referred to, but I cannot admit that the allegations are well founded. I think that the last part of the question had better be postponed until after the demonstration at Shoeburyness.
    Mr. PETOasked whether, in respect to sight tests imposed upon pilots serving under the Mersey Pilotage Authority, the pin-head lights in their lantern tests are not used regularly through not being considered to be practical; whether, as regards the reading of printed letters of a certain size at a distance of sixteen feet, the two bottom lines of smaller print which are included in the Board of Trade test are left out of account by the Mersey Pilotage Authority as being an unnecessarily severe test in forth vision; and, if so, whether the views of such an authority will be taken into consideration with the object of modifying the severity of the present Board of Trade tests, and substituting tests more in accord with practical seafaring conditions?
    Mr. BURNS: I cannot say how far the statements in the question correctly represent the practice, pursued by the Mersey Pilotage Authority. In any case I do not think that the Board of Trade can properly be guided by that practice.
    Major WHITEasked (1) whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the statement which has been signed by thirty-one of the leading ophthalmologists of this country to the effect that the Board of Trade sight tests as applied to candidates for masters' and mates' certificates are
    194
    not satisfactory for the reasons that the wool test for colour-blindness is not an efficient test, that any lantern used for testing colour-blindness should have means for regulating the luminosity of the lights shown, and that the types used in the form-vision tests should be printed on a smooth flat surface, preferably white porcelain, and not on a roll of canvas which has to be held down by the examiner; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken in making the tests more in consonance with the opinions of these experts; and (2) whether he is aware of the resolution adopted, with one dissentient only, by the ophthalmological section of the last conference of the British Medical Association at Brighton, to the effect that the sight tests of the Board of Trade are not satisfactory, and that an inquiry is urgently needed in the interests of the mercantile marine and the nation; whether he is aware of a similar resolution unanimously adopted a few weeks later by the ophthalmological section of the International Medical Congress; and wheher he has taken, or intends to take, any steps in respect to these resolutions?
    Mr. BURNS: In reply to the two questions put by the hon. and gallant Member, which I will answer together, I would refer him to the answer given him on 6th August last. I may mention, however, that the sheets of letters used in the form-vision test are now backed with stiff cardboard, so as to prevent them from curling up at the edges or bottom.

    Loss of Steamship "Tyrone."
    Mr. PETOasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that, at the inquiry at Dunedin, New Zealand, which concluded on 13th October last, into the loss of the steamer "Tyrone," the Court allowed the costs of the legal defence of the second officer on the ground that he had in no way contributed to the disaster; and, if so, whether he will now adopt a similar principle where recommendations are made by Courts investigating shipping casualties in the United Kingdom that the whole or part of the costs of this kind should be defrayed by the Board of Trade?
    Mr. BURNS: I have received a copy of the report of the inquiry held at Dunedin into the loss of the steamship "Tyrone," but this report contains no reference to the question of costs, and I have no information to show whether or not the legal

    195
    costs of the second officer were allowed by the Court. I am aware, however, that such costs are sometimes allowed by the New Zealand Courts of Inquiry, and also that such Courts frequently order persons found in default to pay part of the costs of the inquiry. I doubt, therefore, if masters and officers would appreciate the adoption of the New Zealand practice. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave him yesterday.

    Pianos (Cost of Transport).
    Mr. CASSELasked whether his attention has been called to the fact that the cost of transport in sending pianos from London to Bradford. Sheffield, or Wigan is more than the cost of sending similar pianos from Berlin or Hamburg to Bradford, Sheffield, or Wigan; that this is partly due to the preferential through rates given by the British railway companies to the German pianos from East Coast ports to their destination; and that an appeal to the Railway Commission is of no avail to remedy this grievance; and whether the Government will take any steps to remedy it?
    Mr. BURNS: I have not received any recent complaint on this subject, but the rates on pianos from London to towns in the Midlands, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, were discussed at a meeting at the Board of Trade between representatives of the Musical Instrument Trades' Protection Association and the railway companies a few years ago, and certain reductions were then made. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the rates be has in mind, I will took into them.
    Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the freight charges for pianos on subsidised German steamship lines from Hamburg and Bremen to New Zealand and Australia are far lower than the charges on British lines from London to New Zealand and Australia, and that British steamship companies actually carry German pianos transhipped from Hamburg or Bremen via London to New Zealand or Australia at lower rates than they carry pianos manufactured in London to the same ports; and whether the Government can take any steps to remedy this?
    Mr. BURNS: I understand that the facts are much as stated by the hon. and
    196
    learned Member. The matter is one on which the Dominions Royal Commission have taken evidence, and, pending the issue of their final report, I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this hardship on London manufacturers of the freights from London to the Colonies being actually-higher for London articles than for articles made abroad is not a matter which deserves his consideration?
    Mr. BURNS: The extent to which the hardship alleged prevails is now in course of investigation, and therefore, I cannot. in reply to his question, give the hon. and learned Member the answer that I am sure he would like me to give.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    PAYMENT OF BENEFITS BY POST.
    Mr. GOULDINGasked if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take steps, in conformity to the Report of the recent Interdepartmental Committee, to facilitate the payment through the post of benefits under the National Insurance Act; and, if so, when the new form of postal order will be available?
    Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend is in communication with the National Health Insurance Commissioners and hope shortly to be able to announce a date for the introduction of the proposed postal drafts.

    INSURANCE Books (POSTAGE).
    Mr. GOULDINGasked whether, in view of the dislike of insured persons to, receiving their insurance books, containing private information, in unsealed halfpenny packets, he will consider the possibility of allowing approved societies. subject to such restrictions as may be, thought necessary, to send insurance books through the post in sealed envelopes at a prepaid fee of éd.?
    Captain NORTON: It is not in the power of the Postmaster-General to allow sealed packets to pass by the halfpenny post, and my right hon. Friend regrets. therefore, that he cannot assist approved societies in the manner indicated by the hon. Member.
    Mr. GOULDING: Is the Postmaster-General going to disregard the unanimous Report of the Select Committee.

    197
    appointed by the Government to consider this question?
    Captain NORTON: I do not see how that arises from the question which the hon. Member has put on the Paper.
    Mr. GOULDING: That is what they recommend.

    PANEL CHEMISTS.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will give facilities for the introduction of a Bill to provide a Grant for those panel chemists whose accounts for 1913 cannot be met out of the drug fund under the National Insurance Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am not aware that a case has been made out for altering the arrangements under which the existing Parliamentary Grant was given.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that no panel chemist will suffer financial loss merely because he carries out his duties under the Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that they have entered into an agreement which is still current and valid.
    Sir W. BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make such inquiries as will satisfy him that the chemists in Manchester and Salford and elsewhere are not deprived of payments to which they are absolutely entitled?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that an inquiry is now going on amongst the chemists themselves.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what is the largest sum still owing to any individual panel chemist under the National Insurance Act for 1913 in the area of the Manchester Insurance Committee?
    Mr. BENN: As the hon. Member has already been informed, it is not at present known what amount will ultimately prove to be due to any individual chemist in Manchester in respect of 1913, and it cannot, therefore, be stated what sum is still owing over and above the payments on account already received.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether any complaints have been receive
    198
    with regard to the wages of employés of approved societies; and, having regard to the fact that these wages are contributed as to two-ninths by moneys voted by Parliament, will the Government reconsider the view that it is beyond their province in these matters to interfere between employer and employed?
    Mr. BENN: As I have previously stated, it is for societies, and not the Commission, to receive and deal with any complaints from societies' employés, and any such interference as the hon. Member suggests would not be justified under the provisions of the Act.
    Mr. DENMANasked whether deposits with substantial building societies will be approved as a form of investment of the funds of approved societies?
    Mr. BENN: A Committee has been appointed to advise the Commissioners as to the securities (other than those specifically authorised by the Act) which may be approved for the investment by approved societies of funds under the Act. The particular question raised by my hon. Friend is under consideration by the Committee.

    Criminal Lunatic Asylums.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, since it is the practice to transfer inmates of Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum to a county asylum if still insane at the expiration of the sentence, why Richard D. Pritchard, convicted for an offence for which the maximum penalty is ten years' penal servitude, has been detained at Broadmoor since 1901, and has not been transferred to a county asylum?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): When a prisoner is certified insane while under a definite sentence of penal servitude he ceases to be a criminal lunatic at the end of the sentence, and if he is in Broadmoor and still insane, he must by law be removed to a county asylum; but where a person is found by verdict of a jury to be guilty but insane, he is ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure, and remains permanently a criminal lunatic unless and until he can be discharged. Pritchard was found by a jury to be guilty and insane under the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, and in accordance with that Act he is detained in Broadmoor as a criminal lunatic.

    Prisons (Religious Census).
    Mr. DU PREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the latest Religious Census of Prisons (Prison Statistics Creeds) for England, Wales, and Scotland cannot be obtained by the public from the Government printers; whether the total number of Wesleyan, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, Lutheran, Unitarian, and other Christian bodies who were inmates of His Majesty's prisons in England and Wales in 1913 amount to 1,464; whether the number of Roman Catholic prisoners as ascertained by personal inquiry amount to 3,522; and whether the number of Jewish prisoners, out of a total of 18,225, numbered 169 persons?
    Mr. McKENNA: The figures were published in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 11th July, 1913, as an answer to a question put by the hon. Member for the Truro Division of Cornwall. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the reply.

    Motor Lights.
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if the Metropolitan police have the power at the present time to forbid the use, within the Metropolitan area, of motor lights of dangerous power and brilliancy?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Commissioner of Police as licensing authority for public carriages, prohibits the use upon public motor carriages of head-lights of excessive brilliancy; but he has no power to forbid the use of such lights upon other motor carriages.
    Mr. FELL: Is there not a general power in the police to stop anything in the streets which they consider dangerous to life?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I suppose so, if they can prove that it is dangerous to life, but the proving of that fact would not be quite so easy as the hon. Member seems to suggest.
    Mr. FELL: Could they not have a test case?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will communicate with the legal authorities on the point.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. DELANYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture
    200
    (Ireland) on what grounds the district of Clonaslee, Queen's County, has been scheduled; whether he is aware that no case of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred in Queen's County for the past thirty years; and can he say, considering that Clonaslee is 16 miles from Birr and 30 miles from Templemore, when the restrictions placed on the district will be removed?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The distribution recently from Birr of a number of calves that had been obtained at Cork, where various outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease subsequently occurred, rendered it desirable to schedule an area of approximately 15 miles radius round Birr pending further investigations. The electoral division of Clonaslee and contiguous electoral divisions of Queen's County came within the scope of the restrictions thus imposed. These restrictions were, however, withdrawn on 20th instant, when the calves in question had been located and found healthy.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in Ireland since last Wednesday; if so, how many, and where have they occurred; and how many areas there are now in Ireland scheduled as infected?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Since 18th instant, inclusive, outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been confirmed at the following five places, namely, at Ballinrahan and at Ballynahina in the county Cork, at Ballinlough Road in Cork City, at Roskeen, and at Kilmanagh in the county Tipperary. Two separate areas are at present scheduled. One of these extends around and comprises the infected region in county Cork. The other embraces the infected parts of county Tipperary, and extends also into Kilkenny, Waterford, Wexford, Clare, Limerick, King's County, Queen's County and Carlow. A considerable share of the latter area is, however, subject to restrictions only on account of the distribution therein of calves that had come from Cork. Completion of the tracing of these calves, and the finding of the animals healthy may result in reduction of the area to 15 miles round the places where the disease has actually appeared. I am sorry to add that to-day I have received information that a case of disease has been confirmed at Ballysax, county Kildare.
    Mr. FFRENCH: May I ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture (Ireland) a question of which I have given him private notice: Is he aware that the last consignment of calves supposed to be infected with foot-and-mouth disease arrived in the county of Wexford on the 27th of February, and that they were traced to New Ross on the 11th of March? Is he also aware that every single one of the calves has been traced, and that there is no appearance whatever of foot-and-mouth disease in the county? Under these circumstances is it fair to the people of Wexford to continue the present embargo, and will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to see that the embargo is removed?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am not quite certain that the facts have been accurately stated by my hon. Friend, but I am able to say that the district is almost ready for the removal of the embargo?

    Housing Accommodation (Dublin).
    Mr. BRADYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the reason for the delay in publishing the evidence on which the recent Report on Dublin housing is founded; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in consequence of such delay; and whether he will take steps to secure publication of the evidence at an early date?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The evidence forms part of the Appendices to the Report, and no unnecessary delay has taken place in having it published. The Local Government Board hope to be in a position to present the Appendices to Parliament in the course of a few days.

    South African War Memorial (Cork City).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether repeated defacements that have been committed by certain miscreants to the memorial that has been erected in Cork city to the memory of Colonel M'Carthy O'Leary, Colonel Aldworth, and the officers and men of the city and county who fell in the South African War; and whether he will take steps to have the memorial more closely watched?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The police inform me that on two occasions this memorial has been disfigured by some black fluid having been thrown on the tablet on one side of
    202
    the monument, and the damage can happily be repaired at a very small cost. The memorial is kept under very close supervision by the police.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROYAL NAVAL MUSEUM, GREENWICH.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the museum at Greenwich Hospital is to be virtually done away with; whether any orders have been given to disperse the invaluable collection of naval models there exhibited; and if he will at once take some steps to see that the historic national collections in this museum are preserved intact in the surroundings where they have been cared for so many years?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): No final action has yet been taken in this matter. A small Departmental Committee is being appointed to consider how the integrity of the museum can best be preserved consistently with the requirements of the War College. I may add that it is the intention of the Admiralty to retain the museum at Greenwich.

ISLAND OF LEWIS (UIG COTTARS).
Mr. HOGGE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he has now looked into the question of the imprisonment of eleven Lewis cottars for contempt of Court, and whether he is prepared on behalf of the Government to give an undertaking that they will take immediate steps to put the machinery of the Board of Agriculture into motion to secure land for these men within six months, if on the other hand the men are advised to give their undertaking to respect the order of the Court, and if meantime he will give orders that they are to be treated as first-class misdemeanants?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have not yet been able to look into the question personally and I cannot add anything to what was said in the Debate yesterday by the Secretary for Scotland. There is no. classification as first-class misdemeanants in Scottish prisons, but prisoners committed for contempt of Court are treated as civil prisoners. My right hon. Friend informs me that these prisoners will not be required to wear prison dress.
Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time they are wearing prison dress?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have given the hon. Member an answer according to my information.
Mr. MACPHERSON: May I point out that I saw these men in prison dress? Will my right hon. Friend not telegraph now and allow these men to wear their ordinary dress?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have done so already.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  MOVEMENT OF TROOPS: PAPERS PROMISED.
  Mr. LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary for War a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether it is a fact that Brigadier-General Gough has resumed his command after having received from the War Office a statement in writing to the effect that he and the troops serving under him will not be required to enforce upon Ulster the provisions of the Home Rule Bill, and, further, whether General Gough is at liberty to communicate this declaration of the War Office to the officers of his brigade, and whether the exact terms of the arrangement with General Gough will now be communicated to the House of Commons?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I also have given the right hon. Gentleman notice of a question somewhat varying in terminology. Perhaps the House will allow me to put it. It is to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in this morning's issue of the "Times" newspaper to the effect that General Gough has resumed the command of his brigade on a written assurance from the Government that the troops under his command will not be used to coerce the people of Ulster into the acceptance of the Home Rule Bill, and also whether he has seen a statement in the "Morning Post" newspaper of to-day that a document drawn up in accordance with General Gough's desires was signed by the Chief of the General Staff and members of the Army Council, and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir; I propose to lay upon the Table, so that the necessary
  204
  documents may be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning, the material written documents which will make the whole position quite clear so that there may be no further mystery about the whole business.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether such statements as those contained in the questions of the hon. Members for Fareham and Leicester have any foundation whatever in fact?
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Cannot we know at once whether this so-called assurance was given? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us smile general indication of its terms?
  Colonel SEELY: I am quite sure that any partial statement now would be undesirable. From the very form of the question put to me by the hon. Member for Fareham and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, it is apparent that unless we were to deal with this matter by Debate it would be impossible for me to give a true version of this—[HON. MEMBER: "What is true?"]—a true version of this subject in reply to questions, which can properly be understood by Members of this House in the absence of all material documents. I have said I propose to publish the material documents which will, as I put it, remove all mystery in the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are material?" and "Why not publish all?"] All written documents which have a bearing on this case, and which will elucidate this matter. That shall be done.
  Mr. LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that this afternoon will be the only opportunity for some time on which we shall have an opportunity of discussing the military policy of the War Office, and would it, therefore, not be more respectful to the House of Commons to take advantage of this occasion to state, at the commencement of the Debate, exactly what information is contained in these papers in order that if hon. Members in any part of the House wish to discuss it they may not be deprived of the only opportunity?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he answers, to state whether the documents will include the instructions issued to General Sir Arthur Paget, whether written or oral?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is force in what, the hon. Member for Fareham has said. But, of course, we shall have an opportunity to-morrow, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, of going into the whole of this matter, and I am quite sure that everybody in every quarter of the House will feel that we can conduct the Debate under better conditions when all the material documents have been printed. We saw some of the inconvenience yesterday—I am not throwing the blame upon anybody—but we saw some of the inconvenience yesterday.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the right lion. Gentleman answer my question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; the documents will include the instructions given to Sir Arthur Paget.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Oral?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All written instructions. How can a document include oral instructions? [An HON MEMBER: "Why not?"] Documents obviously cannot deal with matters which are merely oral. The documents would include the material instructions, written instructions, and communications which have passed with regard to this question. The House will then be in possession of all the facts so far as they are contained in writing, and any supplementary statement which has to be made with regard to oral matters will, of course, be given.
  Mr. GOULDING: Is there no Memorandum?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: There is one point in my question I should like to repeat. The second part of the question refers to a statement which implies that General Gough asked that this document should be supplied to him, that it was done on his initiative, and that he has taken it away as something in the nature of a trophy. Is it true, or is it not true, that this document was drawn up in accordance with General Gough's desire and signed by his desire by the Chief of the Staff and other members of the War Office?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The document will speak for itself, and further explanation will be given as to the circumstances under which it was given.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is it proposed to ask General Gough to form a Government?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the statement will include the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War, or the Chief of the General Staff, as to the oral instructions given to Sir Arthur Paget, which must have been made, and which is in existence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Papers will include the instructions given by Sir Arthur Paget in writing to the officers commanding regiments in his command?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure that I know to what the hon. Member refers. That was not a written document; it was, I understand, an order by the General to the officers in his command?
  Mr. PETO: If there were any written instructions or documents of that character, will they be included?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, if there are such?
  Mr. AMERY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will include such instructions as were given to General Lloyd for communication to the officers under his command—to General Ferguson and other officers—any intimation sent to other battalions, and the list of units which were detailed in successive order to go over to Ireland in case of operations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing of this, and my right hon. Friend assures me he knows nothing, but we will inquire.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Lord Morley's statement in another place, that General Gough had gone back unconditionally, was correct or no?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter for argument when the documents are produced.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman include all records and interviews between these officers and the Opposition Press?
  Mr. AMERY: Will the Secretary of State for War deny that General Lloyd received orders, that, having received orders, he addressed the commanding

  207
  officers in his command in the Home District on Saturday, and informed them that they were to tell their subordinate officers that no resignations were to be accepted?
  Colonel SEELY: One of the written documents to which I have referred will explain fully the instructions which were issued so long ago as last December, and these are the instructions on which, any action may have been taken. I know nothing of the specific case to which the hon. Member referred.
  Sir W. ESSEX: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be more convenient to discuss the Vote for the Army put down for to-day after we have satisfied ourselves that the Army is prepared to carry out the orders given it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We cannot put off the Report stage of the Army Vote to-day; it is absolutely necessary that we should get that. I think a discussion can conveniently be taken that will range over the whole field on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement in the Press that eight destroyers sailed under sealed orders on Saturday last and have since been recalled, and will he also publish the instructions given to those eight destroyers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing about eight destroyers.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the First Lord?
  Mr. SPEAKER: All these questions have been asked after a quarter to four, and they should properly have been submitted to me in writing.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the Great Eastern Railway Company; for extending the time limited by former Acts for the completion of works and the purchase of lands by the Company and for the purchase of lands by the Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Committee; and for other purposes." [Great Eastern Railway Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Abertillery and District Water Board to construct an additional reservoir; and for other purposes." [Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords.]]
Great Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Rothschild and (in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill) Mr. Attorney-General; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Public Rights of Way Bill): Mr. Charles Bathurst and (in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill) Mr. Herbert Samuel.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Affiliation Orders Bill): Mr. Arthur Allen, Mr. Amery, Major Archer-Shee, Sir William Ryland Adkins, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Hohler, Mr. M'Curdy, Captain Jessel, Mr. King, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Leslie Scott, Mr. Snowden, and Mr. John William Wilson; and (in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill) the following Fifteen Members: Mr. Astor, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Booth, Mr. Condon, Mi. Charles Bathurst, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Major Hope, Colonel Kyffin-Taylor, Mr. Forster, Mr. Meehan, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Outhwaite, Mr. Raffan, Mr. Wedgwood, and Mr. Dundas White.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ALTERNATIVE VOTE).
  To call attention upon this day two weeks to the alternative system of voting. for Parliamentary elections, and to move-a Resolution.—[Mr. Lyell.]
  AFFORESTATION.
  To call attention upon this day two weeks to the subject of afforestation, and' to move a Resolution.—[Mr. James Hogge on behalf of Mr. MacCallum Scott.]
  MOVEMENT OF TROOPS IN IRELAND.
  To call attention upon this day two, weeks to the recent action of officers of the-Army in Ireland, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Keir Hardie.]
BILLS PRESENTED.
  WOKRMEN'S COMPENSTION ACT (1906) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906." Presented by Mr. HODGE; supported by Mr. Gill, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Stephen Walsh, and Mr. Bowerman; to be read a second time upon-Friday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (VACATION OF SEATS) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the-Vacation of Seats by Members of Parliament accepting offices of profit under the-Crown." Presented, by Mr. MURRA MACDONALD; supported by Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Cave, Lord Robert Cecil,. Sir Charles Nicholson, Mr. Russell Rea. Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. John William Wilson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.' [Bill 136.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved, "That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with. though opposed, after the interruption of. Business."—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [12TH MARCH.]

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    Resolution reported,
    1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 186,400, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 915."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I propose this afternoon to take the House back to a much quieter subject of Debate than that which troubled us yesterday. At the same time, the question I desire to put before the House, namely, the condition of the aerial forces of our country, is of such importance—
    Mr. SPEAKER: How can the hon. Gentleman bring that question up on this Vote, which is for the number of men in the Army?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I suggest, with great deference, that on this occasion last year, in certain special circumstances, it was arranged—you, Sir, were not in the Chair, but Mr. Deputy-Speaker:(Mr. Maclean) was in the Chair at the time—that we should debate the whole question of the aerial forces? That was by arrangement between the two parties. I think the Secretary for War will bear me out that that, was the case last year. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman announced a few days ago that, with the assent of the House, he would make a definite statement regarding aerial questions on the Report stage of this Vote.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It could not be done on the Report stage of the Vote for the number of men; it must be taken on the Vote for pay. I cannot take it on this Vote.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I, with great humility, suggest to you, Sir, that the question of men must necessarily arise in regard to the aerial forces? I quite realise it is somewhat difficult for me to
    224
    dissociate the question of aeroplanes from the question of the men that fly them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I shall stop any discussion with regard to aeroplanes and hangars, and all the rest of it, and I shall limit the hon. Gentleman strictly to the number of men on this the Report stage. The same limitation does not apply on the Committee stage. Discussion on the Report stage must be confined to the particular matter reported to the House. I will give the hon. Member an effective opportunity on Vote 1 if he can restrain his impatience until then.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can restrain my impatience. I was under the impression that it would be possible to debate anything on the Report stage of this Vote. However, I will not trouble the House on this Vote, but will wait until the. second Vote comes up.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I should like to ask you, Sir, whether it. is possible on this Vote for men and officers to discuss the question of the recent mutiny among officers in the Curragh. I imagine it is a subject which is germane to the question of the number of men we need in the Service if a certain number of officers can arrogate to themselves the right to say whether they will perform their duties or not.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be much more relevant to Vote I, which is the Vote for pay. The only question before us now is what is to be the size of the British Army. When we get to Vote I, which is the Vote for pay of the men and officers, any matters connected with discipline and the position of the officers or men will be strictly relevant.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: Cannot the question be raised by moving a reduction of the Army?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If a reduction were moved I should keep hon. Members strictly to the reduction, and I think they would find it very difficult to raise the point they wish to raise, whereas it would be quite easy to do so on the next Vote.
    Mr. J. WARD: Should I be in order if I moved the reduction of the number of men by the four mutineers?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that would be a convenient way of raising the question which the hon. Member wishes to raise. If he will only wait five minutes or so he will have an opportunity of raising the question.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The number of men we are now asked to Vote is 186,500. As a matter of fact, the actual strength is only 178,000. That is a very serious shortage, following, as it does, upon a great reduction in the strength of the Army. In 1905–6 the actual strength of the Army was 221,500, so that during the short period of eight years there has been a reduction in the strength of the Army from 221,000 to 178,000. That is a matter which requires explanation. I do not think it would be in order for me to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the 221,000 men in 1905-6 actually cost £400,000 a year less than the 178,000 will cost, therefore I will not pursue that subject. I will ask the Secretary for War two questions: First, whether the number of 186,500 men, even if we had them up to strength, is not too small a force to maintain for the safety of the Empire at the present moment? And, secondly, whether he can give us any information as to the prospects of getting the force up to that strength, what are the prospects of obtaining the necessary recruits to make up the difference between 178,000 and 186,500? This is a very important question, because, if we cannot keep up the Army to the strength we are asked to provide, we shall find ourselves in a very serious position. I should also like to ask a question in regard to the Brigade of Guards. The Brigade of Guards is the cheapest force in existence on account of the fact that the men serve only for three years and then go into the Reserve, so that the Reserve accumulates much more quickly than the Reserve in the other parts of the Service. Unless I am misinformed, the strength of the Brigade of Guards has been reduced considerably during the last year or two. That seems to be a step in t he wrong direction. I remember the late Sir Charles Dilke stating in this House that the Brigade of Guards were very efficient. Everyone will admit that they are certainly as efficient as any branch of the Service, and that they are also a cheaper branch of the Service by reason of their maintaining at less expense a larger Reserve. It seems to be bad policy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, whose predecessor took away one battalion from the Scots Guards, to keep the strength of the different battalions at the low figure at which it stands at the present moment. I shall be pleased if the right hon. Gentleman will give me satisfactory answers to these questions.
    Colonel YATE: I should like to raise the question of the number of men in the Artillery. Last year, if I remember aright, the right hon. Gentleman reduced it by something like 1,000 men, for two Horse Artillery batteries and six field batteries were reduced last year. Everyone will realise that the question of the reduction of the Artillery is most vital to the Army at large. The right hon. Gentleman, who was at this time last year the Member for Leith Burghs on the Ministerial side of the House, stated as his opinion:—
    "That this House ought to be very jealous of allowing any diminution in the strength of the Artillery."
    I myself have raised the question at various times and asked what is the proportion of guns we have to one thousand men in comparison with the proportion of guns to one thousand men in foreign armies. I must confess 1 have never been able to get any proper reply from the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. He has given me numbers showing that in the German Army they have 6.1 guns per thousand men, whereas we have only 5.94 guns in our Expeditionary Force. All will acknowledge that in a very small Army like ours we ought to be especially strong in Artillery—more so than is necessary for other armies. This question of the reduction is such a serious one that I should like to ask the Secretary for War if he will give us a definite statement by the General Officers Commanding the six Divisions of our Expeditionary Force as to whether they consider the proportion of guns to one thousand men that we possess is sufficient for their purposes, or whether they think they ought to have more. The right hon. Gentleman has given us the opinion of his military experts, but we never know who those experts are. The General Officers who are in command of the six Divisions are the men who will really know.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that point is relevant to the question of the number of men. The point the hon. and gallant Member is now making is that there ought to be more guns. That is a point which ought to be raised on the Armaments Vote.
    Colonel YATE: The question is as to the number of men to man the guns. We cannot have the guns without the men to man them. I was raising the question of the number of men for the Artillery. I should like to refer to the question of the Territorial Force on the same subject.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Vote does not include the Territorial Force at all.
    Colonel YATE: I will rest content with asking the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us a statement on the subject of the Artillery of the Expeditionary Force, and whether he considers the proportion of men sufficient or not?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I quite agree that it is more convenient to raise the point as to the action of the Brigadier-General on the Vote for pay, but I want it made quite clear that if we attempt to discuss the matter on Vote 1 we shall not be met with the statement that it does not come on that Vote either. I do not profess to have any special acquaintance with the Army Estimates, but in the brief time that has been allowed I have glanced through the Votes under the second heading, but I cannot quite find how we are to raise the matter. It. may be we can. All I want is a perfect understanding that if we let the first Vote go we shall not be met with the statement that it does not arise on the second.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the question of discipline, which is the point, I understand, which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to raise, and which the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward) wishes to raise, would certainly be relevant to Vote 1, namely, the pay of officers and men of the Army.
    Mr. LEE: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us whether the shortage of numbers of the Regular Army remains the same as it did at the time of his previous statement or whether there is any improvement in the situation, and particularly whether every possible effort is being made by the War Office to reduce the deficiency, bearing in mind that he informed us on the previous occasion that you could only keep down the Estimates by reducing the number of men. I wish to know, therefore, whether financial considerations are being allowed to weigh at all in the matter of keeping down the number of men. Arising out of that, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what steps he has taken to improve recruiting, and what success his advertising scheme has had, and what has been the cost. If he cannot give us the total cost of the scheme, can he give us any idea of the total cost of the additional men brought in as the result of the new scheme?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The hon. Gentleman asks whether the fact that the fewer men there are the lower the Estimates has influenced us in not taking steps to get more men. That is not the case. We have taken every possible step that we thought could be taken with advantage to increase the number of men up to the establishment, and our efforts have not been without result. On the question of our saving money deliberately by not making efforts to get men, that is disproved by the action we have taken both with regard to advertisements in the papers as to the advantages of the Army and by other methods we have taken. I cannot state the precise sum which has been spent on the scheme of notifying, through the newspapers in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, the actual facts of the case with regard to the Army. We are not in such a position with regard to the strength of the Army that we need appeal for recruits as though we were in any acute difficulty, for, as I have explained on previous occasions, it would be wrong to put it that way. There is a shortage which ought to be made up, but it is nothing which should lead us to say that the British Army is withering away. I do not wish to go into the debatable point as to how far we lose by having a greater proportion of Reservists, but on mobilisation there will be no shortage at all. The precise cost of the scheme I cannot give. It would be something a little under or a little over £4,000 up to date. But the results have been highly satisfactory if they continue as they have begun. On that it is too early to speak, but there has been a most gratifying increase in the number of recruits obtained both for the Regular Army and for the Special Reserve week by week since we adopted this plan. The other effort we made to increase the number of men is not so immediately apparent, but will have far greater effect if it succeeds, and that is the appointment of a Committee with definite instructions to see whether it would be possible to offer employment to every man of good character on leaving the Colours. I repeat what the House allowed me to say on a previous occasion, that it is on those lines that we must proceed if we are to make the Army as we know it now up to strength, and in every way a success, and part of the population of this country, and comprising all classes of this country. At present there is a large class of people in this country who consider that the prospect of having no

    229
    further employment debars them from taking service in the Army if they are to be sure of a future in life. What we must see to is that no class of people shall think it unwise to join the Army. High, low, rich and poor, all those who desire to join the Army should see that they have an opportunity of joining it, and of rising in it, and an opportunity of securing a livelihood. That is the policy of the Army Council, and, should the efforts of the Committee be successful, I believe it will make a complete change in the attitude of the great mass of the people towards the Army.
    The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) asked me whether the establishment of 186,000 was not too small. It is very hard to say what should be the precise size of the British Army when we consider our world-wide responsibilities. When we consider how much that is interdependent not only with policy, but with the size of the Navy, it is really an impossible question to answer. All I can say to-day, when it would not be proper to enter into a disquisition upon the general policy of this country, how far its armed force available for instant service should be larger or smaller, is that the necessary garrisons in India and the Colonies are maintained up to full strength, and that the Expeditionary Force can be mobilised at shorter notice than ever before up to its full strength, except perhaps for certain unimportant details, for which arrangements have already been made. More than that I cannot now say. I think the hon. Baronet himself will see that on the Report stage of this Vote I could not be expected to go into the large strategic questions which must be involved in any answer to the questions he has put to me. I would suggest that the proper time and the only time at which this question can really be discussed is when we can consider the whole question of defence—the Army and the Navy together. I have reason to believe that an opportunity will be given, and I hope it may be given. I shall represent to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it should be given to discuss this most vitally important question on some proper occasion, whether on the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence or some more convenient occasion. I have been asked about the Artillery and about the Guards. With regard to the Artillery, the net increase in the whole of the Artillery of all ranks I understand to
    230
    be 424. Therefore, there is no policy of decreasing the regular Artillery in the Estimates before the House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is this year?
    Colonel SEELY: This year. With regard to the Guards, I am informed that apart from the establishment, which remains the same, the Foot Guards are twenty-seven below strength according to the latest returns, and the Household Cavalry-the Horse Guards-are a little above strength. The hon. Baronet may take it from me that there is no serious shortage in the Brigade of Guards at present.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Has not the establishment been reduced?
    Colonel SEELY: Not since last year.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When the right hon. Gentleman mentions Horse Guards I presume he means the Life Guards and Royal Horse Guards? There is no such regiment as the Horse Guards.
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, I used an abbreviation which was sanctioned by ancient usage even before the days when the hon. and gallant Gentleman served in that gallant corps. I used an abbreviation which is hallowed by custom and ancient tradition. In present circumstances I agree the proper definition would be the Household Cavalry, or the First and Second Life Guards and the Blues.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman admits that the establishment of Guards was reduced last year, and that at present the strength is not quite up to the establishment. It is the reduction of the establishment, as well as the strength being below the establishment, to which I alluded.
    Colonel SEELY: I do not know what the hon. Baronet means by the reduction of the Establishment? Does he imply that there has been a reduction of Establishment this year or last year or the year before?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman stated last year that the Establishment had been reduced.
    Colonel SEELY: There has been no reduction of any battalion of the Guards.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What is the strength now of each battalion?
    Colonel SEELY: The strength, according to the latest Return, is twenty-seven below the Establishment, and if the hon. Baronet will look at the appropriate pages of the Army List he will see exactly what the Establishment is.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: From what ranks were the twenty-seven men drawn?
    Colonel SEELY: I could not say without notice. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question I will give him the fullest information as to the relative strength and Establishment, showing all ranks, officers, non-commissioned officers and men, where there is a shortage, where there is a surplus, in both the Brigade of Guards and the Household Cavalry.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Was there not some statement in the Memorandum as to the reduction of the Establishment?
    Colonel SEELY: I drafted it myself, and I do not remember any statement of that kind. I cannot find in the Memorandum any reference to the Establishment and strength. I shall be glad to answer any further questions in regard to matters coming under this Vote.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer my question as to the proportion of guns?
    Colonel SEELY: I have replied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question as to strength. As to his question about the proportion of guns—
    Colonel YATE: By guns I also include men.
    Colonel SEELY: I think in the German Army it is 6.1, and in the English Army 5.94. I think that is accurately put, although I do not carry these figures in my head. It is difficult to compare these numbers, because it depends whether you are on a four-gun or a six-gun basis. If the hon. Member asks what the proportion of Artillery ought to be in relation to foreign armies, I reply at once, on general grounds, that certainly I agree with him that if we are a little behind the German Army, I think it will be found that we have not a smaller number of men in proportion. If he will put down a question on that precise point, I will give him a further answer.
    232
    Question put, and agreed to.

    PAY.—(ROYAL FLYING Corps).
    Resolution reported,
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,705,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it would be only fair to the Secretary of State for War that I should repeat here certain statements and criticisms which I have made outside in regard to the position of the Flying Corps in order that he may have an opportunity of dealing with them. I am bound to confess that on the last occasion we discussed this Vote, about three weeks ago, I made a semi-conciliatory speech, because I had been criticised for constantly criticising the Flying Corps, and because also I was half convinced by the conciliatory speech made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Hon. Members will recollect that on 25th February last the right hon. Gentleman made a statement for the purpose of showing that everything was in good order. That, of course, I was inclined to believe. I was pleased to think that things were much better than I had anticipated. It is now necessary to face the facts. I am convinced that all is not so well as the right hon. Gentleman suggested three weeks ago. There were many matters in his speech with which I should like to deal, but I will select three questions only—airships, aeroplane squadrons, and the accidents that have befallen members of the Flying Corps during the last few days. With regard to airships for the Army and Navy, I think we are entitled to a little more explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what he means, and as to the programme in regard to airships. He told us three weeks ago that the handing over the Army airships to the Navy
    "does not mean that the Army has finally decided that it does not require airships at all. It is not the final conclusion now."
    If that is the case, we are surely entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what his plans are in regard to airships in the event of war. He has told us that it has not

    233
    been finally decided that we do not require airships in the Army. I think it is common knowledge that the General Staff is constantly engaged in working out plans for war, and plans for mobilisation, in any eventuality of war with any other country. I wish an answer, yes or no, from whoever replies, whether the General Staff in working out those plans do or do not include the use of airships by the Army. If they do, how do they propose to get them? Do they expect to get them under the arrangements made with the Navy? This is very important in the event of war with another country. Is the Army Council quite confident that the arrangements they have made with the Navy are so satisfactory that in the event of mobilistion taking place and airships being required, the Army would be able to get these airships? Are they certain that the necessary airships will be available for the use of the Army? That is a point more of policy for the future, and the main question I wish to deal with to-day is that in relation to the squadrons of our aeroplane force. The right hon. Gentleman very frankly told us:—
    "We see no advantage in keeping the number of aeroplanes secret."
    I am very glad that he has taken that line. He added:—
    "at any rate so far as the squadrons and Flying School are concerned. We have now 161."
    I take that to mean that we have 161 efficient aeroplanes. So far as the Squadrons and Flying School are concerned, it would be insulting the right hon. Gentleman to assume that he meant anything but efficient aeroplanes. We found last year that there were certain machines which nobody could by any chance what-ever describe as efficient. I take it, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman desired to inform the House that he had in connection with the squadrons and the school 161 efficient machines. In order to find out what is meant by a squadron, I go back to the statement made on 4th March, 1912. He stated then:—
    "The Military Wing will consist of seven squadrons. The Air Corps will be always on a war footing, and the peace and war establishment will be the same."
    What is a war footing? I wish to deal with this case, as I rather gathered front the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me this afternoon that it is not desirable to have all the squadrons up to date and full to the necessary number of machines until he has got all the eight squadrons in some kind of flying form. That was the
    234
    statement made by General Cowans recently at a dinner. I believe he read from a typewritten document, and I think it was apparent that he was speaking for the War Office and making what was the official answer of the War Office. It is clear that the answer is absolutely hopeless if the right hon. Gentleman was right two years ago when he stated that the squadrons should be always on a war footing. What was meant by a war footing was that the squadrons should have officers and men so that they should be able to start to-morrow morning. Of course, you may have a reserve of men and a reserve of machines, but the squadrons are detachments ready to go off to war to-morrow. A year ago the right hon. Gentleman was supposed to have eighteen machines per squadron. I pleaded that we should have an equal number of reserve aeroplanes—twelve to twelve. The right hon. Gentleman agrees with that now. Two weeks ago he gave twenty-five as the number per squadron. In last year's Memorandum this is what he said:—
    "It was decided to begin the organisation by the formation of one Airship Squadron and three Aeroplane Squadrons in 1912–13. Fifth and sixth squadrons will be raised in the course of 1913–14. I look forward confidently to the establishment on a permanent basis during 1913–14 of six out of the eight units required to complete our Expeditionary Force."
    I wish to know if we have to-day five aeroplane squadrons complete for our Expeditionary Farce. Even if we had, I wish to know, when that Expeditionary Force goes out anywhere and takes these five
    aeroplane squadrons, what is left in the way of aeroplanes for the defence of this country, and for the use of the Home Army, which would inevitably require the assistance of aeroplanes. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it was a mere pious intention he expressed when he stated that with the present personnel five or six aeroplane squadrons would be available. On the 25th February it was stated that we had 161 efficient aeroplanes. I am not going to deal to-day with the question of transport—a very big question. All I desire to say is that, if my information is at all correct, the necessary transport is not ready for the whole of these five squadrons. We are told that all the aeroplanes that are needed to maintain the establishment can be got in England. I am delighted to hear that, but the inference throughout the right bon. Gentleman's speech was that these five squadrons were on a war footing. There are, I believe, about thirty-six or thirty-seven

    235
    machines in the Central Flying School. That leaves 125 machines out of the 161.
    Let us see what we have really got for the five squadrons, or, rather, what we had within a week of 25th February this year. I will admit that the right hon. Gentleman has been getting more machines during the last fortnight, but when he made his statement he led the House absolutely to believe that we had 161 efficient machines and five squadrons on a war footing. I am going to give—I feel that I must give to the House—details as to the conditions of the five squadrons. I have received the details from his own officers. I think it only fair to say that I have not, spied on the right hon. Gentleman's machines this year. We had a controversy last year on this matter, and I admitted to the House perfectly frankly that I had sent people down to find out the condition of our aeroplanes, and I justified my position to the House. This year things are such that officers who are total strangers to myself have, without any communication from me, come to me and have written to me since 25th February with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I have been supplied with descriptions of the machines, and I propose to read them in order that the House may realise the condition of the squadrons within ten days of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. No. 2 squadron is at Montrose. There were two machines which were in course of reconstruction, and one, two, three, four, and five were in good flying order. No. B.E. 273 was condemned as unfit for flying, and B.E. 229 was in flying order. No. B.E. 217 was wrecked completely. There was one Maurice-Farman being reconstructed, and another Maurice-Farman which was old and only useful for instruction. It has been smashed very often, and is unfit to go to war.
    "That means "—
    this officer goes on to say—
    "all B.E.'s can only do three hours' non-stop flight, as petrol and oil capacity does not allow for more. B.E. 228 can only do thirty-five minutes, B.E. 218 can do eight hours, but it has got double petrol tanks, and, therefore, cannot take the passengers. The two Maurice-Farmans are old, having been smashed up more than one can count. They are very sluggish and slow and can only do forty-eight miles an hour in dead calm. The average B.E. machine does seventy-one miles per hour new, but only sixty-three miles per hour when over two months old. All machines up here are fitted with 70 h.p. Renault eight-cylinder stationary engines, foreign make, and at present there are only three spare engines, which means very often a machine is laid up because of no spare engine. Broken down engines are invariably held up because we are
    236
    unable to get spare parts at once … At this moment there are actually ready for flying to-day five machines. Others have temporary engine trouble which could be got over in under forty-eight hours."
    That makes seven machines out of twenty-five for Squadran No. 2. Now as to Squadron No. 3 on Salisbury Plain, B.E. biplane 203, which is of the same type as that which had the bad accident ten days ago:—
    "Machine completely down for overhauling three weeks ago, unserviceable."
    S.E. biplane No. 2:—
    "An inquiry should be immediately held into the state of this machine before it is allowed to be touched. This is very urgent, as all here believe it to be unsafe in its present condition."
    Mr. CROOKS: Is that one of our own make?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is one of our own make. There are six machines in flying order; two more will be ready in two days, another is being overhauled. Altogether that squadron has seven machines ready for instant work. Four could be got ready in seven days' time. That is eleven machines. Then I come to Squadron No. 4 on Salisbury Plain, which is the only efficient squadron that the right hon. Gentleman has got. There are twenty-one machines of which, roughly, eighteen are ready for instant use. But of that number fifteen are of the B.E. type, about which I shall have something to say in a few minutes. I come to Squadron No. 5 at Farnborough, and this statement was made on 12th March, a fortnight after the right hon. Gentleman's speech. There is one Henry Farman, one S.E., which is known among the officers as Bullet—
    "The machine is practically in an experimental stage. It was out of order during half the month, but was flown on several occasions."
    That machine has been moved into another squadron. The impression is that it is exceedingly dangerous, and the officers hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not make any more use of it. There are four Sopwith machines, three of which are out of order. Altogether at that time we get in this squadron two Farmans, three Avroes with 50 h.p. engines, which are totally oat of date, and utterly unfit for war purposes, whatever use they may be for instructional purposes. One Henry Farman, one S.E., and four Sopwiths. The number of machines flyable on any day during February in this squadron at its highest was only seven or eight, and it went down as low as one. The average daily number of flyable machines was about three or four. Only one cross-

    237
    country flight was made during the first three weeks of February, and that was not on a war machine. Then we have the No. 6 Squadron, which was only formed during the last few days since the right hon. Gentleman made the speech. It contains two R.E.'s, number 5 and number 1. Both are trial machines. Nobody is allowed to fly them except the Squadron Commander, and he is ill in bed at the present time. Then there are four B.E.'s, two old Maurice-Farmans, and one new Maurice-Farmans. I cannot give the figures up to date, but I am dealing with the machines which there were after the right hon. Gentleman had told us that we had got 161 efficient machines.
    Colonel SEELY: Where did the hon. Gentleman find 161 efficient machines? I took great care on the occasion when addressed the House to explain that a very large number of machines, at least half, would not be ready to fly at any given moment. I gave the whole story to the House. The hon. Gentleman should not continue this discussion by assuming that I said that we had got 161 efficient machines. You may assume that if you are to have ten machines ready, you must have twenty in possession. I said 161 in possession, and I adhere to what I said.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman did go on to say later that you must have twenty machines if you want ten to be ready.
    Colonel SEELY: I did not say "efficient machines."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman might have interrupted me a quarter of an hour ago, when I suggested that he would not insult the House by saying that he had 161 machines which were not efficient.
    Colonel SEELY: I think it a pity that we should pursue any game of cross purposes. I took the greatest care to point out that I did not say we had got 161 efficient machines. On the contrary, I made it plain in my succeeding sentences that we had got 161 machines in possession, but that we could not assume that we had more than eighty at any given moment efficient and ready to fly. Sometimes we have more and sometimes less. I definitely stated that if you wanted ten machines ready to fly you must have twenty in possession.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will not bandy words with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. It really makes very little difference, because he has not got that number. Let us assume that when he said 161 machines he meant eighty efficient machines.
    Colonel SEELY: No. I would not interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I want to get this on a proper basis. As I have just said, you may have many more than eighty efficient, or you may have many less, in accordance with the luck which you have in smashing machines and in the ordinary way of repair. There is nothing so uncertain as the number of machines that you may have ready to fly at a given moment. I have kept a close watch on it, and I know myself that there is an extraordinary variation in the number of accidents you may have, and the hon. Gentleman must not assume that I wished to make the House believe that we had eighty efficient machines on that day. We might have had 120 or only forty, so rapidly do they get broken and so rapidly are they repaired. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands what I did actually say, and that lie will pursue the rest of his arguments apart from any question of the House having been misled as to the number of machines.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman told the Pease that he had 161 machines, and whether there were 120 efficient or only forty he did not tell it.
    Colonel SEELY: I do not know.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When the House is told that this corps is on a war footing, it must necessarily mean efficient machines. It is impossible for it to hare any other meaning. If the right hon. Gentleman has got 161 machines, and out of these eighty or 100 or 120 are not efficient, we are bound to know that. I have often said that if the right hon. Gentleman would only come down here and throw himself on the mercy of the House and say how difficult this business is, and how exceedingly difficult it is to get the necessary number of machines, but that he is doing his best, instead of telling the House over and over again that he has got so many, it would be better. This afternoon he has made a fuller explanation than ever he has done before.
    Colonel SEELY: It is all in my statement.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. There is no suggestion in his statement that 161 machines might mean as low as forty efficient machines. Now let us see how many efficient machines there were ten days ago: Number 2, 9; number 3, 7; number 4, 18; number 5, 3; number 6, 5; or about forty-two machines, of which twenty-six were of the B.E. type. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has been adding a few machines to each squadron. Let me add to that number another eight B.E.'s. I cannot tell at any given date whether my figures coincide exactly with the right hon. Gentleman, but I will assume that he had fifty efficient machines in this flying corps ten days ago. Of that number thirty-two were of the B.E. type. This particular type the right hon. Gentleman has told us over and over again are the best type of machines in the world. I would ask how many B.E.'s are flying now? Has the right hon. Gentleman not issued an order to the Flying Corps during the last seventy-two hours, that the B.E.'s are not to be flown for the present? I state as a fact that an order has been issued from headquarters, that these machines are not to be flown for the present. They are put under a ban, as the right hon. Gentleman put monoplanes under a ban about a year ago after a certain accident. Some accidents have occurred on B.E.'s, and the right hon. Gentleman has taken the course for which I do not blame him of pntting the B.E.'s under a ban. Everybody knows that, after the House rose, as the result of the monoplanes being put under a ban, they disappeared. They were scrapped. Is that going to be the case with the B.E.'s? Four of the Sopwith's were also put under a ban. That leaves about fourteen or fifteen efficient machines in the five flying squadrons which are not under a ban. As one of the officers of the squadron said to me yesterday, "The Flying Corps is for the moment crushed out after the right hon. Gentleman's bans." That means that if war were to break out to-morrow either the Flying Corps has got to go to war without any machines, or has to go to war without machines which the right hon. Gentleman has placed under a ban, and which are not allowed to be used in times of peace.
    5.0 P.M.
    A rumour has come to me from an hon. Member during the last half-hour that flying has been stopped altogether by the
    240
    right hon. Gentleman. I hope that that is not true, because there are some machines which there is no need to place under a ban, and which can perfectly well be used for flying. The House realises that the B.E. is the type of machine on which Captain Allen and Lieutenant Burroughs were killed, and it is the machine which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is the best machine in the world. We would not complain if the right hon. Gentleman had not boasted from time to time of the product of his Royal Aircraft Factory, and if he had been willing to admit that many manufacturers of aeroplanes could turn out machines half as good as he could. It was always those two machines. The average speed, he said, of the B.E. aeroplanes in our possession, "is between sixty and sixty-five miles an hour, a speed much greater, as far as my knowledge goes,
    than the average speed in any other country." But that is not the case, either with regard to the machines of Germany, the machines of France, or even the machines privately constructed in this country. I do not know whether hon. Members went to the show last week. There were there two different types of English made machines which can fly, and have flown, ninety-five miles and a hundred miles an hour, and as slow as thirty-five miles and forty-five miles an hour. The machines can climb 1,500 feet or 1,600 feet in a minute, against 1,000 feet a minute by the B.E. machine. Hon. Members will realise from those figures that the machines of which I speak can climb four times as high as St. Paul's Cathedral in a minute. Such is the perfection of the modern aeroplane compared with what they were when we were debating this subject on former occasions. There is deep dissatisfaction among the officers of the Royal Flying Corps with regard to the products of the Royal Aircraft Factory. I do not refer to the gentleman connected with that factory; he is a man of position and high intelligence, with whom I have sat on a Committee; but there is something so wrong with the Aircraft Factory that your own officers have not confidence in its product. They have not confidence in the machines which that factory turns out, and they tell me that they cannot get repairs properly attended to.
    The most serious question of all is as to the cause of these accidents which have taken place during the last few days.

    241
    There was an accident to Mr. Haynes, at Wittering, when experimenting with machine F.E. 2. I have a letter from a gentleman who examined that machine the day before the accident. I am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman the name of the writer, who is general manager of the Cedric Lea Company, Aeronautical Engineers, Shoreham. He writes:—
    We had just concluded some private tests of our latest flying machines when the Aircraft biplane came on to the ground, and the machine was carefully examined by our several departmental heads. The unanimous verdict was that the workmanship and finish of the machine was eminently unsatisfactory. We should have been ashamed to have completed the work, and, if we had done so, we are quite positive that it would not have been accepted by any person qualified to pass judgment on aircraft. It seems to me that the inspector who passed the machine was in a hurry and ran riot with the 'approved ' stamp. He certainly had not taken any time in examination, and if he asserts that this contention is incorrect, then he should be discharged from his position, for he is quite incompetent for the work required."
    Another gentleman who examined that machine, and who is secretary to the Sussex County Aero Club, wrote:—
    "When the F.E. 2 biplane arrived the engines and wires were covered with rust. The pilot openly stated that Mr. Haynes was afraid going up in the machine. The machine rose very sluggishly and left the ground flying dangerously low."
    On the following day the accident happened. The machine came down and this unfortunate man, Mr. Haynes, was killed. The next machine to which I will call the attention of the House was that in which the accident occurred last year to Lieutenant Desmond Arthur. The accident occurred on the 25th May last, with B.E. 203. On the 5th June, in this House, I called attention to the rumours which were flying about Aldershot with regard to the condition of the repairs of that very machine. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? Did he say he would make inquiry? No; he jumped up and overwhelmed me for having dared to mention those rumours in this House. What happened? A week after that the independent committee of the Royal Aero Club made investigations into this matter and declared that the death of that young officer was due to the faulty repair of the machine. The repair had been "so badly done that it could not possibly be regarded as the work of a conscientious and competent workman." The right hon. Gentleman overwhelmed me for having referred to those rumours, which turned out to be true, with regard to the workmanship and repair of that particular machine. In that speech nine months ago I stated that at Salisbury Plain there were two B.E. aero
    242
    planes which needed overhauling and were dangerous—that they were not machines which the right hon. Gentleman himself would like to go up in. I was so anxious, that I asked him not to go up in them. I have referred to my notes, and I find that those were the two B.E. machines, 203 and 204, and B.E. 204 was the machine in which Captain Allen and Lieutenant Borroughs were killed ten days ago. That is the very machine I asked the right hon. Gentleman nine months ago not to go up in. [An HON. MEMBER "Did he go up?"] He may have done, though the pitcher may go often to the well, but gets broken at last.
    This machine had a bad history. It had been broken several times and repaired several times, as well as overhauled, but not, I believe, since the manœuvres of last autumn. [An HON. MEMBER "Is that a B.E. machine?"] Yes, one of our own factory's design, the machine which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is the best machine in the world. Just before this accident there was an accident to Captain Downer with a similar type of machine, the wing of which broke. He was executing a difficult manœvre, but machines ought not to break when difficult manœuvres are being executed. It ought to be sufficiently strong, and can be made sufficiently strong, I am advised by experts, for manœuvres such as Captain Downer executed, when one of the wings broke and his machine came down. I wish to call the attention of the House to the evidence given by his commander, Major Brook Popham, who says:—
    "There are three possible causes for the accident: First—the design of the machine may have been wrong and the strains miscalculated; second—the workman who did the job may, through ignorance or carelessness, have put in too weak a tube; third—the rudder-post may have been changed after reconstruction, and after it was handed over to the squadron. In any of these three cases there is evidence of criminal negligence. If it were done in my squadron, I am to blame. On the contrary, if the machine was handed over to me like this and nothing was done in my squadron, I hold the officials of the Royal Aircraft Factory responsible."
    Here is a letter from another officer of the Royal Flying Corps:—
    "The machine left the sheds in absolutely still weather, did one circuit of the aerodrome and turned in towards the sheds from a south-easterly direction. It reached a height of 300 feet and was coming down slowly, turning slightly, and it reached 150 feet, when suddenly the rudder was seen to fly off. There was no strain at all on it, and the machine was gliding easily. Immediately the rudder flew off, the machine nose dived into the ground. We rushed over to the wreck but found them dead. The machine was in small pieces, and both bodies were in pulp, nearly every bone being broken. When we examined the machine, we found the following: The rudder-post had snapped off where it joined the fuzelage. The rudder-post was of metal, not more, as far as I could judge, than half a millimetre thick. This post, or tube, should have had a wooden

    243
    filing from end to end, but the smashed one had none and without the wooden support in it all its strength was gone. This was the whole cause of the accident, and the man who passed the machine is practically guilty of murder."
    That is the statement of an officer in the corps whose members have to fly in these machines, and it shows a serious state of things for those officers in regard to those machines. I read that letter to another independent member of the Flying Corps, who confirmed that view. What they ask for is an independent inquiry, and it is what they insist upon. I am not moving the reduction of the Vote. I am not asking for a hostile vote against the right hon. Gentleman; the matter is too serious to make party capital out of it. I am simply asking the right hon. Gentleman to give us a full and impartial inquiry with regard to two things—first of all, as to the number of efficient machines we have in readiness for the use of this Royal Flying Corps for purposes of war. This House is willing to give all the money that is necessary to provide efficient and sufficient machines. I think I am safe in saying that. This House has voted up to a million this year, and it is willing to vote another half a million, if necessary, in order to have our aeroplanes put upon an efficient basis. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more money let him come to the Table and say so, and I do not think any section of the House—for this is not a matter like the ordinary expenditure on the Army and Navy—would refuse another half-million. If the right hon. Gentleman asked for it, I am perfectly confident that the House would grant it. I am not, and many of us are not, satisfied that this money is being properly spent. We think that the administration of the Royal Aircraft Factory, with its inefficient inspection—I am not casting any reflection on the head of the Inspection Department, because the Department is not sufficiently established to keep pace with the work that there is for him to do—is not satisfactory. These machines, as I have remarked to this House before, are almost human in their individuality. They need the closest inspection and the most careful investigation after every flight, and every man who risks his life day after day in the service of his country is entitled to demand from the House and from the right hon. Gentleman that no stone should be left unturned to give them the most efficient machines. The House is entitled, on the other hand, to demand that no stone should be left
    244
    unturned to give the country efficient aeroplanes. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to grant an inquiry and satisfy the House on those two points. I do not want to make party capital out of the matter, but the right hon. Gentleman must convince us that we have an efficient Air Service on the one hand, and let him convince those young men who fly that the danger is reduced to a minimum, and that everything that can be done is being done, and that full inquiries will be made, and then I hope it will not be necessary to make any more of these accusations against him or the management of the Royal Aircraft Factory.
    Mr. AMERY: I do not propose to follow on the very important question that my hon. Friend has raised, because at this moment I feel that the question of the discipline of the Army, which you, Sir, I understand, allow us to discuss, is a matter which transcends any other. The question of discipline in the Army, and of the. responsibility of the Secretary of State for War in maintaining that discipline, and in safeguarding the conditions under which alone that discipline exists, that responsibility is a very serious one. The Army is a national service. It exists for national purposes, to defend the interests of the country against foreign dangers, and, in certain emergencies, to preserve the stability of our social structure. It is an instrument that cannot be used for party purposes. The Secretary of State for War, like the First Lord of the Admiralty and like the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is in a peculiar position. He enjoys a certain immunity from criticism, not from all, but from partisan criticism n this House, and in return for that he has very peculiar responsibilities towards this House and towards the Army. He is no more entitled to make use of the Army for party ends than the Foreign Secretary is entitled to send messages to his Ambassadors to act for party ends either. In this particular case, and I do not want to go into broad questions of policy which may be discussed to-morrow, the fact remains that for the last year or two the Government undoubtedly meditated using the Army to further a certain measure, which is a measure of bitter partisan controversy. I will say no more about that.
    I venture to say that the responsibility of the Secretary of State was to represent to his colleagues the gravity of what they were doing, and to shield the Army from

    245
    the consequences of what they were desirous of doing. He knew—he must have known—what the effects upon the Army would be when the time came, if the Government meant to go on with their policy; he must have known what the general feeling of the officers was, and for this purpose it is entirely immaterial that the sentiment of the Army, as a whole, happens to be against the coercion of Ulster. Would the situation, as far as the well-being and discipline of the Army, be any better had the Army been divided into two bitterly hostile camps, one thirsting for the coercion of Ulster, and one determined to oppose it at all hazards? I venture to say the situation would have been even worse. It is a fortunate fact that the Army has been practically unanimous, which has saved us from the entire disruption of the Army in the last few days. Apart from the question of the right hon. Gentleman's duty there is the question of the practical fashion in which he has handled this question. As the officer responsible to his colleagues for the state of the Army, it was his business to inform them on the matter of fact what the Army was likely to feel, and what the Army might be likely to do in certain contingencies. What we know he did was to assure the Government, with that optimism which is so conspicuous a feature of his character, that they could always reckon on the Army as a blind tool for any crime that the Government meant to carry out. And it was only within the last two or three weeks, when the Secretary of State for War and his colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty were meditating their coup against Ulster, that rumours began to reach him that he might have difficulty. And how did he propose to deal with that difficulty? He thought if he made a beginning by terrorising some officers that he might achieve his end and terrorise the whole Army.
    We were told yesterday there was a slight misunderstanding. The only misunderstanding there may have been was that General Paget used the same language to his officers that he heard Members of the Cabinet using in his presence a day or two before, and the only misunderstanding was that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the temper of the officers and of gentlemen—[Hon. MEMBERS "Oh!"]—and of men who have risen from the ranks just as much as men who have not. When that threat was put to them by the instruction and by the
    246
    orders of the Government, those officers refused to be intimidated. We were given the suggestion yesterday that it was a handful of officers, and that it was trifling. It was a whole brigade of Cavalry, and a great many Line regiments as well, and there were at least 100 officers who refused to be intimidated by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. COTTON: Have you any proof of that?
    Mr. AMERY: You will see when the right hon. Gentleman produces his papers afterwards. What was the consequence of that act? These officers resigned, and they were to have been dismissed without a pension, and if he had continued on that policy he would have destroyed the whole Army. This is a matter that the House of Commons is entitled to know, and it is this: that if the Secretary of State for War had pursued yesterday the policy he was pursuing on Thursday and on Friday there would have been no War Office to-day, and there would have been practically no officer in the Aldershot Command to-day or in any command. We were told that those gentlemen, those officers, were brought over for explanation. Yes, but before those explanations were given certain other explanations were given to the Secretary of State, and what was the consequence—an unconditional and abject surrender on the part of the Secretary of State for War. [Hon. Members: "Shame!"] It is as well for the House of Commons to know the facts. General Gough and his officers have been reinstated. They were reinstated on assurances. Yesterday morning the Secretary of State for War gave General Gough a verbal assurance that he should not be required, he or the men under him, to go against Ulster. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who told you?"] He refused, very wisely, to accept a verbal assurance, and the Secretary of State—[An HON. MEMBER "Who told you?"] I have my own authority; I am stating facts I know to the House of Commons. I am making my statement, and the right hon. Gentleman can contradict it if he likes. After that other written assurances were given to General Gough, which were not good enough for him, and it was not until late yesterday afternoon that General Gough got the assurance, without which he would not have accepted his reinstatement, an assurance that neither he nor the troops under him were to be used to coerce Ulster to accept the present Home Rule

    247
    Bill, and, with that assurance in his pocket, he went back to his command, and that assurance he conveyed to his officers this afternoon. What a humiliation! How meanly has the Secretary of State sneaked out of the position into which he so proudly strutted a few days ago. What a thing for the discipline of the Army. What folly and what madness animated the Government that they could drive officers of our Army to take such action!
    After all, our Army has never taken a partisan line. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Our Army has kept absolutely out of politics. In none of the Debates on this matter has the question of the political leanings of the Army ever been raised. It is only when the Government by an act of madness forced such an alternative on the Army that they had to refuse that normal and ordinary discipline which is the life blood and the essence of the existence of the Army. I, for one, hold that these officers did the only thing they could do. I do not like what has happened. I would ask the House to believe that on this particular question of the Army I have taken an interest which has not been a party interest. Can anyone suggest that the fact that officers should take action of this sort can be a good thing for the Army in future? It is a fortunate thing the matter was not allowed to go further. It was a good thing that the right hon. Gentleman went to Canossa yesterday and prevented the evil spreading, but what an instance of decision! At the very moment the right hon. Gentleman was making his statement to General Gough, the Lord Chancellor in another House was stating that that officer was going back unconditionally to obey orders and do his duty.
    The Government are now trying to make out that it was not a question of operations against Ulster at all, but a mere question of keeping order and guarding certain stores and preventing riots. The officers of the Army had never refused to do their duty in that respect, and they never will refuse. [An HON. MEMBER "In the Belfast Strike!"] I will refer to that later. What the officers of the Army may refuse to do is to be tricked and inveigled into operations against Ulster on the pretext that they are only required to keep the peace locally. It may be fortunate if General Paget made a mistake, and I do not admit that he did, and that he spoke the full mind of the Government, when they hoped that he would only do
    248
    something much more diplomatic than he did. Can anyone say that what was put before those officers was a mere question of keeping order? In the first place, is it a matter of keeping order to march troops out of Belfast, where disorder is most likely to occur, to Holywood? That is a very good move for strategical reasons, but the worst thing possible if you wanted to keep order between the Catholic and Protestant sections of the population. In fact, by doing that, the Government have practically admitted that the Ulster people themselves can keep order in Belfast. What they wanted to do was to be in a position of strategic freedom to fight against the Ulster Volunteers, if necessary. What stores were there at Newry or what stores were there at Armagh? Then there is that question about the exemption of officers domiciled in Ulster from taking part in these operations. How can that be reconciled with the ordinary duties of maintaining peace? The Prime Minister put up a lame case in that matter. It is perfectly true that sometimes it might be desirable that in the case of particular officers or of a regiment very intimately associated with a certain district to suggest that they should not be used for some duties, but nobody ever suggested that they should be allowed to disappear, and that they then might be afterwards reinstated without loss of rank. Does that look like the ordinary duty of keeping the peace? We know that in 1890 and 1891, and again in 1893, when there were riots and troubles in Ulster, Ulster officers and Irish troops were used in keeping and assisting to keep the peace, and did preserve absolute impartiality as between Ulstermen, Protestants, and Catholics—
    Mr. J. WARD: Would they shoot workmen?
    Mr. AMERY: What these officers have refused to do is to shoot the working men of Belfast. Were not intimations given a few days ago that the Connaughts and Leinsters were to be prepared to serve in Ulster? Are not those regiments vitally interested in this particular controversy? On the right hon. Gentleman's own plea, that shows the absurdity of the whole contention. After all, what the Government are proposing to deal with is not a temper which might lead to local outbreaks. They might have talked about that two years ago when they first passed their Bill; but they know that since then,

    249
    with their connivance and toleration, a force of over 100,000 men has been organised, controlled, officered, and provided with all the things which The Hague Conference insists that a belligerent force shall have. They have their badges, Red Cross contingents, and everything that a belligerent force requires. The Government have allowed a provisional government to be constituted, ready to come into effect at any time. They know perfectly well that when it comes to action they have got to deal with Ulster as a belligerent force. They have to give them the rights of belligerents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Do hon. Members say that Ulster prisoners are going to be shot, or tried for high treason, or for murder, or for desertion? The fact is, the moment operations begin—and no one can deny it—they will be treated as belligerents, just as the forces of the South were treated as belligerents by the Northerners, and just as we treated the American Colonies.
    That affects the whole of this question of the discipline of the Army. The officers and the Army undoubtedly, if they are in Ulster, will do their duty in suppressing any local rising or disturbance. But if it comes to the issue of civil war, as it might have done the other day as far as right hon. Gentlemen opposite were concerned, Ulster will be a belligerent force, and the Ulster provisional government will be responsible for keeping law and order in that area. The officers and the Army can only be asked to do one of two things — to act against Ulster in a belligerent capacity, or to stay out-side the area of Ulster altogether and take no part. What the Government are trying to do, and what I have no doubt they will do, or attempt to do, if they have been foiled on this occasion, is to trick officers into Ulster, to get them there on the plea of purely police duties; then, when the moment comes, to try and use them, first of all, in operating on the borders of Ulster, where there may be rioting as the result of the policy of the Government; and then, when they have used them first of all on the borders of Tyrone and Fermanagh, having got their blood up, to march them on against the Ulster forces. In doing that, the Government will embark on a course which can only end in the destruction of the Army. If they do succeed in inducing a certain number of officers, step by step, to fight against, Ulster, they will break the corps
    250
    of officers in two, and ruin the Army for a generation. What happened yesterday was serious enough, but at any rate it has not broken the Army in two. It lasted only a few moments or a few hours, and the Army has not been permanently injured.
    What I ask the House to do is to impress upon the Secretary of State for War the grave responsibility which he has towards the Army, the responsibility of not increasing the mischief which has been done already, and of here and now frankly stating that there is no intention under any circumstances of using any part of the British Army to coerce Ulster. That is a question upon which we are entitled to, have an answer now—not a vague equivocation, such as the Prime Minister gave yesterday, as to there being no intention of moving more troops to Ulster under present conditions. We have no reason to believe that there is going to be in Ulster any trouble of a civil character that will require more troops than there are in Ulster at the present time. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have admitted readily that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), and those who are with him, have done everything in their power to prevent sporadic outbreaks. As far as that question is concerned, there is less reason to fear trouble in Ulster now than there was a year or two years ago, or in 1893. The only reason for which more troops can be moved into Ireland, or into Ulster from now onwards, will be the intention of having an advantage in a civil war which the Government mean to provoke. The one thing essential to be made clear in this House and in the country is what the Government mean to do, so that officers may not be tricked into a false position. That is all I need say this afternoon on that question. I think it may have opened the eyes of some hon. Gentlemen opposite to the gravity of what has happened. We are in a situation such as this country has not known for centuries, and one which we can only hope will stay where it is and not get worse.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move a reduction?
    Mr. AMERY: I move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Mr. SPEAKER: A Seconder will be required. Does any hon. Member second?
    Mr. J. WARD: Yes, Sir. I think it is necessary that, in a Debate of this description, the opportunity should be taken at once to present the other side of the picture to the House. The hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) addresses the House as an authority upon military history, and he knows perfectly well that it is the history of almost every defunct State in the world that its decline and fall has begun the moment the military has interfered in civil affairs. You have only to read the pages of Gibbon, or any other great standard work relating to the history and government of the peoples of the past, to know that the statement is true that this country to-day is face to face with -one of the gravest problems with which a country can be confronted. We have here and now unquestionably to decide whether we are going to maintain the discipline of the Army as a neutral force to assist the civil power, and to maintain civil authority and law within these realms, or whether for the future this House, when elected by the people, must go to a committee of officers and ask that military junta whether this is a subject that will be allowed to be put into execution or carried into law if so decided by the House, or whether it is a subject with which they, as officers of the Army, think that we, as representing the people, are not entitled to interfere. That really is the principle underlying this discussion and the statements made by the hon. Member opposite. You cannot possibly pick and choose. If the Army is to decide what laws they will enforce when once they are laws, if it is to be allowed a discretion, then it is a moral certainty that, before the civil and military castes come in conflict with each other, you had much better first of all meet the military authority and discuss with them the subjects that you will be allowed to decide, so as to prevent the civil and military authorities coming into conflict afterwards. That is the only sensible course to follow.
    If we allow these things to continue, it is really a declaration of absolutism. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite who are smiling are delighted with the prospect; they are quite willing that such a thing should happen. I dare say that, if I belonged to the same class of society as they do, I might take their view. But I do not. I belong to the great democracy—that body of people who have struggled for ages to secure the rights which they possess to-day, whose rights
    252
    are contained in the Statute Book of the country and will be immediately destroyed the moment an aristocratic junta of military men are able to decide what the law of the country shall be. It is a most dangerous thing, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, that they should allow this propaganda to continue. I would like to read, as the discussion is on this question of the discipline of the Army, two statements that have appeared, one yesterday and another to-day, in a certain journal published in this country. The first is entitled" Spoiling the Army Fetish," and, at the risk of clearing the House, I will read it. That article proceeds:—
    "Rebels and democrats will follow with eager interest the efforts—of course unconscious—of Unionist leaders and pressmen to destroy the military fetish and break up the British Army. This is far and away the most momentous feature of the present political situation. On the avowed question of 'Ulster,' officers and soldiers are sedulously encouraged, if not incited, to think and act for themselves, which, it is assumed, would be in the way that the Unionist irreconcilables and their scribes happen to want them to act. Officers who resign and—it is coming to be hinted—soldiers who disobey are men and heroes. This is palpably a revolutionary new departure. It is the beginning of the end of the long standing conception of the Army as a vast machine which will automatically obey orders and deal out destruction without question. Now it is admitted that, on the 'Ulster' issue, the Army may be a human and sensitive entity, capable of forming its own conclusions. Any elements thereof that will 'refuse to be bullied' will find favour in 'high' and 'loyal' quarters."
    That article proceeds:—
    "And after! Once the old idea of automatic and unquestioning obedience is broken, is it likely that the soldiers will relapse into slavery? Is it inconceivable, for instance, that they may refuse to be bullied into shooting their brethren who are struggling for social justice? The Unionist enthusiasts and inciters do not seem to be particularly keen psychologists. They have not considered the possible ramifications and consequences of an idea. Once it begins to work in the soldier's minds—they will find it exceedingly difficult to keep it in the way in which 'they' think it. should go. Others will get the benefit of it in due course. That members and parasites of the master classes have set themselves recklessly to play with and revolutionise that formidable engine of government. The British Army is a mighty irony; but it has a thrilling side. Watch and wait, brothers!"
    HON. MEMBERS: What is the paper?
    Mr. J. WARD: The "Daily Herald." [Laughter.] Yes, you and they are one! They want you to accomplish your object; they for their purpose, you for yours. Again to-day in that journal—because you see when once you begin to preach rebellion and the right to decide whether you ought or ought not to follow the command of your officers, you must not expect but that others will do it in their direction. Unquestionably as the hon. Member for Birmingham says, you have started to smash not merely your opponents on this

    253
    side, but the British Army. Let me quote again from the "Herald":—
    "To the men in the British Army.—Comrades.—We appeal to you to watch carefully the doings and sayings of your officers in connection with the Home Rule question. At least one hundred of them are reported as declining—"
    That bears out what the hon. Member for Birmingham says—
    "to serve against the men of Ulster who may rebel. We do not want you to judge the rights or wrongs of the Ulster dispute, but we bid you remember that officers have claimed and have exercised the right to choose when they will or not obey orders. We ask you in all sincerity to consider your Gun position towards your brothers and sisters who are locked-out or on strike. Often you are called upon to fire on unarmed and defenceless crowds of men and women. You are asked to do so in order that your own flesh and blood may be bought and sold cheap that others may be rich. We therefore ask you now to resolve that from this day forward you will never fire a shot against your own class, that you will follow the example of the generals and other officers in Ireland who have refused to take risks against their class interests. In your case it is much more important than theirs, for you are first workers, and one day will conic back to the class you belong to, and will have all the same dread struggle for life as members of that class endure. So we bid you when called upon to fire on your brothers fighting for freedom to 'ground arms,' and refuse any longer to be the tools of the possessing classes. Your officers have shown what class solidarity means. It is for you to organise yourselves together, so that when the slay conies—you may, one and all, take as your motto 'Don't shoot.'"
    That is the manifesto that is going to be distributed by the syndicalists—which hon. Members opposite have joined—to the British Army. It is quite true that you claim many privileges, but what right have you to spread sedition in the Army any more than these men? I am bound to confess that I am beginning to feel the blood course warmly, for I am not so certain that there are not many of the grievances mentioned in this article that it would be almost as well to decide at the point of the bayonet! If that is the means you want, you wealthy possessing people, if that is the means you want to employ, instead of constitutional action in the future to decide grave political problems, I am positively sure that my Friends and I are quite prepared to accept and employ the same means. I venture to say that hon. Members opposite, for mere party purposes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—merely for purposes of scoring off their opponents Why, the hon. Member, in his speech a moment ago, defended the action of officers who refused to obey orders.
    Mr. AMERY: They refused to obey no orders. They were given the alternative of resigning with the loss of pension or going to Ulster. As men of honour and conscience they chose to resign.
    Mr. J. WARD: There is not the slightest doubt that once this begins it is not only the officers who will have a conscience. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Oh, yes, poor men have honour.
    Mr. AMERYmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. J. WARD: I can imagine, if ever you get a majority, and are on this side of the House and are responsible for good government—I can imagine a great industrial dispute, where the speeches delivered by you men, by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, will be brought up to justify every common soldier, who is called upon to assist the civil authorities in saying, "These men that I am asked, it may be, to shoot down in the street in support of the principle of law and order, are members of the class to which I belong. I have a conscientious and honourable objection to shooting or to interfering with them in the struggle." What right, then, has either of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke yesterday to suggest that the private soldier has not a conscience—has not honour? [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Then, Mr. Speaker, let us understand. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite really agree that for the future in any labour dispute, in any dispute where the military are called upon to assist the civil authority, a private soldier has the right to disobey orders if he has a conscientious objection? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
    Mr. AMERY: I pointed out perfectly clearly that in the question of supporting the civil power against riots, against disorder, against breaking up the ordinary law, these officers—every officer—was entirely prepared to do his duty. Where it is a question as to whether the Government, for party ends, is risking civil war, officers—and men—have a right to act upon their consciences in the matter.
    Mr. J. WARD: What does it all amount to? It all amounts to this—that you are to pick and choose the time and occasion on which the Army has to obey. You cannot possibly do it in that way. Does the hon. Member suggest that, providing only the trade unionists—nearly 4,000,000 of them—will save their money, and secure at an immense expense a proper military organisation, that they should then practically decide whether or not the Army is to be used against them? Anyone can see that that only carries the thing a little further.

    255
    Take the test of discipline that one sees in Ireland to-day. Take the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Men belonging to that body are many of them Catholics. Many of them belong to the people whom they are called upon to hold in practical subjection. Yet at the word of command, and without the slighest hesitation, they support the Executive authority in maintaining order, no matter what the consequences may be. Take the case of the Dublin Fusiliers who were sent to South Africa. Everybody knows that they were absolutely hostile from top to bottom to the South African war. Yet they were soldiers. They were not officers! At the word of command these brave Irish lads went to shed their blood in defence of a cause in which they did not believe. They did it because, as soldiers, it was their duty to do it. Do you want to break down that discipline? As a matter of fact it is, as the hon. Member has said, a most interesting occasion. We have now to decide whether the people, through their representatives in Parliament, are to make the laws of the country absolutely without interference either from King or Army.
    Mr. AMERY: Or from the people.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. J. WARD: And I think hon. Members have got to this point, that in raising this feeling as they have done, and raising the question, for the future, as to who is to decide the legislative policy of the country, and that it has to be submitted to a committee of the Army, they have done the greatest disservice to the best interests of the Empire for which they pretended to be so zealous.
    Major WHITE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made a most bitter attack upon the Cabinet, because the very fact that the Cabinet has permitted these officers to go back to duty, apparently upon their own conditions, shows that they think those officers had some right in doing what they did. I would just like to point out one other fact, that in the late autumn, when the First Lord of the Admiralty adumbrated proposals for the increase of naval armaments against foreign aggression, the Radical party and the Labour party abused him and threatened to oppose him; hut directly it comes to a question of the forces of the Crown being used against their own fellow-countrymen, then the whole of the Radical party support the Government. I would
    256
    point out it is not very wonderful, apparently, that this feeling about serving against Ulster is not only confined to the officers' corps in Ireland: it is not very wonderful that the feeling is almost universal amongst the men in the Army, and for this reason: First of all, I take the, case of a regiment quartered in Dublin at the present moment, one of the regiments concerned, the 5th Royal Irish Lancers. Men of the 5th Royal Irish Lancers on many occasions—almost universally—when they go into a public-house in Dublin, find either that all the hooligans get up and leave or, if they are sufficiently bold and blustering to overawe the soldier, they use abusive remarks about the King's uniform.
    The hon. Member was rash enough to use the case of the Dublin Fusiliers in South Africa. Has he ever read the account given by the so-called Major MacBride. [Laughter.] You may well laugh, but this man was appointed to a high honour in the Dublin Corporation, and be described how in the first battle—the battle of Talana Hill—" Our Irish brigade had the satisfaction of pouring the first volley into the British rank!" And what were the regiments employed at that time in that part of Natal? There were the Royal Irish Fusiliers and the Royal. Dublin Fusiliers, and there is not the slightest doubt that many of these brave Irishmen, fighting in the King's regiments, did undoubtedly meet their deaths at the hands of the Irish brigade headed by a present Irish Nationalist Member of Parliament. The less hon. Members on the other side bring into this discussion the names of those brave Irish soldiers, who have fought for us not only in South Africa but in other wars as well, the better for them, for not only were they shot down by their Nationalist fellow-countrymen, but afterwards, as we know, in the case of a military funeral in Belfast they were pursued with contumely in life and in death. Some hon. Members may have their views about the merits of Home Rule, or the demerits of Home Rule, but they are not entitled, I say, to back up men who always abuse the King's uniform against men who have always been loyal to the Union Jack.
    Mr. ARTHUR BECK: The reproaches with which the hon. and gallant Member started his speech do not, at any rate, apply to me, because ever since I have been in this House I have consistently supported His Majesty's Government in their

    257
    armament policy, and I have stood up in my place and defended the full naval demands that were made by Ministers in charge; but, Sir, what we feel is this—and we say it to the Government as much as to the hon. Gentlemen opposite—that we have one of the most sacred duties which a representative House can have to discharge in this controversy which has arisen. We feel—we may be wrong, but I believe, on my conscience, we are right—that the whole of representative government is in danger on account of the action taken by those officers. I do not blame these officers, but I do blame, and bitterly blame the men who for three years have intrigued and wire-pulled in order to get officers to play that game. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!" and Interruption.] It is not necessary to quote names. [Interruption.] Every honest man knows the names, and that there have been written letters above the names of some of the highest signatures in the land which are nothing less than an incitement to these men to put the interests of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite first—[Interruption]—and the interests of their country second. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mention one name!" Interruption.]
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: The hon. Gentleman has besmirched—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the proper lime to interpolate a speech.
    'Mr. BECK: I am trying, as far as I can, and I do think in all our interest, to argue this thing as the matter of the deepest principle. It is not necessary to quote names. To-day a covenant is being signed in this country which I think fully bears out everything that it is necessary, for this purpose, to prove. I do beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House really to consider what their duty is, and that is why I am compelled, as far as we know the facts, to blame my right hon. Friend below me. Here we are to-day, by an unfortunate accident, asked to vote Supplies for the Army which we are told by leaders in this country who to-morrow, or in a year or in a few years, may be holding the highest positions, is to decide the eventual policy of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] What are my hon. Friends and myself doing in this House if we have not only to send Bills in which we earnestly believe three times to another place, but if we have to submit them to the final revision of some gentlemen who are officers in the Army? Hon.
    258
    Members opposite say, "Try the people." Hon. Members opposite need not be afraid but that the people will be tried upon this question. What I am going on to say is this, and I do say it to any representative of the Government here, that many of us would rather resign our seats to-morrow and go back to the country over this question than to sit here to be dictated to by officers who mean well, but who cannot have the least opportunity of hearing more than one side, and that the most biassed. I quite admit that many of us here are in an awkward position. We have had to submit to grave unpopularity for supporting the Government in their action in the strike areas. We have said that the most sacred interest in this country was the interest of law and order, and now we have to go to the people of this country and say, "We said it was right to use, in the last resort, troops to maintain law and order in the strike area and to put down disorder, but now apparently the Government whom we have supported, have decided that officers may resign their commissions one day, run over to London and see the War Office authorities the next day"—
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: And Buckingham Palace. [Interruption.]
    Mr. BECK: And may continue their duties upon what may be called contingent terms. I really do not think that anything need be added to the magnificent speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward), but before it is too late I do ask this House—[Interruption]—I do not want to be in the least offensive, but I always notice that it is the least responsible and youngest Members who are the noisiest—I do ask the House to think that the state of things we have embarked upon to-day, or this last week, are not things that will end to-day or tomorrow, but are things that will leave their mark upon the next ten years in this country's history. Hon. Members heard what was said last night from these benches. Do they know that the meaning men have placed upon it is that this system has shown that the whole officering of our Army is wrong. Men like myself, brought up as I have been, never thought of a thing like that before. We have listened to the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Amery), and all this wild talk, and we thought it meant nothing. We thought officers were pledged, whatever happened, to do their duty, but now we are told that it is a matter for their discretion. My hon. Friend the Member

    259
    for Sunderland last night pointed out that we are the centre of a great Empire. He and I both happened to have been born in the Dominions beyond the seas. We know—not like hon. Members opposite through a tour—in our bones what Colonials think, and I say to hon. Members opposite that there is not a Colonial in the Empire who will not be shocked to his soul by the events of the last few days. We have beard some talk to-day about the Boer war. We who were fighting the Boers reserved our warmest praise for General Joubert, who disapproved of the war; but when he was asked to do his duty, he went out and practically died in the field. He obeyed the Executive Government of his country, and now the British Empire sees officers resigning, and their resignation is not accepted, but they are told that they can go back on terms. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose fault is that?"] We want to know whose fault it is.
    I am not making a party speech, but I am saying that, rightly or wrongly, the people who think as I do, and the people who think with a great deal more fury about various things, have had all their conceptions of the foundations of this country upset by the events that have happened. We have now once again to face the question that was faced by our ancestors in the days of the Stuarts, whether it is desirable to have an Army, and, if so, whether it is desirable to have it officered in the way it is officered to-day. These were not the things we wanted to consider. We thought they were settled, but, like a great many events that have happened during the last. three or four years, we find ourselves once again going back to very fundamental and very ancient things. In my belief, the people of this country, whatever their party leaders may think, are as sound on these fundamental questions as ever their fathers were. You may say to-day as much as you please about this being a perfectly ordinary transaction, you may say that these officers merely misunderstood what has happened, and when they were a little reassured they went back to their duty, but you will never get the people of this country to believe it. They will believe, as my hon. Friend said last night, that this is one of the most glaring instances ever known of there being one law for the rich and another for the poor. The people will believe that men who have wealth and high connection were allowed to withdraw—
    Sir G. PARKER: They were persuaded.
    Mr. BECK: This question goes much deeper in my opinion than the bandying of words across the floor of the House. What I maintain—and what any hon. Member who thinks about it must maintain—is that the people will conclude that officers may do things which a private in time of trouble would be stopped from doing. That is what will be said, and I frankly confess that I do not know what answer is to be made to that charge. I hope that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will give an answer to the proposition that was put to us. Really, it is a tragedy when efforts have-been made such as have been made from this side, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should not hold out a single hand. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have."] I have sat and listened to every word in these Debates—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now travelling away from the subject before the House.
    Mr. BECK: I quite agree that I was, rather deliberately breaking the Rules of Order, but this is a tragedy, and I cannot blame anybody fundamentally for it except the party opposite. I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War has shown deplorable weakness. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have every advantage under our constitutional system. They have wealth, they own great newspapers in this country, they have the plural vote, and all these props of the Constitution, and I say it is a tragedy that they should have allowed themselves to drag the Army into the field of party controversy—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who dragged it in?"]—and driven a gap which will not be closed for years between the commissioned ranks and the other ranks of the Army. Hon. Members opposite sneer, but remember it was only two or three years ago that a little printer was sent to gaol for printing and distributing leaflets to privates in the Army, and the Government did what we believe to be the fundamental duty of the Government, whereas to-day right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are the. heroes of every drawing-room because. they have preached to officers the same sort of sedition.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I agree with one observation made by the hon. Member who has just sat down in regarding the present

    261
    situation as a tragedy. I take an immensely serious view of the situation. Of course, hon. Members sitting below the Gangway think only of the advantage they can get out of this from a party point of view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] No doubt the hon. Member for Stoke is attracted to the idea that he will in that way secure a few more votes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I say this without the slightest hesitation, for a party speech more fundamentally insincere than the one made by the hon. Member for Stoke never heard. The hon. Member read out as typical of the Labour opinion—
    Mr. J. WARD: I especially called attention to the fact that this was the propaganda of the syndicalists' newspaper, and I said that hon. Gentlemen opposite were carrying on the same propaganda only with different objects in view.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Then what is the object of it? Only to represent to the House that this was an important organ of working-class opinion. If that was not the hon. Member's object, what does he mean? If that is not his object, it is perfectly valueless, and he might just as well read from the "Suffragette" Either the thing has sonic importance or it has not. If the hon. Member believes that the "Daily Herald" has some importance, then all I can say is I think he must know that the "Daily Herald" is never tired of pointing out how lacking in courage and sincerity the Members of the Labour party are at all times. As for the hon. Member for Stoke as a leader of revolution, I assure him that he does not in the least terrify me, because I know he is not even able to vote for Motions which he seconds, and revolutionaries are not built of clay of that description. With regard to the speech which has just been delivered, I think it was animated by a very genuine feeling, and a very deep sense of the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves. But do not let us exaggerate. I am sure the hon. Member opposite and everybody else will wish that we should take an accurate view of exactly what has happened in this case. It is not the case of an officer refusing to obey orders; it is not, in fact, that case at all. As I understand the matter—and I speak only as one of the public, and know nothing except what has happened in this House, and what I have seen in the newspapers—somehow or another these officers were asked a question, Whether they would fight
    262
    against Ulster or whether they Would resign their commissions? I understand that was in substance the question which was put to them. I ask hon. Members of this House to put themselves in the position of these officers, sympathising profoundly from reasons quite remote from mere party considerations which hon. Members have attributed to them with the people of Ulster, after having seen the relative behaviour of Nationalists and Ulstermen in Ulster. Questions are constantly brought to our notice of the regrettable, but at the same time the undoubted fact that soldiers and officers of His Majesty's Army are profoundly unpopular in the Nationalist parts of Ireland.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is not so.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member for North-East Cork denies that, but I was talking to a working man the other day, and he described to me the situation, and he told me how soldiers could not go out after dusk except six at a time for fear of being set upon in the streets of Dublin. MEMBERS: "Rot!"] He was there himself and told me so. Everybody knows that there are streets in Dublin to this day down which soldiers cannot go without fear of interference. That, at any rate, is the common opinion in the Army, and anyone who has talked to military men knows it. Compared with that you have the Ulstermen, who have always welcomed the soldiers of the Crown, regarding themselves as much interested in and as much a part of the Empire as the soldiers themselves. Can you wonder that there is a very strong and deep feeling in the Army on this question?
    The question which presents itself to the officer's mind necessarily is this: Will you go and shoot down the Ulstermen? That is the way it presents itself to his mind. Not a question of protecting individual civilians from isolated acts of outrage or anything of that kind, but—Will you go and enforce this political measure by force of arms in Ulster? That is the question which presents itself to him. Will the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken address himself to that question? Supposing he had been an officer, and he had been put in that position, and he had felt deeply and profoundly—mistakenly, as he would say—that the Ulstermen were right in this controversy, and that they were going to suffer the gravest injustice, and supposing he had been asked to go and enforce that injustice at the point of

    263
    the bayonet, and to shoot them down if they resisted, what would he say? That is the way it presents itself to the soldier. It is not a question of obeying orders. The matter is presented to them in a different light. You can, by sacrificing yourself, your profession, your whole prospects of life, send in your papers and resign your commission, and free yourselves from a terrible responsibility. I cannot find it in my heart to blame the man who took the view that, under that very difficult circumstance, it was his duty to send in his papers and resign his commission, and I do not believe that there is a man on the other side of the House, or on the Labour Benches, not even the hon. Member for Stoke himself, who would have acted differently. Therefore, to tell me that these men who are acting from a strong sense of duty and absolutely in defiance of their whole personal interests are to be held up as they will be, I am told, on every platform to ignominy and contempt as men who engaged in a conspiracy to destroy representative government—why, I say that such a charge is absolutely baseless and untrue. The suggestion which the hon. Member, not in the best moment of his speech, thought it wise to make, that they have been wirepulled and intrigued, I say is absolutely untrue. My knowledge of intrigue may not be great. I can only speak of my own personal opinion and knowledge, and I say, on my own authority and speaking from my own knowledge, that, so far as I know, that is absolutely untrue. That is the assertion I make so far as my knowledge goes. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) says "The British Covenant." What has the British Covenant got to do with this? What has any phrase of the British Covenant got to do with this?
    Mr. LOUGH: I would say that the very terms of the Covenant subject to those who sign it to endeavour to get the Army to refuse. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is not a word or syllable of anything of the kind. There is not the slightest suggestion of the kind. I signed the Covenant—I am not in the least ashamed of having done so—and I certainly never understood that was its meaning, and I am sure it is not. Do not let us exaggerate the affair, serious as I agree it is. I think it is a tremendously serious thing. I do not
    264
    deny it for a moment, but do not let us exaggerate it. Of course, it is too much to ask of a body of politicians not to make party capital out of it, because, of course, they will. I venture to think that the matter is so serious that it ought to be discussed in a temperate manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I have expressed myself strongly, but I do not think that I have said anything offensive about anybody on the present occasion. Let me try and say a word, if I may, on the fundamental issues that are involved in this dispute. They are very old indeed. They go back in our history, at any rate, to the days of the Stuarts, and I dare say long before that. I have listened to these Debates, and really and seriously, without wishing to exaggerate, the language used by hon. Gentlemen opposite might as well have been used of Laud and Strafford in the days of Charles I. There are, undoubtedly, two great competing duties, and we cannot get over it. There is the duty of obedience to the law. I do not believe that there is anyone who puts that higher than I do. I think I put it as high as it can reasonably be put, but there is also, in the last resort, the duty to break it. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. John Dillon) has broken it on grounds which seem to me wholly insufficient. I do not know that I have ever done so myself, but I can easily imagine a case in which I should do so. That is the old controversy which raged throughout the seventeenth century, as hon. Members will remember: Passive obedience on the one side, and the right to rebel on the other. That is still a controversy, and most people have really come to this conclusion: That circumstances may arise when it is your duty to break the law. That does not carry it very far. [An HON. MEMBER "What about the soldier's duty?"] I will say in answer to that interposition that if hon. Members will look at history they will find in every case of civil commotion, amounting to civil war, that soldiers, in fact, always have decided on one side or the other, and most commonly have been divided between the two. I can only remind the hon. Member who interrupted me that there are a number of instances—
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I should like to be reminded of any.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The North and South in America was one. [An HON. MEMBER "The French Revolution."] I do not think that I like taking any precedent from French history. There are far more

    265
    respectable precedents than that. There were, of course, a number of cases in the American war; and I think that if you will look at any case you will always find it so. There was the case of the celebrated defection of General Monk, but the cases are without number. The real difficulty is this, and I agree that it is an enormous and tremendous difficulty: What is civil war and what is riot? It is a tremendous difficulty, but it is a difficulty you have got o face. You have to face it in every war. It is similar to the distinction between piracy and privateering. All civilised nations agree that if a man is a pirate you hang him practically without trial. He is regarded as the enemy of the human race, and very properly so; but a privateer, who may be doing substantially the same thing, is entitled to be treated as a belligerent, with all the privileges of a belligerent. The real difference between the two sides is this: the privateer is fighting on behalf of an actual existing State or on behalf of some organised body of resisters, such as the Confederate States of America. He is not fighting for his own hand, but on behalf of some organised community. The pirate is merely fighting for his own hand, and is not entitled to any respect. I do not say that you can carry that analogy to its full extent when you get to land commotions, but its is substantially the distinction. I have thought as much as I can about this in the last few days, and, as far as I can see, it is the substantial distinction you have to make between riot and civil war.
    If the riot is made merely for the purpose of personal gain we have none of us any difficulty about it. Take the case of Tonypandy, where there was a dispute between employers and employed—some mining dispute. There somebody—probably not the people engaged in the dispute, but somebody else—took the opportunity of the general confusion to run amuck through the town of Tonypandy, wrecking the shops and stealing the contents. No one can doubt that is riot. It was done merely for the purpose of personal gain, but cases may arise in which the two come very near together indeed, and then you come to the real serious difficulties which all of us may have to face—I pray Heaven that as far as I am concerned I shall never have to face them—and where he has got to make up his mind: Is this civil war? Is this a case in which I have got to make up my mind between two great opposing parties, or
    266
    is this merely a riot in which the people are only engaged in vulgar looting, which is entitled to no respect at all? And not only have we to make up our minds, but soldiers, like everybody else, have got to make up their minds. They cannot get out of it. It would be a very convenient arrangement of human affairs if there were some authority absolutely infallible which could tell us exactly what was right or wrong in political questions of great moment. But such an authority does not exist, and you may be faced at any moment with a position when you have got to decide what you ought to do as between two contending parties, when the thing is not a mere riot, but when it becomes a definite fight between two political ideas.
    The question is, what is the situation in Ulster. Does anyone really suggest that it has any analogy to an ordinary riot? No one really does anything of the kind. Everyone knows that it is a real political controversy of a deep kind. We are told that the Ulstermen are not a nationality. It may be so, but I am quite sure that if this dispute goes on very long they will become a nationality. They are banded together in defence of a political idea. The other people are banded together in defence of their political ideas. It is the kind of dispute out of which civil war springs, and it is not the kind of dispute out of which riot springs. That seems to me to be the fundamental distinction between the two. I say quite frankly that, even in the case of civil war, a soldier is under a deep obligation to obey the authority by which he was enlisted, unless he is perfectly convinced that he cannot do so without losing his own self-respect, or without feeling that he is doing something which is shabby, mean, and despicable. I say he is put in an awful position when he has to choose between his heirarchial superiors and what, in his heart and conscience, he believes to be right. Then the unhappy man has to make a decision, and I, for one, will never be the first to throw a stone at him, whichever way he decides.
    Mr. LOUGH: There is a quotation which I make from memory, but which could be completed, not only by myself but by a great many hon. Members opposite—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to wait.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I try to put a point of view, that seems to be a sound

    267
    point of view, to the Labour party. Suppose that a Government was so mad as to bring in a Bill to withdraw from the working classes the right of combination, to abolish the Acts of 1871 and 1875, and to remove from them guarantees of liberty in which they profoundly believe. Suppose that were done, not for the whole of the working class—but to make it more like the present case—for a section only. Suppose they therefore banded themselves together and said to the Government which propose to commit this profound injustice: "We will set up a separate Government of our own, at the hands of which we shall not be exposed to this injustice." Suppose the Government acquiesced in their organisation for two years of an elaborate force, and apparently made no objection to it. Suppose they avowed in the most open and in the plainest language that there was no question of a secret conspiracy, but that theirs was an open organisation to enforce their ideas of political liberty. Suppose at the end of that time the Bill had become law and the troops were asked whether they would go and destroy the trade unions—destroy their leaders, irrespective of whether they were doing anything contrary to the law, or to that guarantee of liberty in which they profoundly believed and in which they thought was to be found their salvation. Suppose they said, "No, we shall resist." Suppose the officers and men were asked, "Will you act or refrain from acting, and give up your position in the Army? "Would the Labour Members blame them if they said, "No; we think the working classes are profoundly right; we think it is a grossly unjust and tyrannical act; we think they are perfectly right to resist before the employer gets a chance of doing an injustice. It is the guarantee of liberty in which we trust, and we shall fight for them." Surely hon. Members opposite would not blame them for coming to such a decision. I should say that in such a case no soldiers ought to be employed to enforce such an act as that, except with their good will. I say you have no right to so employ them; you have no right to employ soldiers to enforce what. is clearly political action against the deep-rooted convictions of a vast mass of your fellow countrymen. I am sure it cannot be done, and I am sure if it is attempted it will always produce that kind of disaster and danger with which we find ourselves confronted to-day.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Would you employ troops against the Nationalists?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It entirely depends on the circumstances. If they were engaged in mutilating cattle, in shooting at dwelling-houses, and in conduct of that kind, and the only way of stopping them was the employment of troops, I should, in that case, employ troops. If, indeed, the Government thought that this was a treasonable conspiracy, undoubtedly it ought, two years ago, to have arrested the leaders of the conspiracy. Then a very different state of things would have arisen. It is the Government's own vacillation that has produced the whole difficulty. That is a fatal defect of the Liberal Government whenever placed in real executive authority. It was the defect which produced the death of Gordon and the loss of many lives. They never can make up their minds until too late, and when they do make up their minds they always do something blustering and crude. We are told, and hon. Members have cheered the assertion, that this is an aristocratic conspiracy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went down to Huddersfield to develop that thesis in his own peculiar fashion. He explained that the dukes were at the bottom of it. The dukes, according to the right hon. Gentleman, are at the bottom of everything. If his Insurance Act is a failure, if the People's Budget does not succeed, if a land campaign becomes necessary, it is always the dukes. He sees dukes everywhere as some people see snakes. I doubt very much if the right hon. Gentleman in his calmer moments would maintain that view for an instant.
    These officers have formed a very strong opinion that the proposals of the Government are unjust and improper, and likely to do grave injustice to those among whom they have always found their warmest supporters and friends in life. They have been asked to make up their minds, and they have done so, and they have taken a decision for which I cannot find it in my heart to blame them. I respectfully say that they have shown an absence of self-seeking, which is, after all, no very common quality. Now they are told—I read it in a leading Radical paper—that the policy of the Liberal party is to be to break the Army. I gather from some inarticulate cries that not only the Army, but that even a more august institution is to share that fate. Yes, that is the Radical position. Whatever institution

    269
    stands in their way, whatever institution, however justly and however rightly, opposes itself to them even for a time, it is to be broken and taken away. The Radical party must not be hindered, whatever happens and whatever the consequences may be. That seems to he a disastrous policy, and hon. Members opposite will be bitterly sorry if they carry this party game to the extreme. This is a tremendously serious crisis. I will do all I can—I have, I know, no power, but I will do anything I can to prevent a repetition of such a crisis as we are now going through—anything I can consistently with honour. I feel that if hon. Members will free themselves from the violence of their party indignation—and can anyone doubt that such party indignation exists—if they will only try now, even at the eleventh hour, to find means of arriving at a settlement of this question, no one will be better pleased or more anxious to assist them than I shall be with whatever power I may possess.
    Mr. LOUGH: I had not, till a few moments ago, the least intention of intervening in this Debate, and perhaps I should apologise to you and to the Noble Lord for interrupting. I take it that the point which has been brought forward in almost every speech, the real point dividing the two sides of the House at this moment, is as to whether these officers, who have taken the extraordinary action which has been described so emphatically to-night, received any encouragement from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Have not hon. Gentlemen opposite constantly incited them during the last two years to take action which a good many at least appear to-night to deplore? I wanted to ask whether there was anything in the British covenant—I was quoting from memory—which bound anybody to endeavour to persuade officers to take that action. I will read the words showing what every one who signs the Covenant does:—
    "We do hereby solemnly declare that if the Bill is passed we shall hold ourselves justified in taking or supporting any action that may be effective to prevent the armed forces of the Crown being used to deprive the people of Ulster of their rights as citizens."
    I think every hon. Member will admit that I have read it frankly.
    Mr. AMERY: You have left out the words "with the assent of the people."
    Mr. LOUGH: I put it perfectly fairly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it again."]
    270
    Really hon. Members can read any words they like. I will read it with pleasure.
    "We hold ourselves justified in taking or supporting—
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the whole of it!"] I assure the House I am reading every word.
    "We do hereby solemnly declare"—
    I want to get at what they do declare, and I will read every word after that.
    Mr. PETO: The right hon. Gentleman burks a quotation of what is really a solemn declaration. Are we not entitled to hear it from beginning to end instead of having it piecemeal?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will read it all.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. LOUGH: I shall have great pleasure in reading it all after that, but the words referred to were not in the declaration. They are:—
    "Being earnestly convinced that the claim of the Government to carry the Home Rule Bill into law without submitting it to the judgment. of the nation. is contrary to the spirit of our constitution."
    That is the argument of hon. Gentlemen. I will now come to the declaration:—
    "We do hereby solemnly declare that if that Bill is so passed we shall hold ourselves justified in taking or supporting any action that may be effective to prevent. it being put into operation, and more particularly to prevent the armed forces of the Crown being used to deprive the people of Ulster of their rights ins citizens of the United Kingdom."
    [Interruption.] We can get to perfect agreement in a moment or two. All that I say is, that any hon. Member of this House who signed that declaration cannot deny that, in certain eventualities, he would advise the armed servants of the Crown—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—Yes, I put it with great submission, that in certain eventualities—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—every Member who signed it did suggest that the armed forces of the Crown should not carry out the will of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and an HON. MEMBER: "Now they are running away."] I must say that I do not think hon. Members opposite have treated me very fairly, or have treated their own declaration fairly. Why are they afraid? Why do they not stand to what they have signed? [HON. MEMBERS: "We do."] I give the Noble Lord who has just sat down that credit, because he appears to go to the full length of the declaration, but I say to hon. Gentlemen who have signed this declaration that they cannot wash themselves clean of the stain of endeavouring in certain circumstances to get the Army to fail

    271
    in its duty. Why do I mention this declaration? We shall hear more of it. It was sent to me this morning by a constituent, and I was told that all through the Division I represent people have been asked to sign it, I shall have to say the same thing in my Division when I speak there that I am saying here in the House now. I shall there have to charge hon. Members opposite, as I do here, with this attempt to seduce the armed forces of the Crown. Why do hon. Gentlemen opposite try to get a scapegoat in this matter, which they call so solemn? [HON. MEMBERs: "What about the Government?"] Never mind about the Government. I read that in 10,000 places throughout this Kingdom this declaration may be signed. I say it creates a most solemn crisis, and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be able to wash themselves free from the great responsibility they have undertaken in the matter.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Were I disposed to make a controversial contribution to this Debate, I would remind the Noble and learned Lord behind me (Lord Robert Cecil), when he asks what tribunal is to decide these issues, that we are in the House of Commons, and not in a town hall, and that we are on the Report of the Committee of Supply, and it may well be said that those who pay the piper can call the tune. But I rise to no such purpose. I rise for the purpose of saying that when the Prime Minister this morning recommended us to pretermit this Debate until to-morrow, when we should have fuller information, I thought he was wrong, but, having listened to the Debate, I think he was right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will tell the House why. In the first place, it cannot be denied that if these officers have behaved in the way alleged, the Government have made themselves parties to their misconduct. Therefore any hon. Gentleman on the Liberal side of the House who attacks the Army attacks the Government, and I cannot believe, on such an occasion as this, that both the Army and the Government can be included in any conjunct condemnation. Logic, no doubt, or partisanship may maintain, in the absence of information, that there is only one way of looking at this case. I now see, having listened to the Debate, another possibility, and I trust the House will indulge me if, for once, I seem to offer counsel of conciliation.
    272
    The reason is this. Our country is being made the cockpit of party battle. Whatever happens, Ireland will suffer. Whoever is right, whoever is wrong, the battle is being fought over the carcass of our unfortunate country. I cannot help remembering, when General Gough's name is mentioned, that he comes of a gallant, family, of whose reputation we are all proud. I can well believe that upon a sudden presentation, perhaps given under mistaken circumstances, a hot-headed and gallant man may have thrown up his sword. and that his great influence and the great family which he represents may have induced other soldiers to follow him. These commands may have been given under a mistake. Surely this is not an occasion when a country like ours, that has given so many gallant men to the Army, should needlessly stand by and suffer from unjust attacks. I refer to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman above the Gangway (Major Dalrymple White) said with regard to the treatment of soldiers in Ireland. I am afraid that the Noble Lord, who has referred' to that matter has only spoken upon hearsay. I can assure the House, and certainly I have no reason for any concealment in the matter, that there is not a more popular force in any country in the world than is the Army in Ireland. I can say this, in addition, that the farmers of Ireland at the Autumn and Summer manœuvres give facilities to the Army which English and Welsh farmers refuse to give them. That I have from officers who have served in those manœuvres. Therefore it cuts me to the quick to hear these unjust charges, which are not merely charges of disloyalty that we could very well support, but which are charges of ungentle-manliness, unneighbourliness, and vindictiveness, for which I know, from the spirit of our people, there is no foundation whatever.
    Major DALRYMPLE WHITE: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the statement that has been admitted by the Secretary for War, that military funerals are not allowed to go through the Nationalist quarter in Belfast?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am not an authority, thank God, on Belfast. I know nothing whatever about Belfast. I only spent twenty-four hours there in my life, and they were the most unhappy twenty-four hours I ever spent. I never knew anybody to leave Belfast who was not glad to be out of it. I do not know what are

    273
    the circumstances which affect Belfast, or on what military ground, in moments of excitement for all I know—especially if there has been firing and fusillades, and perhaps wounds and death—the military may, as a matter of precaution, direct the funerals to go by some other route. I am sure anybody might take the same course as a matter of precaution. What I am engaged in denying is that this a part of the sentiment of my nation. That is what I deny. I am going to make a suggestion to the House, which is this: In this matter the Irish stand most deeply either to win or lose. Do not fight this battle about the Army over our bodies. The Labour men have just cause for using these taunts, and for bringing up Tonypandy and bringing up Tom Mann, who, I remember, got six months only last year for asking the soldiers not to fire upon trade unionists. We are, however, engaged upon a wholly different struggle. Do not fight your English battles over this unfortunate country of ours, which is now precipitated into this tremendous conflict.
    I appeal especially to the Liberal party, who are justly and naturally filled not merely with momentary feeling, but with the traditional feeling which springs from the old Commonwealth and William times. I appeal to them especially not to rub in this question at this present moment. I think, for my part, that if the information should be given to us to-morrow that a high crime and misdemeanour has been committed by this gentleman, no one would condemn him more strongly than I should, but if, on the other hand, we find that that high crime and misdemeanour has been condoned by the Government, what will be the position of Ireland? Does it not follow that we should say that you have given these miserable concessions to Ulster, but that you have followed them up by refusing to enforce the Act of Parliament. In all the circumstances, I appeal to the House to pretermit this matter until to-morrow. Admitting that I was wrong myself in wishing this Debate to continue, I do strongly say that in the interests of Ireland it is desirable that these arguments should for the moment be laid upon one side. May I, in conclusion, say why I took the view that the Prime Minister was wrong? I took the view that if we pretermitted at this stage that to-morrow it would be a combat between the Opposition backing up the soldiers and the Government and their friends engaged in self-
    274
    assertion or self-justification. I see that there is a third position, and being of that opinion, I say the occasion is one when it. is neither good for this House nor for this country, nor for this Empire, nor for the future of Ireland, that this acrimonious. Debate should continue in the vein in which it has been conducted.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: There is no Member of this House who can do other than appreciate the very human appeal the hon. and learned Member has made. If, as he alleges, this was a, mere question of an impulsive action on the part of General Gough, I could well understand that the matter might rightly be left there. But I want to submit that it is not quite such an easy situation as we suggest, because every speech from the other side has laid it down in clear and definite terms that not only was General Gough right in refusing to obey orders if he were called upon—
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, he never said that.
    Mr. THOMAS: Every speaker has laid it down clearly that he is prepared to. justify General Gough and any other officer or men who for conscientious reasons say they will not take part in enforcing the new law against Ulster. I want to submit to the Noble Lord that, whilst he was asking us to believe that he was actuated by no party spirit or feeling, he ought to have displayed the same spirit in his summary of our position. He opened his speech by saying that he could well understand the action of the Labour party, whose only object in this matter was to seek party advantage,. I am not viewing this question from the. standpoint of Ireland or Ulster. I am viewing it as one in charge of an Army of not 100,000 men, but 350,000 men, and I want to answer the Noble Lord in saying that, at least, I am serious in this matter, and I have proved my sincerity in my opposition to this doctrine, or to any other-syndicalist doctrine, not by mere lip-service here, or statements in the Press, but by going and facing the men themselves and telling them they were wrong. It is because I am profoundly satisfied" that the support that Gentlemen opposite are giving and have given to this question cannot do other than shake the very foundations of society that I rise to make my protest. The Noble Lord said it appears to be 'the one desire of the party

    275
    on this side to smash every institution that stands in their way. I frankly admit that there is no institution in this country, however great or sacred, which I would not take my stand in smashing to atoms if it attempts to interfere with the constitutional liberties of the people. We have got beyond the stage when we should allow anyone to step in and say that we can override the expressed will of the people through Parliament. How is it proposed to be done? Shortly, the argument of the Noble Lord is this, that whilst it is true that it is the duty of the Army to obey any commands given, there are certain circumstances in which men would be actuated by strong conscientious objections, Ulster being one, and on those grounds they would be justified in refusing. That, shortly put, is the case as presented by the Noble Lord. Let me apply that to another circumstance, because whilst we may argue across the poor as to what happened in America, the ordinary man in the street will not draw any such fine distinction. The ordinary man in the street at this moment cannot understand, and is not likely to forget, that Tom Mann had six months' for doing what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) has been doing for the past two years. When Crowsley distributed pamphlets to the soldiers, advising them not to shoot their fellow men, he was arrested. I was called upon to say whether we would provide legal defence for him, because he was a member of my society, and he said, "I did this conscientiously, believing it to be in the interests of my fellow working men. I did this with no other object than to help my own class, therefore I appeal to you, as representing my organisation, to provide a defence and to pay me out-of-work pay in accordance with the rules of the society." We did not do as hon. Gentlemen opposite did. I said, "Whilst I can understand the feeling which actuated you in taking this course, if this is pursued it will shake the very foundations of society," and my organisation not only refused to provide legal defence, but they absolutely refused to give this man a copper of out-of-work pay. We were condemned in all parts of the country. Hon. Members opposite agreed with my action then. I put it to you, if you agreed with my action then, is there any distinction between the conscientious feeling of Crowsley and the conscientious action of
    276
    the gentlemen whom you are now supporting?
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Yes.
    Mr. THOMAS: Let me give another illustration. On 17th August, 1911, I and other colleagues met the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Foreign Secretary. It was then known that there was a possibility of a railway strike and all that it meant. I said on behalf of the men, "We do not want a strike. If you will only persuade the other side to meet us and talk the matter over, I believe we can conic to agreement." The Prime Minister used his influence, and he failed, and he came back into the room and said, "I have to tell you that the whole forces of the Crown, civil and military, will be placed at the disposal of the railway companies to see that the food supplies of the people are not interfered with." That is to say that the Prime Minister placed the interests of the State before anything else. I have never disagreed about it, and I agreed then, though I was on the opposite side. But I want to see what it means. Included in the military and in the Reserve were thousands of railway men who were striking for better conditions of service, and who conscientiously believed that the hours that they were working were too long. and that they were entitled to strike in order that their wives and families could live.
    An HON. MEMBER: And starving everybody else's.
    Mr. THOMAS: That means, of course, that it did not matter about them starving themselves, so long as they did not have to inconvenience anybody else. Some of these Reserves would be called up on the statement of the Prime Minister, not to shoot down strikers, not to protect property, but actually to run trains in order to ensure that the food supply of the people should not be interfered with. Then supposing they said, "No; as railway men we are on strike for better conditions, we are not going to work as Reservists under the service of the Crown in order to defeat our fellow railway men." Immediately there is dissent from that proposition, and if there is dissent, I ask hon. Members seriously to consider what position they are placing themselves in when by their very action they have practically shown it rests with the officers and men to distinguish as between one

    277
    position and another. General Gough may feel keenly the Ulster situation. Tommy Atkins will feel keenly the industrial situation. I said just now that I did not look upon it in a party spirit. We have given notices to the whole of the railway companies in the United Kingdom. Those notices expire on 1st November this year, shortly before Christmas, in the depth of the winter. On behalf of the 400,000 railwaymen, between now and November we have to anticipate what may happen. I hope, and I say with all the solemnity of my nature, that nothing that I can do will be too much to try and bring about an amicable settlement. I am not unmindful of the other situation. If the doctrine that you have laid down can stand, what is my duty? It is between now and November, Sunday after Sunday, to go to all the industrial counties, and say to the railwaymen, "I believe that the railway companies are going to resist your demand. I believe they are going to refuse to give you an eight hours day. I believe they are going to refuse to give you an increase in wages; and I believe they will use all the force at their command. In order to he prepared for the worst, if they resist., organise your forces. We will use our £500,000 of capital in our union to provide arms and ammunition for you. We have got a political idea and we can best accomplish that in the way I have indicated."
    Will hon. Members opposite sit in their places day after day and listen to me preaching that doctrine and agree with it? If they do not agree with it, then I put it to them that they at least are conveying the impression that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor. [Indications of dissent.] It is all very well to shake your heads, but I say that the ordinary man in the street will not draw these fine distinctions, and, viewing this question not as a party politician, not from the standpoint of Ireland, although anything I can do will be done in the direction of seeing that Ireland has justice, but viewing it purely as one who has got to face the masses of the country not with reference to what is popular or unpopular, and not with a mere popular cry that will make a popular hero, but always applying the one test, "Is it right and is it just?" I ask what is the situation of myself and other Labour leaders when we have to go to our men and say, whilst there is a political party in the House of Commons, largely of the
    278
    employing class, including railway directors—whilst there is a class that says that under certain circumstances the forces of the Crown must not be used—
    Mr. HUNT: Not the same thing at all.
    Mr. THOMAS: It may not be the same thing to you, but the mere political distinction as to what these people call Nationalist rule for Ulster men is not more to a working man whose wife and children have not enough to eat. Not the same thing!If in a year or two's time the inevitable trade depression sets in and an unemployed man says, "I can not only not get work, but I have not even food to eat," is that not something to him? Is that not a, conscientious reason on his behalf? There is no limit to this question, and I am profoundly satisfied that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not realise where they are going, because I believe their action will shake the very foundations of society. I conclude by saying, regardless of consequences, regardless of individuals, whether they be high or low, we have got to take our stand and say that the liberty of the people is at stake, freedom has been interfered with, and therefore justice shall be done even if the heavens fall.
    Mr. HUNT: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. H. Thomas), and the members of the Labour party, have been mixing up the position of railway men on strike with the position of Ulstermen. The defence of the employment of military in a railway strike is that the troops are used to protect life and property. The difference surely is that in the case of a railway strike soldiers are sent to protect life and property, and the food of the people.
    Mr. THOMAS: I swept away that distinction, and I put the other—that the troops could be used in order to run the very trains that the men on strike refused to run.
    Mr. HUNT: That does not make any difference. The object of using soldiers in a railway strike is to preserve life and property, and to prevent the people from starving. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to tell me that if the Army is to be used to shoot down Ulstermen that is for the protection of life and property? It is to drive out of political union with this country the most loyal subjects of the King. Let me say that, so far as I know history, such a thing has never been done before by any nation. Surely that is an

    279
    enormous difference, and the officers who refused to make war on the loyal subjects of the King were perfectly tight. I really think that hon. Gentlemen on the other side do not understand the position in Ireland. I have little opinion of most of them, but I think there must be some of them who would hesitate to vote for the Home Rule Bill if they knew really what it meant. It means that Ireland is going—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that this evening. I have already stopped one hon. Member.
    Mr. HUNT: I am sorry; I did not know that that subject was barred. I think we might ask the Secretary of State for War to tell us whether he could give an assurance, as there is so much unrest in the Army, that the Army will not be used for killing loyal subjects of the King in Ulster. If we could have that assurance, I am sure it would be a very great thing for the Army. The Prime Minister the other day lectured the Unionist. party on the part they have taken in this Ulster question. I really think that it is a pretty strong order for the Prime Minister and the party opposite to do that when everybody knows that they made a gambling Jew who got at the Jury, Lord Chief Justice of England.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member indulges in language of that kind, I shall have to take strong measures with him. This remark has absolutely nothing to do with what we are now discussing. The hon. Member should show some courtesy towards a Member of the other House.
    Mr. HUNT: I do not know what it has got to do with the other House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman chose to go out of his way quite unnecessarily to attack a Noble Peer in very offensive language.
    Mr. HUNT: Yes, I was only showing that the present Government has, at all events, tried and failed to coerce and frighten the loyal population in Ulster, after having done what I have just stated, which is a statement, as everybody knows, that is perfectly true.
    Colonel SEELY: If I may make an appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House it would be this: I cannot very well make a speech on this subject or any state-
    280
    ment, as I explained at Question Time, until the House is in possession of the full facts which I have promised to give them. If we could dispose of this Amendment now, it would enable me to reply to the specific questions put by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will undertake to make a full statement to-morrow, after the House is in full possession of the essential documents in the case. I would appeal to hon. Members that. we might now proceed to dispose of the Amendment and get the necessary Vote.
    Mr. LEE: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in view of the appeal made by the Prime Minister at Question Time, in reply to a question by me, when he promised to produce the-full Papers to-morrow, it was reasonable that we should not have proceeded to discuss the question this afternoon. That is the way it struck me, and that is the one and only reason that I have not risen to take part in this Debate. But I must say this, that while I do not wish to enter into the merits of the case for the reason I have given until we have seen the Papers—and I speak now as an old soldier, as one who has spent thirteen of the best years of my life before I came to this House as a soldier and I am proud of it—I do feel deeply that daring the whole afternoon, though there have been a series of concentrated and venomous attacks made upon the British Army and upon its officers, not one single word has been said in defence of the Army by the one person whose business it is to defend them in this House. It is not my duty to stand here and defend the Army. I have not the prestige or the authority-to do so, but we do feel that when attacks of this kind are made continuously, we look to the proper defender of the Army, not to go into the merits of the political controversy, but at any rate to repudiate personal attacks upon officers of the Army. The Secretary of State for War has not had one word to say upon that subject. I do feel that the least the right hon. Gentleman could have done would have been to raise and resent and repudiate the attacks made upon the Army. If he does not feel in a position to defend the Army against the attacks made upon us this afternoon, all I can say is that he has no right whatever to maintain his position.
    Amendment put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes

    281
    to deal now, or at some future time, with the aeroplane question? I know that the Debate has got off it, and that it is difficult to get it back again.
    Colonel SEELY: I think it would be more convenient to the House to make the statement some other time, in view of all that has happened to-day. I will undertake to make a full statement at perhaps a more convenient time, when I may be able to make a definite statement as to the request of the hon. Gentleman for an inquiry.
    Mr. SANDYS: On this question there is one point to which I would draw attention. That is the Inspection Department of the Flying Corps which was created last autumn. Unfortunately, during last year there were certain regrettable fatal accidents to officers in the Royal Flying Corps. There is an impression in the country, amounting almost to a conviction in some cases, that everything possible has not been done, as it is the wish of this House that it should be done, to give the officers of the Royal Flying Corps the best possible equipment and organisation for carrying out duties which, under the most favourable conditions, must always be extremely hazardous. I am confident that the right hon. Gentleman must realise that there is a determination, no matter what the cost may be, that as we are a wealthy and powerful nation, everything possible must be done by the Government to see that these duties, which are so essential to the security of the country, are carried out by our officers in the most favourable conditions. My hon. Friend referred to the accident on 13th May last year to Lieutenant Arthur, who was flying on one of the factory machines. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no question of bad material or workmanship in the original machine, but that some accident occurred which was secretly repaired by an unauthorised person, who had not been discovered. Later on the same day he said that the strictest instructions are laid down for recording the repairs effected to Army aeroplanes, but that as regards the accident to Lieutenant Arthur, in spite of the most careful inquiry, it was impossible to ascertain by whom the repair was carried out. Then there was the report of the committee of the Aero Club, which my hon. Friend has already read.
    One of the results of that accident last year was that the right hon. Gentleman explained to the House on a subsequent
    282
    occasion all the tests which the Government provided to ascertain whether a, machine was in proper condition to take its place in the Flying Corps. He told us about the loading tests, the strain tests, the landing tests, and the flying tests, and then he went on to the question of workmanship and material which must be to the satisfaction of the Royal Aircraft inspectors. Then he said:—
    "Further, before all Army aeroplane makes its flight, it is inspected by the commanding officer of the place and every effort is made to see that everything is correct. Every test that we know is applied, and not until it is certified that it is fit, does the officer take a flight."
    The Inspection Department was, I take it, appointed last autumn. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it in the remarks on the Supplementary Estimates submitted to this House for the purpose of providing for the Inspection Department. As is explained in the Memorandum of the Army Estimates, this Inspection Department has been formed in order to test machines, whether they are made by contractors, or the Royal Aircraft Factory, and the tests applied by the Inspection Department, are equally put in force in the case of all machines. Then, unfortunately, there was that accident to Captain Downer on 10th March. Of course, in that case there was great doubt—there nearly always must be great doubt in connection with these disasters—as to what. actually was the cause of the accident. But one thing was perfectly clear from the evidence, namely, that one of the wings of this machine, the B.E. 2, from the Aircraft Factory, broke when Captain Downer was about 500 feet from the ground. Next day Captain Allen and Lieutenant Burroughs, also on a machine which had come from the Aircraft Factory, met with a, fatal accident.
    At the inquest on these two officers Major Brooke Popham, who is the commander of that squadron, stated that there had been no entry in the log-book since the time the machine was delivered with the squadron on the 19th of September, 1913. As regards the repair of the rudder, the breaking of which was the cause of the accident, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend, some repairs had been carried out. to the rudder which were improperly done, and resulted in a serious weakening of the structure, which caused the accident. That officer summed up the situation with regard to this particular accident at the conclusion of his evidence by saying that there were three possible causes of this accident: the design of the machine might have been

    283
    wrong, and the strains miscalculated, or else the workmen who did the job, through ignorance or carelessness, had put too weak a tube in that place, or the rudder post might have been changed after reconstruction, after the machine had been handed over to the squadron. There is a strange similarity between this accident and the accident which occurred to Lieutenant Arthur. Those instructions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as to keeping a detailed record of any repairs carried out to the machine, do not seem to have been followed in this case, and if, as the coroner concluded at the inquest, the filing away of the rudder post was done at the factory, I think that we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make clear to us, if he can, how that machine, whether its fault was defective construction, or a badly carried out repair—whichever it was the result was the same—was passed as being in good order by the Inspection Department. I have gone into this matter with some care, and was surprised that no evidence was produced at the inquest from some member of this Inspection Department. There was a gentleman, an engineer in the Royal Aircraft Factory (Mr. Green), who gave evidence that he did not come forward making a statement, as one who did inspect the machine, or who was a member of the Inspection Department, though that would have been the most valuable evidence as to the cause of accident.
    8.0 P.M.
    I cannot understand why there was no representative of that Department present to give evidence at that inquest, which makes it seem as if that machine had not passed through the Inspection Department at all. We are asked to vote a very considerable sum—and nobody would suggest that we grudge a penny of it—for this Inspection Department, £14,000 a year, for a Chief Inspector, an Inspector of Aeroplanes, another one of engines, three assistant inspectors, and some civilian subordinates, the number of whom is not specified. I do hope that the question of what are the duties of these inspection officers is being carefully thought out, because I cannot help thinking that this recent accident may. have occurred owing to divided responsibilities, the danger of which in connection with this Inspection Department was pointed out some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague. I cannot help thinking that something of the kind appears to have occurred
    284
    in this case. If the right hon. Gentleman sets up the Committee of Inquiry which my hon. Friend urges that he should do—and in view of what we have heard to-day, I certainly think that it is imminently desirable—I hope that one of the duties of that Committee, if it should be set up, will be to ascertain what are the methods under which this Inspection Department is doing its work at the present time, and also, I think, it might be desirable more clearly to define its duties and how those duties are to be carried out; because obviously when a corps is in many parts of the country, as the Royal Flying Corps is, it will require extremely careful organisation. Another point which was not dealt with by my hon. Friend is in reference to the Royal Aircraft Factory. I suggest, and I have reason for doing so, that it would be most desirable that the Committee should also inquire into the conditions under which work is carried on in the Royal Aircraft Factory. A great agitation is being directed in the country against the employer class, and against the capitalist class generally. Therefore I think that the Government, at any rate, should set up the standard that. we are entitled to ask of them, namely, that of being model employers of labour; otherwise, those who live in glass-houses have no right to throw stones. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a great deal of discontent existing amongst the civilian workers of the Royal Aircraft Factory at the present time? I have had some opportunity of going into the matter, and I think that their hours are much too long. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman knows—I do not know exactly what is happening now; my information goes back a month or more—that at the Royal Aircraft Factory for a month or so back the men have been working a good many hours overtime, and in some cases they have actually been working on Sundays.
    During a certain week in November one of the draughtsmen worked twenty-nine hours overtime, six of which were on Sunday; another worked twenty-eight hours, nine of which were on Sunday. During that same month men working in the factory shops were often compelled to work from 7.45 in the morning to 8.30 in the evening, and from 7.45 in the morning to 5.30 p.m. on Saturdays. In November of last year, the same month, the men in the factory shops worked close on 120 hours

    285
    in the week, and in some cases longer. Are these conditions which ought to prevail in a Government factory? This is the first time the matter has been mentioned; it. has been kept pretty dark. I think that conditions like those constitute a real disgrace to Government employment. Here is work of the most delicate and responsible character. How Can you expect it to be carried on satisfactorily? The men are compelled to give up their half-holidays, and they are forced to work on Sundays, or else, if they do not fall in with these extraordinary conditions, conditions which should not prevail in any Government factory, and which are a perfect scandal, they are obliged to leave their employment in the Royal Aircraft Factory altogether. I would urge that the attention of hon. Members of the Labour party should be directed to the conditions under which employment is carried on by the Government in the Aircraft Factory.
    I look at it from the workmen's point of view. I also look at it from the point of view of the work which these men carry out. You cannot expect men to carry out this delicate and extremely responsible work under conditions like those. It constitutes a most unsatisfactory system of Government employment, and also a danger to the Service and to men's lives. With regard to the Royal Aircraft Factory, I know that under existing circumstances, at least, the right hon. Gentleman must have very great difficulty indeed. It must he extremely difficult all of a sudden to create a great and new organisation like this, of which neither he nor anybody else had any previous experience. That, I think, is one of the causes, probably, of the weakness, for there is a certain weakness, in the Royal Aircraft Factory organisation. There is another difficulty to which I think the right hon. Gentleman might give his attention. As things are at present the average civilian workman in that factory has not got really that complete sympathy for the Army and for Army requirements which is absolutely essential. He loses interest in the machine, or he has not got the same interest as if he. were an Army man. I do not wish to deal any further with these points, to which I think I was right in drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, because they are rather serious. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can complain that either my hon. Friend or myself have imported anything in the shape
    286
    of party spirit into this controversy. I assure him that we are only actuated by the desire to see that this branch of our Service, which is so essential to the Army and Navy, should be placed upon the best possible footing, and that the officers. should carry out their hazardous work in the most efficient way.
    Colonel GIBBS: My two hon. Friends have said a great deal about the number of accidents which have occurred, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the accommodation at Nether Avon Hospital is sufficient in the existing conditions? There is an increase in. the number of aeroplanes and a consequent increase in the number of men, and I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that, if such is not the case at present, he will see that at a very early date there is sufficient accommodation at Nether Avon Hospital.
    Mr. CROOKS: I only wish to know whether the number of accidents are abnormal in this Aircraft Factory compared with the number in contract factories?
    Colonel SEELY: In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I will at once take steps to see that the hospital at Nether Avon is completed. I was there not long: ago, and it was not finished, but I will at once take steps to look into that matter. In reply to the hon. Members. opposite, I acknowledge the spirit in which. they have brought forward various matters to-day, and I shall be able to make a full statement at a later date. In the meantime I will institute inquiry into the particular statements they have made with regard to the Royal Aircraft. Factory, the long hours, and so forth. I think that an inquiry would be welcomed by the Royal Aircraft Factory and by the. members of the Royal Flying Corps. As to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, from the figures. before me I cannot say that we have more accidents than others. Indeed, up to a short time ago we had far fewer, and we-have been very fortunate. In reference to the number of accidents to machines. built outside the factory, and those built in the factory, I do not think that there is. anything in the figures before me from Which an accurate conclusion could be drawn. They certainly would not show that workmen in the aircraft factory are more liable to risk than others.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Are the Papers, which we are expecting to be circulated tomorrow, with the Votes?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, they will be circulated with the Votes to-morrow morning.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions reported:—

    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,791,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, And Repairs, Lands, and Miscellaneous Engineer Services, including Staff in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."

    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,810,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards; Half-Pay; Retired Pay; Widows' Pensions; and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."

    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,977,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals; of Out-Pensions; Rewards for Distinguished Services; Widows' Pensions; and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."

    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £134,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."

    Resolutions agreed to.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    Resolutions reported:—

    1. "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 18,700 Royal Marines."

    2. "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."

    288

    3. "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."

    4. "That a sum, 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."

    Resolutions agreed to.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Colonel Seely, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Harold Baker do prepare and bring it in.
  Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

  WAYS AND MEANS [23RD MARCH].
  Resolutions reported.

  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."

  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 agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Montagu; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    Ordered, "That if the Local Legislation Committee, when the City of London (Various Powers) Bill has been committed to them, shall report to he Committee of Selection that the Clauses in Part III. of the Bill which relate to cinematograph films and celluloid should, in their opinion, be referred to another Committee, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to the Select Committee nominated by them upon the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto:
    Ordered, "That such of the petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their counsel, agents, or witnesses be heard on their petitions against Part III. of the Bill, if they think fit, and counsel heard in support of the said Bill against such petitioners:
    Ordered, "That the Local Legislation Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by the Committee." [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Mr. JAMES HOPE(who had given notice to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill that they omit Clause 38): I do not propose to move this Instruction, as I have received assurances from the City on the subject.
    Mr. RADFORD: I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill to omit Part M. of the Bill."
    This part of the Bill deals with the manufacture and storage, sale, and use of cinematograph films and celluloid. Under it, the City of London propose to take steps, which are said to be necessary, in order to protect life and property in the City of London from the dangers of fire. That is an appeal which this House will always receive with sympathy, and no hon. Member
    290
    will receive it with more sympathy and attention than myself. The objection I have to this proposal is that the powers which it is proposed to grant. are intended to he vested in what I think is the wrong authority. I am quite willing that the Select Committee that, is to be set up should deal with the question as to whether those powers are necessary, and how far they are necessary, but I think if they are conferred at all, they should be conferred on the London County Council, and not on the City of London. The London County Council is the fire brigade authority for the whole of London, including the City, which is an important, though a small, part of the County of London. May I remind hon. Members who do not represent London constituencies that the constitution of the London County Council is not similar to that of county councils formed in the country under the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1888. The London County Council owes its origin to the Metropolis Management Act of 1855. That was a great Act, in which the distribution of powers between the central authority and the local authorities are carefully laid down. That distribution of duties, notwithstanding certain immaterial alterations in London government which have been made since, have been substantially observed to the present day. The Act of 1855 constituted the Metropolitan Board of Works as the central authority to deal with the whole of what is now called the County of London.
    That Act had not been long in operation when there was passed the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act of 1865, which constituted a central authority for dealing with fire throughout the whole of London, and the powers conferred by that Act are now vested, with little alteration, in the London County Council. The London County Council has the best fire brigade in the world perhaps, and the City of London has no fire brigade at all. I think it is obvious that these provisions which deal with the protection of life and property from fire should be vested in the fire brigade authority, and not in a local authority which has no fire brigade and no appliances and no stall, and no means of dealing at all with the danger of fire. The second point I wish to put is this, that prevention is better than cure, and the right design and construction of buildings is more important in guarding a city against fire than what is done subsequent to an outbreak by the most efficient fire brigade. The

    291
    Metropolitan Building Act of 1855 vested the powers with regard to the construction of buildings in the central authority, which was then the Board of Works. Under that Act a superintendent architect was set up for the whole of London. His functions extend not only to the province of what are now called Metropolitan boroughs, but also to the City of London. Under the dominion, so to speak, of the superintendent architect for London, there are district surveyors who superintend this work throughout the whole of London, including the City. Therefore, the London County Council is charged with the duty of seeing that proper regulations are made, so that the buildings shall, as far as possible, be immune from fire, not only in the whole of London, but in the City, which is promoting this Bill. In addition to that, the powers under the Factory Acts of seeing that factories and workshops are properly furnished with means of escape from fire are vested in the county council; their inspectors, as well as the officers of the London Fire Brigade, inspect and give directions in the City of London. I suggest that it is very undesirable that similar and overlapping powers should be vested in the local authority in the City. It may be said that the Act of 1855 was passed a long time ago. I admit that that is so. Relations between the central and the local authorities in London have from time to time been reconsidered by this House, and alterations have been made, but none have been made as to the disposition of the powers and duties in this matter as between the central and the local authorities. The Act of 1888, which set up the county councils in the country, substituted direct for indirect election, and established the London County Council in lieu of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but it made no difference in the functions of the central and the local authorities. Again, the London Government Act of 1899 introduced changes; it gave new names to the existing authorities; it called the vestries metropolitan boroughs, and gave their chairmen the title of mayor; but it did not alter the functions of the central and local authorities.
    For these reasons I suggest that the powers proposed to be conferred by this Bill, if they are found by the Committee to be necessary, should be conferred not upon the City, but upon the London County Council. I may be told that the London County Council and the City of
    292
    London are agreed in this matter. I believe that that is the case. But that I submit is no reason why this House should, in deference to the promoters of a private Bill, alter the main lines of London government, which had been laid down for many years, and found by experience to be wise and sufficient. We shall also be told that this question may well be considered by the Committee before which the Bill will go. I have the greatest respect for the Local Legislation Committee, which has been directed during recent years by a series of able chairmen. It is a Committee for which I have every respect. But I suggest that this is a question, not for a Committee, but for this House. It is a dangerous thing that the public law dealing with the whole of London should be dealt with and perhaps altered, not by this House after full consideration and debate, but by a Private Bill Committee, which deals primarily with the contentions between conflicting parties. We must not forget that Private Bill procedure is in the nature rather of litigation than of legislation; and there is a tendency on the part of such a Committee, if the parties appearing before it are satisfied, to give effect to the agreement which has been arrived at. I submit that this is not a matter which ought to be decided in that way. We ought not to leave this question to the Private Legislation Committee, however much we may respect its decisions. We ought to settle it in this House. The fact is, there appears to be an attempt on the part of the City of London, by agreement with the reactionary party which now dominates the London County Council, to tear up the public law relating to the county of London, and to effect a new law behind the back of this House. For these reasons I move the Instruction.
    Sit CROYDON MARKS: I beg to second the Motion.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Radford) has brought before the House some considerations that will necessarily come before the Committee to which this Bill will go. I think I need refer on this occasion to only one of his arguments, to which I attach considerable importance. The hon. Member seemed to be of opinion that where the parties were agreed on a particular proposal, the Committee would accept it without question. I can assure him that that is not the case.

    293
    It is the duty of this Committee to consider, first of all, what powers, if any, should be granted in this matter; and, secondly, whether the proposal in the Bill gives those powers to the right authority. The hon. Member may perhaps be satisfied if I give him the assurance that I will see that the contention which he has put before the House is brought to the special attention of the Committee, in order that it may have their careful consideration. Perhaps the hon. Member will be content with that assurance, and not find it necessary to divide the House upon his Instruction. I might also say that the Special Committee that has been bet up to deal with this matter is to be presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Doncaster Division (Sir C. Nicholson), who has had much experience in recent years of dealing with the General Powers Bills, both of the City of London and of the county council. He will, therefore, be familiar with the matters to which the hon. Member has referred, and with the spheres of jurisdiction of both bodies. Hence, we in the House may be content that this tribunal will not only give careful consideration to the matter, but arrive at a right decision.
    Mr. MORTON: I am sorry that there should be any objection whatever to this Bill going upstairs and being considered by a Special Committee. I am also very sorry to think that when we are dealing with such a serious matter as this, and when the City is trying to do what is right in regard to the protection of life and limb, there should be brought into the matter an attack upon the City and the county council. Personally, I am very glad that we are agreed with the county council in the matter, and that both bodies are anxious to do something to put an end to a danger which, at any rate, demands consideration. I am authorised to say that we have already agreed to remodel our Bill to some extent to meet the objections which have been raised. What we have arranged to do is to remodel Clause 38, so as to substitute word "packages" or "parcels" for the word "articles." We have, on consideration, found a difficulty in regard to putting the mark or label on all articles; therefore, we give way on that point. We have also another reason for giving way, namely, that we have gone a little further than the Report of the Departmental Committee. There-fore, however much it may want consideration, we thought it better to
    294
    leave that out. We are also anxious in all these matters to deal as pleasantly and smoothly as we can with tradesmen in the City of London. We have a lot of people to look after. There are 400,000 people coming in every clay to work. Therefore you understand we have something to do to look after them, especially the girls and young men who come in to work at the warehouses. Our attention was first strikingly called to this matter by the fire at Queen Victoria Street when ten people lost their lives. There were a number of other accidents of that sort which went before the coroner's jury. I do not want to enumerate all the cases. but I may mention the fire that occurred two years ago, in 1912, in Moor Lane, and here the lives of nine poor girls were sacrificed.
    We thereupon considered it our duty to do something to get rid of that danger. We approached the Home Office—I refer now to last year—and got them to agree to a Bill which we introduced, but which did not go on. We also before we brought in the Bill of this year have seen the Home Secretary, who agreed to support the Second Reading of our Bill. I agree entirely with what the Chairman of Committees said just now, namely, that it should be sent to the Committee upstairs to consider this matter. I am sure the City will acquiesce in any decision that the House may come to. We are anxious that the Corporation should have the management and control of these affairs, because we are certain that we can manage them more smoothly and pleasantly for the trades people of the City than any outside body. There may be objections offered to other parts of our Bill. I am authorised to say that the Corporation will give the fullest consideration to any points that may be raised. With respect to what my hon. Friend said as to the City having a separate authority, I may say that we have our own magistrates, elected by the people, and they are the best bench in the country. [Laughter] Hon. Members may laugh. But that is the general opinion. We have our own police. Nobody disputes that they are the best police force in: the whole world. We are the authority for dangerous structures. My hon. Friend forgot to mention that.
    Mr. RADFORD: A trifling matter.
    Mr. MORTON: It is not, because we appoint officers who look after dangerous

    295
    structures. We have also our own ambulance, and we have coroner's inquests —notwithstanding that there may not be any deaths. We are a long way ahead of all other bodies in these matters. While the County council have been trying to arrange to get an ambulance, we established it three years ago, and it has worked most effectively. There are a dozen other matters, such as the Shops Act, for which we are the authority. We appoint and pay our officers to deal with these matters. We do not in the City want to import any ill-feeling into this subject, but we believe it to be our duty to control these various matters, and especially to look after the poor girls that I have referred to, and the 400,000 persons coming in and going out daily. In that sense, and for that reason, we have brought in this Bill. We do not want to interfere with the trade of the City of London, because it is trade and business that has made the City the great and important place it is, and has given it its influence all over the world. I hope, therefore, this House will allow this Bill to go to Committee upstairs and leave the Committee to settle the points which have been raised.
    Mr. W. H. DICKINSON: I rather hope that the suggestion which has been thrown out by the Chairman of Ways and Means will not be adopted by the House. My hon. Friend has brought forward his Amendment on the broad grounds of principle, namely, that we ought not to allow these private Bills to be made use of for the purpose of reorganising the relationship between the City of London and the rest of the county of London in a way that is undoubtedly inconsistent with the existing practice. I think the House ought to understand that even if this Bill, and Part III. of this Bill, is rejected the safety of the people of London will not be neglected in the slightest degree. A week ago the House passed the London County Council Bill. That Bill of the county council contains Clauses which are verbatim the same as those in the Bill which we are now discussing.
    Mr. MORTON: It does not go quite so far as our Bill.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I was just going to refer to that. There are one or two differences, which I will refer to in a moment, but the Clauses themselves, so far as they go, are verbatim the same as those which are in the County Council Bill. The County
    296
    Council Bill has a Clause which the City's Bill has not. It is one of very considerable importance, because it shows that the county council were alive to the question of the proper relationship which should. exist between the City and the council of the administrative county. Clause 41 of the County Council's Bill is to the effect that—
    "The Corporation shall exercise. within the City of London in substitution for and to the exclusion of the council the powers conferred upon the council by this part of this Act (except such as are conferred by the Section of this Act of which the marginal note is Provisions as to Celluloid Factories') and the Corporation within the said City shall be the authority for carrying into execution the provisions of this part of this Act, and in the application of the said provisions to the said City the name of the Corporation shall be deemed to be substituted for that of the council in the said provisions"—
    This is very important—
    "Provided that the Corporation shall only attach such conditions or make such requirements under the provision of this part of this Act, or of any regulation made there under with respect to the provision of means of escape in case of fire or of safeguards to prevent the spread of fire as may be approved by the council. …."
    That is by the county council. Under that Clause there is, first of all, a very important exception, and that is that the administration of that provision for celluloid factories is not to be handed over to the City Corporation, but is to be kept in the hands of the county council; whereas if the Bill before us be passed the City Corporation will have power over the factories as well as over the shops and other places where celluloid articles are sold. In reference to the second portion, the City of London Corporation shall not make any regulations except those which are approved by the county council. The whole of the question therefore is raised in the County Council's Bill, and I submit to this House that this evening we shall prejudge the case if we are satisfied to allow any member of the Corporation itself to brine in a Bill giving those powers to the City of London which are exercised by the county council outside, and some of which are undoubtedly to be exercised by the county council inside. This Bill will, to a

    297
    certain extent, upset existing arrangements, because if you look at the provisions you will find in two or three different Sections there are proposals by which the City Corporation shall deal with the question of the means of escape in case of fire, and as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that particular function has already been committed to the county council all over the administrative County of London, including the City. And therefore you will have a proposal which, if carried out, will give you two authorities doing the same work. After all, the Committee upstairs may not allow them to go to the expense; but I venture to submit that we shall not be prejudging the ease if we strike out Part III., as suggested by my hon. Friend, but leaving to the Committee exactly what the Chairman of Ways and Means asks for. We should be leaving to the Committee under the Clauses in the County Council Bill the whole question as to how this administration is to he carried out in the City and outside the City, and therefore from the mere question of procedure I submit that it would be very much more satisfactory if we were to exclude from this Bill, which includes, as the House may not be aware, a good many other matters of importance. Part III., which deals with celluloid, and leaves the subject to be discussed fully and entirely by the Committee who have charge over a Bill promoted by the London County Council.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The hon. Member who has just sat down has urged the House not to prejudge the authority to enforce these Celluloid Clauses, and I think the best way to avoid prejudging the matter is to allow it to go to the Committee. Obviously the Clauses dealing with celluloid, brought forward by the London County Council and the Glasgow Corporation, will have to be recast to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. They are not couched in Parliamentary language; they are very ambiguous in detail, and undoubtedly they will have to be remodelled. Therefore I think it is absolutely safe to let the whole of this matter go to the Select Committee to be decided. The hon. Member thinks it is not advisable to give these powers to the City, because, contrary to the principle of having one central authority, I would remind the House that already we have, to some extent, prejudged this matter. We have decided that it is a fit question to be left to the Committee, be-
    298
    cause in the London County Council of a week ago it is named as the controlling authority to enforce the regulations as regards celluloid within its own area. As the House saw fit to leave that discretion to the Committee in the case of the London County Council Bill, I think they might well follow that precedent to-night and leave it to the Committee.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I only rise for the purpose of removing a misapprehension which may have been conveyed to the House by the speech of the lion. Member for North St. Pancras. I wish to assure the House that there is no friction in this matter between the City Corporation and the County Council. I think that we are agreed on all sides that the proper authority to enforce the safeguards with regard to celluloid is the City Corporation. The opposition to the Celluloid Clauses, both in the London County Council Bill and in this Bill has been twofold. In the first place, we have a certain opposition on the part of hon. Members who are themselves directly interested in the trade, and who do not wish to see any restrictions, however necessary in the interests of the safety of the public, placed upon the celluloid trade. These consideration, I am glad to say, do not obtain tonight, but there is the other class of opposition, such as has been foreshadowed by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras, who wishes to see the administration of those safeguards centralised in the hands of one body. I might point out that this question, as my hon. Friend has said, has already been prejudged. The local authorities in London are agreed, so far as area is concerned, that the City Corporation is the proper and most efficient body to administer these provisions, and I suggest that, instead of cutting out Part III. of the Bill, at the present stage, the House should allow the whole Bill to go forward as it stands to the Committee upstairs, who would be able to adjust the two—the County Council Bill and the Corporation Bill—and so to speak synchronise the two Bills together, and then if the House is not satisfied with what has been done by the Committee it will have an opportunity of taking further action in the matter on the reports Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: If the House will permit me to speak again I should like to remove one misapprehension of the hon. Member for

    299
    North St. Pancras. To reject this Instruction to-night will not be to prejudge the case in any way. It will be quite open to the Committee upstairs if they, having heard the evidence, decide to decline the proposition of the City, to put the whole of the provisions of the London County Council Bill in. The effect of the Motion which he has been supporting, I think, would be this; that both sides of the case
    should not be heard upstairs. I ask the House not to accept the Instruction, in order that the Committee may hear both sides of the case, and may deal with it as it thinks right after having heard the evidence.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 225.

    Division No. 54.]

    AYES.

    [8.54 p.m.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Wiles, Thomas

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Money. L. G. Crimea

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Chancellor.

    Hinds, John

    Radlord, George Haynes

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Devlin, Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Johnson, W.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Doris, William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Jones. H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Armitage, Robert

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, Leif (Notts. Rushcliffe)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Elverstan, Sir Harold

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jewett, Frederick William

    Barnes, George N.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Joyce. Michael

    Bornstein, Harry

    Esslemont, George Birne

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Barton, William

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Keily, Edward

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Falconer. James

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Bennett-Goldney. Francis

    Fell, Arthur

    Lardner. James C. R.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Ffrench, Peter

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Field, William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Boyton, James

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.).

    Brace, William

    Forster, Henry William

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Gill, A. H.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    London, Thomas

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Glanville. Harold James

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

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

    Goldstone, Frank

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gretton, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

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

    Cautley, Henry Strother

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Gulland, John William

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Chappie. Dr. William Allen

    Hackett, John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Clough, William

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hancock, John George.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Clynes, Juhn R.

    Hardie, J. Keir

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Middlebrook, William

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hayden. John Patrick

    Molloy, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hayward, Evan

    Molten, Percy Alport

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mooney, John J.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Henderson. Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Crooks, William

    Henderson. John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Cullinan, John

    Hodge, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Ce.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Dawes. James Arthur

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    De Forest, Baron

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Dowd, John

    Delany, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

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

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Thomas, James Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    O'Shea, James John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wardle, George J.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Waring, Walter

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Webb, H.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Heston, Colonel J. W.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Sanders, Robert, Arthur

    Whaler, Granville C. H

    Pointer, Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sheehy, David

    Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Handles, Sir John S.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Reddy, Michael

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Richards, Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Swift, Rigby

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Talbot, Lard Edmund

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Morton and Lord A. Thynne.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (MEDICAL RELIEF).
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to move, "That, ire the opinion of this House, Medical Relief under the National Insurance Act is open to objection as regards some of its principles, inadequate in many respects, and likely to lead to serious difficulty; and that the supply of Sanatorium Benefit is greatly defective."
  In rising to move the Motion which stands in my name, I have no intention of making any tirade against the Insurance Bill. I wish to approach the matter as moderately as possible, and in no party spirit. If I have faults to find it is not in any party spirit, but from a sincere conviction that there are dangers involved in them. I am ready to admit all the good intentions with which this Bill was introduced. I am quite ready to admit that the Government carried the National Insurance Bill with good intentions, and also that they knew from the way we received it from the first that it had the cordial assent of all parts of the House. I am quite aware also that the Bill has been carried into operation with a great deal of energy on the part of the National Commissioners and the officials. I am ready to admit that when you are distributing to 13,700,000 persons 25,500,000 in sick pay, and £5,500,000 in maternity benefits, that much good is conferred and much benefit is done, and much light is thrown on dark places where it was necessary that light should be thrown. But the extent of your work and the goodness of your intentions do not absolve you from the necessity of careful consideration and of wisely weighing the difficulties. I
  302
  am not going to repeat any of the stale arguments about the necessity of licking stamps and interfering with individual liberty, or the various tirades that have been made upon the Bill on behalf of mistresses and servants.
  There is something far more deep-reaching and important I wish to deal with. I confess myself that I am opposed to the principle of compulsion, and I think you could have got all the benefits of the Bill without that violent interference with the habits, customs and feelings of my countrymen involved by the adoption of this principle of compulsion. I am not going to open up that question, except to say that it operates worst in that part of the Bill with which I am concerned, namely, medical relief. The lack of consideration is the ground fault which I lay to the charge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the carrying out of this Bill. If he had carried it out calmly after consideration, after duly weighing all the difficulties, and after taking into account the experience of those who had moved in the fields where he was about to move, he would have made use of what was an enormous chance for himself and, what is still more important, of an enormous chance for the future of this country. He neglected to do so, and by that neglect, by that hurrying through of a Bill of its magnitude and difficulty without discussion and without giving the opportunity for weighing the various different opinions, he was led into error in principle and led into mistakes that cause infinite disappointment with regard to details.
  It is no part of my business to consider the solvency of the scheme as a whole.

  303
  That has been to my mind proved as a pressing and impending danger. I only want to touch upon that because it is in large measure put down to something that immediately has to do with the aspect of the Bill with which I am concerned. Insolvency is in large measure put down to malingering, and that, most unjustly, is laid at the door of the doctors. Let us look at the essential difficulties which this want of consideration has introduced into the principle of the Bill. You have determined to work your system mainly through societies hitherto free and self-managed. You have established a compulsory system where formerly there was a voluntary system. You have given proportionate State aid. You have assumed power of examination and of prescribing rules. But, in adopting this instrument of the voluntary societies to carry out a State work, you have not guaranteed their solvency, and you have not been able and you are not able by the nature of things to make all societies equally well managed. You do not, and cannot, take the management of these societies into your own hands. You have changed their character. From being a body of selected persons, you have practically, and as far as you can, made them universal. Then comes the crux of the situation in connection with that part of the subject to which I want to call attention. You can hand over your work of national insurance to these free and voluntary societies, but you cannot, with any justice as a nation and as a State, hand over the supreme object of this Act, the health of the nation, into the hands of any voluntary society. That is a business which you have taken upon your own shoulders, and, if you have done it rashly or without consideration, you have done a great wrong to the nation, and you have built up what may be a great impending danger. You may trust societies in the national work of insurance, but you cannot shift on to them the supreme duty and responsibility that rests upon you of providing for the health of the people.
  Let me for one moment call attention to what this really means We have had great talk about this national insurance business, of the ripe and fresh fruit that was to be poured into the laps of the people, of the great benefits that were to be given, and of how you were to raise poverty into comfort. What is the one greatest difference of all between one man
  304
  and another in his course through life? Is it not, above all differences in wealth, in station, in rank, in privilege, and in power, the difference in the health of the body, and, if you neglect that, how can you make it up by any advantages or solaces you bring by trying to give a few additional comforts, or by a little more levelling of the ranks? The real difference between man and man, far greater than any other difference between the wealthiest and the humblest in this land, is whether the one is in possession of health and the other in a state of weakness and frailty. You must attend properly to and build up the health of your people, and you cannot hand over that duty to any ironbound system of State insurance in the hands of friendly societies. In whose hands was this work previously? I say without hesitation that it was in the hands of the great medical profession of this country, and its record is one to which it may with pride appeal. In what quarter of the nation can you see more works of charity, more works of benevolence, more unselfish labour given for their fellow creatures, than among the ranks of our medical profession? Have they not by difficult and long processes gathered a knowledge of the difficulties that they have to meet? Is there any class that has a chance of knowing the working class and other classes in this country in the deepest and most. intimate relations of their lives equal to that possessed by the medical profession? You had there a source of knowledge and a mine of experience that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done well to have used more fully than he did in regard to this Bill.
  I am not going to revive the old contest that existed as to whether the doctors were to refuse or not to come within the scope of the Act. They were reasonably anxious as to their own position, but I may safely say from long intercourse with them that they were not mainly anxious as to their own position; they were anxious for the welfare of the people among whom they had laboured. They were afraid that their patients with whom they had had personal relations of the most intimate kind were henceforth to be nothing but numbers on cards, treated with all the sordid details that belong to contract practice. They came and gave you their help freely and fully. You have got, I think, 16,300 doctors on the panel. I have not a word to say against them. I am ready to believe that many of these doctors are among the best

  305
  of their profession, read to do honest work for their fellow creatures. But while 16,300 doctors look a very fair number for 13,700,000 people—something considerably less than. 1,000 people per doctor—it does not quite represent the reality of the situation. A good many of these are duplicate names on the panel. It is impossible to say in how many cases that occurs. Besides that, they are not equally distributed throughout the country. There are a large number of places in the large centres where the population is so large that there is less than one doctor for every 3,000 inhabitants. I do not think that that is a quite satisfactory condition of affairs, and I do not believe that hon. Members below the Gangway who support this Bill, and hold it to be absolutely right, will be prepared to say that one doctor for each 3,000 is adequate. I admit we have got a very fair number of doctors, high in their profession, honest in their endeavours, and thoroughly loyal in their efforts to work this Act. But the Act says you are to give "adequate medical service." What are the rules laid down as to that? I should like to call attention to what they call adequate medical service:—
  "The practitioner is to give to all persons, who are for the time being entitled to obtain treatment from him, such treatment as is of a kind which consistently with the best interests of the patient can be properly undertaken by a general practitioner of ordinary professional competence and skill."
  If the condition of the patient is such as to require more than this, what is the step to be taken? What does one expect when he is himself ill? Is it merely an ordinary casual visit from an ordinary medical practitioner? What about operations? What about skilled diagnosis? Is there time to obtain such front a man who has to attend 3,000 patients? What about consultations? What about nursing and appliances? I will not refer to drugs, because that question will be dealt with by others. Let me call attention to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in interpreting "adequate medical attendance." The right hon. Gentleman made a speech to the Advisory Committee on 13th January, 1913, in the course of which, by way of illustration, he showed how money might be used at Bradford. They were to have a certain number of consultants and specialists; one was to be an oculist; at the head was to be a consulting physician at a salary of £1,200 a year; then there was to be a specialist surgeon at £1,000 a year, and in addition the Chancellor of the Exchequer said something as
  306
  to the provision for exact diagnosis which pathology and bacteriology had placed at the disposal of modern science. Is that what is given now by "adequate medical service" as defined by the rules sent out by the National Insurance Commissioners? Is it a short visit of a few minutes, or a case of being treated with a crowd after waiting for a long time at the door of a humble consulting room? Is that diagnosis, consultation, appliances, drugs, and all that may come from the science of bacteriology? What provision is there for the nursing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was to be part of the "adequate medical treatment"? I am old enough to remember the time when the nation hung with anxiety on the life of a young man, our late King Edward VII., when Prince of Wales. That was in 1872. I happened to know his doctor, Sir William Gull, and I remember his own description of his work; "it was no skill of mine, but it was simply that I nursed my patient, and my nursing did much more than medical skill." Nursing is one of the essential parts of adequate medical treatment, and you have got none of it provided by this Bill in many parts.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: We have it provided in litany counties.
  Sir H. CRAIK: What was the old state of affairs? When a special operation, a special consultation, or a skilled diagnosis was necessary, where did the poor man go in former days? Was it not to the hospitals—the hospitals served by doctors gratuitously, and was it not there that he found the help which he absolutely needed, and which cannot be denied consistently with giving adequate medical service. But you have increased the difficulties of the hospital, you have crippled their resources, and have you supplied adequate compensation in their place?
  I have complained of the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in hurriedly dealing with a question of enormous complexity, setting aside much of the real expert medical opinion which he might have had. Still, the doctors have come in and have given loyal work, but have they in all respects been fairly treated I am constantly having brought before me cases of hardship, not arising merely from petty technical rules, not merely due to the grinding pin pricks of officials, not merely an outcome of the confused and contradictory instructions—and that they are confused nobody can deny.

  307
  I myself, by personal experience can vouch for it, for I have tried to study them and have hopelessly failed in my attempt to understand many of these complicated and multifarious rules. But there have been real difficulties which doctors have had to meet, and I will give one specimen in connection with a matter which has been going on for some time in the London Committee. As regards that committee, the doctors have a considerable grievance. Section 15, Sub-section (2B), of the Act requires the Commissioners to see that arrangements are made by the local committee to provide for the personal allocation to doctors on the panel of insured persons who have not selected their doctors. A Regulation of the 15th December, 1912, requires that that Regulation shall be carried out, and a Regulation of the 10th January, 1914, seems when first read adequately to carry out the Regulations which are provided by the Act for the allocation of patients. But I find there was a Memorandum issued in November, 1913, which practically sweeps away this question of personal allocation. This Memorandum says that experience has shown that it is difficult for the committees to bring their index register up-to-date with sufficient accuracy to enable it to be utilised for the purpose of existing personal allocations, and that the Regulations have accordingly been modified so as to relieve the committees of the obligation to attempt such allocation. Is that carrying out your Act? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Is it, indeed? When the Act says that an allocation is to be made, is it carrying it out to say that the committee are entirely relieved of the duty?
  Substantially, the purposes of the financial provisions of the 1912 Regulations have not been followed, but a new method has now been adopted with regard to doctors. What has been the result? For months past large sums paid in respect of medical relief to the London Committee have not been allocated to the doctors; they have been funded, and some doctors have been subjected to very severe straits in consequence of the action of the National Insurance Commissioners, who have chosen to reverse the dictum of an Act of Parliament, in order to relieve the committee from a duty placed upon it. That is only one instance out of many. The doctors have a much more serious complaint to make in the charge that is
  308
  brought against them of conniving at malingering. Nothing, I do not only say could be more false, but could be more dangerous, than to permit the growth of such an idea. Sickness charges have increased because in your haste in pressing through this Act you accepted insufficient data as to the amount of sickness. In the old days, when societies were free and mutual, men often held back from making a claim. It was a matter of pride and interest to them to swell the funds of their society. Do you expect, with a system of national insurance, that these people should be any more generous than any one of us would be if we were insured in an ordinary company. Do we say, "I do not think we require this insurance benefit; there are many people who require it more, and therefore I will not claim"? Do you expect that they will still show that quixotic generosity?
  There is even a far greater danger than that. You made a mistake because you went upon insufficient data, but you will make a far greater mistake if you make it more difficult for the doctor to grant a certificate where illness exists by reason of the suspicion of his conniving at malingering. The doctor has no interest in sickness allowance. No man visits a doctor or takes the doctor's dose from pleasure. He goes because his health needs it, and as a consequence of that he receives a sickness allowance. The first, the foremost, I would say the overwhelming duty of the doctor is not to friendly societies or to any financial considerations, but to his patient, and to his patient alone. The legal profession has been proud of the fact that their first duty is to their client. Far more true is that of the doctor. His first duty is to his patient, and in comparison with the interests of his patient he is not ready to consult or think of the interests of your funds or of the solvency of your system. Is the doctor to take the risk of declaring a man incapable of work because you hold that "incapable of work" means "incapable of carrying on his ordinary work"? If I were a doctor and knew that any friendly society interpreted "incapable of work" as being incapable of any work whatever, however light, I should pronounce a person incapable of work even though I knew he or she to be capable of doing a little household work or attending to some light duties. The phrase "incapable of work" was adopted recklessly and thoughtlessly, I believe without any discussion, by a

  309
  change in the Act, and it has been productive of the very greatest hardship. I will read only one letter which I have received from a doctor, who is a Constituent of my own in Lancashire. His words ought to burn in upon the hearts of those who have the great sense of the importance of the health of the country. He says:—
  "As to malingering in women, this is a detestable business. The women of Lancashire are the white slaves of Europe. In no other country has a woman to work as they do in Lancashire. They weave all day, get scrappy breakfasts and dinners, come home often to light the fire, cook, wash, Lake bread, or put their children to bed. They are up at 5 a.m. and take the baby out to nurse, leaving it to be guarded for them during the day. It is grind, grind, grind! In time she gets run down by dyspeptic anæmia, no matter how high her spirit has been. She requires a rest, and I shall give her that rest, in spite of the friendly societies and of the charges that are brought against me."
  That is only one specimen out of many. By the skimpiness, scantiness, and inadequateness of your medical relief, which was carried out in a hurry and in defiance of the experience of those who were experts and who readily came in and gave their services, and by the heart-breaking criticisms that have been passed upon the doctors, you have made it a matter which stains your Bill, however good were your intentions. We want to guard against the danger that is looming ahead in regard to this unwholesome competition between financial interests, between the solvency of your Act, between the solvency of particular friendly societies and the vastly more important interests of the health of the people, which should be independent of sordid financial thought. That is entrusted to the medical profession, and I trust the medical profession will stand firm, loyal, and unmoved against attacks. We do not want any State system. We do not want a system under which the working classes and insured persons should be a drilled regiment acting under the orders of State officials. The truth is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took too hasty a view. He has risked a great deal. He paid no heed to remonstrances which were well weighed. He listened to them for a time—I know it from my own experience in dealing with him; he dealt with us fairly and reasonably at first, but when it became convenient to consult us no longer he then insinuated charges against the profession. He paid no heed to the remonstrances or to the experience of those who had to perform the work. The very essence of the matter, as we told him, is free choice of doctors and cordial personal relations between the doctor and the patient. I
  310
  do not like this plan of forcing a man to choose a doctor on the panel and making him write himself down under that name. I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite whether any one of us would like to write our names on the list of any particular doctor and pledge ourselves always to attend that doctor?
  Mr. BOOTH: We do.
  Sir H. CRAIK: For my own part, I do not think of the doctor for one moment until I am ill; then I choose my doctor according to my mood, according to the illness, and according to my need. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Would hon. Members like to be pledged and bound during the whole of the year to consult and attend only one doctor?
  Mr. BOOTH: It is the usual thing.
  Sir H. CRAIK: It is not usual in our own life. You had the key to the position in developing on wider lines the old intimate relation. There were many of the better-to-do working classes who were ready to arrange with their doctor. All they asked was, "Give us the fair amount due to us from the Insurance Fund, and let us make our own arrangements." You would have done it much cheaper, and you would have had an enormously larger fund in your possession to deal with the lower part of society which hitherto, till your insurance-Act came into force, was dealt with by charity and very largely by the gratuitous work of the medical profession. You have broken down all that. You have chosen to ride rough-shod over the habits of the people. You have chosen to bind yourselves to nothing but a compulsory system, compulsory not only in its principles, but in all its details, and now in return for that you find yourselves buried in a mass of machinery, forced to give often contradictory and undecipherable instructions. I admit that an enormous expenditure must necessarily bring great benefits, and the enormous work which has been done by many agents must lead to benefit, but instead of a perfect system slowly growing in accordance with the habits and wishes of the people, you have established an inadequate system, a system involving many dangers and many evils, and one which may before many years require complete and entire recasting. When that day comes I believe you will be glad to follow more closely than you did before the experience and advice of the medical profession.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to second the Motion.
  I should like to show how in other directions the expectations of the public are being deceived. It is rather difficult to discuss the Insurance Act in this House, because whenever we comment upon this defect or that defect in the Act, whenever we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to redress a grievance here, or to fulfil a pledge there, we are nearly always told that we are slandering the National Insurance Act. If we tried to get the pledges carried out which were given to consumptives, we are told we are vilifying the noblest legislative work of the last 100 years. If we point out that chemists are being swindled out of their money we are told that we are planting yet another arrow in the breast of St. Sebastian. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks upon the National Insurance Act as a sort of Ark of the Covenant which the ordinary man really cannot touch at all without profanity. It may be convenient for him to pretend that it is, but I do not think that any of us are in the least bound to take the same view. The Insurance Act is not a, holy legislative enactment, and it certainly was not recommended to the country in at all a holy manner. Many hon. Members on this side of the House have done their best to act fairly by the Insurance Act, and they have done their best to suggest improvements whenever the opportunity has arisen, but I do not think that in the least binds us to shut our eyes to the defects of the Insurance Act, or to refrain from pointing them out, when we have the opportunity, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had a great deal less to complain of if he had made in the past fewer glowing promises in respect of the Act. His promises, for instance, to tuberculous people will not very easily be forgotten. I do not in the least suggest that he intended to take people in, but I think he has deceived himself. In the exuberance of his imagination hard facts have very little place; but though the oratory of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pass away, hard facts will come home to roost before very long. What really is the case of tuberculous persons under the Act? It is no use telling us, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did the other day, that several thousands of insured persons are being given satisfactory treat-
  312
  ment, if an equal number of insured persons who are paying the same full contributions under the Act can get practically nothing out of it. The Government, to my mind, have really got to deal with these cases, and at once, for every day that goes by they will be taking these poor people's money under what are really grossly false pretences. Everybody remembers the pictures which were painted not so very long ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to tempt people to come into his scheme. The poor consumptive man who paid his full contribution was to be saved from the jaws of death. No place and no treatment was to be too good for him. A first-class hotel was to be at his disposal. That was a vision conjured up before the eyes of consumptives when the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to get support for his Bill, but the vision has proved an unsubstantial pageant and such stuff as dreams are made of. It is possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer still believes in the first-class hotel, but if he does I think he is the only man in England who does.
  Mr. BOOTH: No.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to give the hon. Member a few instances of what I mean. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took 6d. a year per insured person from the funds of the sanatorium benefit and gave it to the doctors for domiciliary attendance on consumptives, and the result has been exactly what might have been expected, and what was pointed out, that nearly all the insurance committees throughout the country have been short of money ever since, and unable to give proper sanatorium treatment to those who have come before it. There has also been a very great shortage of beds. In some cases insurance committees have got sufficient funds for treating their patients, but there is an absolute lack of accommodation for the patients they want to treat. The bulk of the committees throughout the country are short of money, and the consequence is that instead of treating all suitable cases in sanatoria, they are only sending a selected few, the others being generally jobbed off with dispensary or, even more commonly, home treatment. An instance of this was given the other day at a meeting of the Barnstaple District Insurance Committee, where a man was shown to have been recommended for sanatorium treatment fifteen months ago and was still

  313
  living in a cottage absolutely unfit for such a case. Some insurance committees make no disguise of the fact that they have been giving institutional treatment not in accordance with the needs of the patient, but simply in accordance with the amount of funds at their disposal. I have a return of the Kingston-upon-Hull Insurance Committee, where what I have just stated is practically stated in black and white. In Aberdeen, again, the insurance committee is short of funds, and will very soon have to refuse many deserving cases for sanatorium treatment on their own showing. The Essex Insurance Committee is in the same position. That committee only a few days ago, according to their own report, had twenty-three insured consumptives on the waiting list for institutional treatment, and at the last meeting of the committee they called attention to the urgent necessity for the provision of a sanatorium by the county council.
  Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is my point. Sanatoria do not exist. The Kent Insurance Committee are also experiencing deficiencies, and at the same time they have cut down the nourishment for their insured consumptives. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) made the matter clear in regard to the Kent Committee. He said:—
  "In the case of individual insured persons, who have already been in receipt of special nourishment for the full period for which Grants are ordinarily given, the committee, while continuing the treatment recommended, have in some cases postponed the question of any further grant of special nourishment in consideration of the immediate claims of other applicants, and with the object of securing the employment of the funds at their disposal to the greatest advantage."
  It is perfectly obvious that that is merely a Parliamentary way on the Front Bench of saying there is not enough money to go round. I could multiply instances showing that there are far more insured persons in want of sanatorium treatment than there is accommodation for. The sanatorium sub-committee of the Southampton insurance committee have reported that there are far more insured persons in the sanatorium than they can possibly afford to pay for. The West. Hartlepool Committee have reported that the funds available for sanatorium benefit are not sufficient to allow the best results beng obtained. In all there cases the same difficulty has occurred-deficiency of funds—and the same thing is taking place all over the
  314
  country at the present moment. Added to the want of sanatoria and proper nourishment, there is also a very great shortage of beds in the sanatoria. For instance, in the area of the Bristol Insurance Committee there are twenty-four consumptive insured persons who are waiting for beds, and this after two years for the making of proper arrangements for this kind of case. It is quite clear, therefore, that in the administration of sanatorium benefit contributions are being deducted week by week from the wages of poor people for proper sanatorium benefit, and that proper sanatorium benefit is being withheld. I do say that it is the duty of the Government to do something in this matter. In the face of facts like these, it is really no use for the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely to reply that we are slandering the National Insurance Act. It is his duty, when he is extorting contributions week by week from the wages of poor people, to see that they receive the proper benefits they are paying for.
  Mr. BOOTH: You are in favour of sanatorium benefit?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am in favour of the proper benefits being given for the contributions, and so long as the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues not to do this so long will he find that he will receive the condemnation of those who have to pay, and who remember the glowing promises he made when he wanted support in the country. In my opinion, if the Insurance Act is ever to be made a tolerable Act among the population, you must give equality of treatment to those persons who pay their contributions. The administration, to my mind, of medical benefit is also extremely defective. My hon. Friend has referred to the want of proper methods of exact diagnosis. These methods are provided in Germany, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he introduced his scheme had been studying the German system. But when he introduced his scheme he provided no money for those methods of exact diagnosis. In many parts of the country absolutely nothing has been done in the matter. Only the other day, in his last annual report, the chief medical officer of the Local Government Board stated that scientific diagnosis was practically inaccessible over the greater part of England, and he went on to point out the great delay in proper treatment, and the great amount of sickness that necessarily results. Sir John Collie only

  315
  a few days ago gave an address before the Faculty of Insurance, and warned his audience of the gravity of this question. I think anybody who really studies the question must come to the same conclusion.
  There is a graver question than this. I refer to the absence of facilities for conducting serious operations. The Insurance Act is rather contradictory on this subject. Section 15, Sub-section (2), says that insured persons shall receive adequate medical attendance and treatment, but paragraph (c) of the same Sub-section only gives the right to an insured person to be attended by the practitioner selected by him, and such selection can only be made once a year—that is to say, insured persons can only demand the treatment his selected doctor can give, even although it may be quite inadequate for the particular illness from which he suffers. In practice his position is even worse, for he is not even entitled to all the treatment his own selected doctor can give. According to the Regulations of the Commissioners, he is only entitled to treatment of the kind which can be given by a practitioner of ordinary professional skill. In other words, if an insured person is suffering from an ordinary illness, he can get more or less proper attendance, but if he requires a major operation, and the panel doctor refuses to perform it, he has either to secure it for himself in some hospital or make some payment for it outside of his insurance contribution—that is to say, in the hour of his greatest need he gets nothing at all. To my mind this is very bad, socially and economically. If operated upon, that man might be able to go back to his work. He is probably out of work, and there is a loss to the labour market, and there is a claim of 10s. a week on the society. He cannot afford to pay for a specialist, and the hospitals have long waiting lists. The board of management of the Birmingham Hospital recently reported that there were 180 to 200 cases awaiting admission during the greater part of this year. While the board regretted that it was necessary to wait in many cases which needed treatment, it was quite clear that a considerable increase was necessary in the number of beds, and that the income did not justify the board in dealing with that matter at present. Birmingham is only one instance out of a great many I might adduce which are in this position all over the country.
  316
  A very unsatisfactory state also exists in another branch of medical benefit. I refer to medicines and appliances. This unsatisfactory state exists especially in the industrial districts. Medical benefit is defined by the Act, as
  "Medical treatment and attendance, including the provision of proper and sufficient medicines and such medicines and surgical appliances as may be prescribed by Regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners."
  "Medical treatment and proper and sufficent medicine" would seem to be a kind of unrestricted term under the Act. Unfortunately for the insured person, it is not at all unrestricted. For instance, the Bolton Insurance Committee have sent out to all the panel doctors a circular prohibiting the prescription for ordinary patients of extract of malt, oil, cod liver oil emulsion, and petroleum emulsion. I have also got here the drug tariff of the London Insurance Committee, which allows these medicines. Therefore the Bolton patients, who need building up in order to avoid the possibility perhaps of consumption, cannot have the necessary malt and cod liver oil, while the London patient can. What is this difference of insured persons under the Act I It is quite clear. I have here a copy of the "Druggist, and Chemist" for this month. It is shown there that in Bolton there is an estimated dificit of 24 per cent. in the Bolton Drug Fund—that is to say, there is a sum of only £7,200 available to pay £8,950 due for chemists' bills during last year. The hon. Member for St. George's in-the-East the other clay repudiated the suggestion that the Bolton restriction arose out of any deficiency in the chemists' account; but it is rather curious that this restriction should have been imposed in the January of this year, after the state of the chemists' account at Bolton was made known. Why did the Bolton patient get malt and oil in 1913, and why cannot he get it now? The reason is perfectly obvious. The Act in this respect is bankrupt. There is not enough money to go round.
  10.0 P.M.
  If I had time I could show that exactly the same thing is taking place in the case of the Southampton Insurance Committee. This question of medicine is of twofold importance. First, there is the restriction of getting medicine for insured persons, which is extremely grave, and which is absolutely illegal, because the Act says

  317
  that medicines must be proper and sufficient; and second, where the medicines are not restricted, and where the drug fund becomes insolvent you have got unfair treatment of the chemists who have supplied the medicines ordered by the doctors, and cannot get their bills paid for last year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day that nearly all the deficiencies in the drug fund were in areas where the payment per-attendance system had been in operation. In these, as in other matters, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was misinformed. The hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East stated a few days ago that the only insurance committees in whose areas the doctors are now working under the per-attendance system are Manchester and Salford. He went on to say:—
  "In the following areas, however, that system was originally adopted, either in whole or in part, and discarded at the end of the first quarter of medical benefit:—Blackpool, Canterbury, Cambridgeshire, Dorsetshire. Eastbourne, Kent, Stoke-on-Trent, Suffolk West, Wallasey, and Zetland."
  That is to say, excluding the first quarter, which is a very short period, and does not very much matter, the only areas that have been working on a per-attendance system are Manchester and Salford. But there is an estimated de-ficiency in the drug fund in no fewer than eleven areas in
  Lancashire alone. There are deficiencies in Manchester, Blackburn, Bolton, Burnley, Bury, Oldham, Preston, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, and Wigan. I have got a letter, written three or four days ago, by a Manchester chemist, who says:—
  "I have worked day and night for the success of the Act. Personally, I have been tied up to work every Sunday for the last twelve months, and had to give up my holiday last year. The Commissioners owe me £800 for drugs and appliances supplied. There is no use disguising the fact that deficiency spells ruin to many of oar men. The script sent to me in January this year have only brought 50 per cent."
  In Yorkshire there is also a deficiency. I have here a report. of the Leeds Insurance Committee, showing that, they have only got a couple of hundred pounds to pay chemists' bills amounting to £4,000. The Scottish Commissioners have just addressed a letter to the Pharmaceutical Committee of Insurance for Scotland, stating that there is a deficiency in at least one area in Scotland. In Birmingham the chemists have only been paid 40 per cent. of last quarter's accounts, and there is no question of excessive or unreasonable or extravagant prescribing by the doctors owing to the per-attendance system, because the per-attendance sys-
  318
  tem does not exist in these areas, and the capitation system has been in operation throughout. But, in spite of this, the clerk to the Birmingham Insurance Committee has sent out a circular to the chemists intimating that a full settlement of their accounts cannot be made.
  In. Bradford nearly £1,000 is still owing to the chemists for the two last quarters of last year, and they say that even greater deficiencies are expected this year. In Stoke-on-Trent also the chemists have not been paid. It has been suggested that some of the chemists' losses should be made good out of the Sanatorium Benefit Fund, and some by putting in operation Clause 40 of the Medical Benefit Regulations. By Clause 40, if any doctor has been guilty of extravagant or unreasonable prescribing, he may be surcharged to that extent for the benefit of the chemist. But the machinery is extremely complicated, and very unpleasant, and there is no suggestion that there has been any extravagant or unreasonable prescribing by the doctor. As for the Sanatorium Benefit Fund, it is already mortgaged up to the hilt. The real cause of the trouble is not unreasonable prescribing by the doctors, but excessive sickness in many of the industrial areas, and the result will be that in those areas where there are very few non-industrial workers panel chemists will be liable to be underpaid. The Insurance Act in this respect is bankrupt so far as chemists are concerned, and it is the duty of the Government to step in. In the second place, there is the second question of surgical appliances. The medical and surgical appliances for insured persons are supplied, I think, by the Insurance Commissioners. The Commissioners zip to now have refused to allow various necessary appliances, such as trusses and other necessary articles, and possibly think that the approved societies ought to supply them, and that the drug fund would stand the expenditure. Certainly the chemists cannot afford it, and neither can the approved societies afford it. They have got absolutely nothing to spare, and even if local approved societies could supply them it could only be by stopping a certain amount of benefit for their members.

  What happens in practice is that the insured person does not. get the article he needs, and he remains on the sick fund, and continues to occupy the doctor's time. I have tried to show what I believe are very serious defects in the administration

  319
  of medical benefit. The real case is that there is more sickness and longer continued sickness than the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever expected under his scheme, and, in any event, a great economic loss is the result, quite apart from the humanitarian consideration that it is for the benefit of the State that the insured persons should get well as soon as possible. But what happens in existing conditions? Insured persons are kept from work, and are suffering pain. Doctors are unnecessarily worked, and their surgeries are overcrowded. Prescriptions are increased, and the chemists cannot get the money due to them. Sickness claims are multiplied, and the solvency of particular societies is threatened. That really is not all, for if the doctors are overworked it is admitted that they can give less attention and time to sick persons. If chemists are unpaid they will be tempted to demand that less costly drugs be prescribed, or that certain medicines shall not be prescribed at all. They have been doing that, as I have shown, in Bolton, Southampton, and else-where. The approved societies are threatened with deficiencies, and they will be tempted to treat patients harshly. Therefore I do say the Government are bound to do something in the matter. Contributions are extorted week by week for certain food benefits under the Act. [MR. BOOTH: "You agreed to it."] We agreed to it, but it is the duty of the Government to see that the full minimum benefits shall be given to those who pay full contributions. Really it is because I feel that the Act is on its trial in this matter, and that there will be an inevitable collapse unless the Government realise the gravity of the situation, that I beg to second the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I desire to intervene in this Debate to deal only with one aspect of the question, that with which the Local Government Board is directly connected, the provision of sanatorium benefit. Other aspects of the question will be dealt with by the Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn). who represents the Insurance Commissioners. As the time is very short, I shall compress my remarks within the smallest possible compass, and will occupy the attention of the House for a very few minutes. Let it be remem-
  320
  bered, in the first place, that "sanatorium benefit" as used in the Insurance Act does not imply that every consumptive person must necessarily be attended and treated during the whole period of his illness in what is ordinarily known as a sanatorium, namely, an institution especially erected to provide for the treatment of tuberculous cases. The cases in their earlier stages are sometimes of very doubtful diagnosis, and it is necessary for them to be watched either at a tuberculosis dispensary or in hospital, and after they have been to the sanatorium, if the disease is arrested, the patient resumes more or less his ordinary life, and such treatment as he receives is domiciliary treatment. If, on the other hand, the cases, unfortunately, grow worse, so as to be incurable, then during the last stages the only treatment left to be given is hospital treatment. This is clearly stated in the report of the Committee over which the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor) presided. One paragraph of the Report runs as follows:—
  "'Sanatorium benefit' in the National Insurance Act, 1911, means treatment in sanatoria or other institutions or otherwise. The expression is not used in the restricted sense of a course of treatment carried out in-an institution called a sanatorium. Similarly the expression 'sanatorium treatment' has an equally -wide significance. The principles of treatment. which have been elaborated for the most part in sanatoria., have a wide application outside these separate institutions. The advantages of this form of treatment can, in many instances, be given to patients who are living in their own homes or in shelters. In sonic of these cases it may be desirable to secure that the patient should be provided with additional food, or a separate room or bed, in order to ensure efficient treatment. And as suitable conditions, especially if the treatment is being carried out under the advice of a medical man with special knowledge of modern methods, home treatment may be, in all essentials, sanatorium treatment."
  That paragraph comes with the unanswerable weight of the most authoritative body of medical men and others who have been appointed in this country to examine this important subject, and it comes also with the imprimatur of the hon. Member for Plymouth, the chairman of that Committee. I think that fact ought to be borne in mind by hon. Members when they quote the number of tuberculous cases in this country and assume that every one of those cases ought properly, during the whole period of the disease, to be housed in sanatoria. That is not so. There is no such obligation. I think no medical man would say that such a course of treatment is either necessary or proper. The hon. Member's Committee had to estimate the number of persons who ought to have sanatorium treatment in the strictest sense of the term, and the number who ought to have treatment in hospital. Those two

  321
  forms of residential treatment are suitable to different classes of cases. They had to form the best estimates they could. The field was quite untrodden, and there was no knowledge as to the number of tuberculous persons present. Let hon. Members opposite remember, and those who now criticise so harshly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the administration of the Insurance Act, that during the ten years they were in office they never lifted a single finger even to touch the fringe of this question. Therefore when we came to deal with it the field was untrodden, and the best estimate had to be formed of what the extent of the disease was. The Committee of the hon. Member reported that so far as the number of insured persons was concerned, it would be necessary to provide beds in sanatoria, on that basis, for 2,100 persons in proportion to the population that they reported, and an equal number in hospitals, being 2,100 in each ease.
  The number of beds approved by the Local Government Board in England, which is the only part of the United Kingdom for which my Department is entitled to speak, for the 2,100 insured persons who might need those beds, and for any others of the population for whom accommodation may be desired, was 5,145. The number of beds in hospitals for tuberculous people was 2,580, and, in addition, 571 children, or, altogether, 8,300. In the middle of last month, dealing with insured persons alone, there were actually in sanatoria receiving treatment for tuberculosis, not the 2,100 estimated by the Committee but 3,215, and in the hospitals the number of cases suitable for hospital treatment was 1,658. At that time there were 265 vacant beds in sanatoria, and 344 vacant beds in hospitals. Up to the present date, I am informed by the Insurance Commissioners, that in England alone—they have not yet got the precise figures, but they give me the approximate figure—over 20,000 persons have received treatment for tuberculosis either in sanatoria or in suitable hospitals. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) quoted cases where there has been deficiency. It may be that particular insurance committees have not in their own districts provided adequate accommodation. That is their fault. The accommodation is available. The beds are there. If they are not able to arrange for the use of them it is their duty to do so. If the hon. Member would
  322
  furnish me with specific particulars, which he has not quoted in terms, of the cases to which he referred, I shall be most grateful to him, and will certainly make it my immediate business to look into each particular case. The London Insurance Committee has now over 750 insured persons in sanatoria or in hospitals. The Metropolitan Asylums Board alone has provided them with 500 beds in Downs Sanatorium and the Northern Hospital at Winchmore Hill for tuberculosis patients. In addition to all those, there are being erected further sanatoria at the present time with 2,894 beds, and sites have been approved also for sanatoria for 940 beds. So that when these additional over 3,000 beds are provided, we shall have a total of about 12,000 beds available for persons unfortunately suffering from tuberculosis in this country.
  But that is not all. The Government is going beyond the requirements of the terms of the Insurance Act, and we, for the first time, are endeavouring to make provision for the whole of the population. I agree that at the moment our measures are only for the most part in the preparatory stage, but work has been begun, though it is far from being complete. There is adequate accommodation now in the sanatoria for all insured persons suffering from tuberculosis. There is not yet adequate accommodation for the rest of the population suffering from tuberculosis, but that we trust will be provided. One and a half million pounds has been voted by this House for the buildings—and the Treasury have undertaken to find half the cost to provide treatment for the non-insured persons suffering from tuberculosis. Out of fifty county councils all but six have already submitted to the Local Government Board schemes for the provision of tuberculosis officers, dispensaries, sanatoria, and hospital treatment. Of the seventy-six county boroughs, all but seven have submitted already to the Local Government Board schemes for the treatment of the whole of their population who are suffering from tuberculosis. The Local Government Board are pressing forward with the utmost rapidity the approval of those schemes. Most of them have already been approved. The Board are stimulating the remaining small number of authorities also to complete the necessary arrangements. Eighty per cent. of the population of England are already covered by the schemes that have so far been submitted.

  323
  At the present time £800,000 per year in England is being devoted for tuberculosis treatment of insured persons alone, and we believe when all the arrangements of the county councils are completed a further sum of £1,500,000 from the rates and taxes will be spent annually for the treatment of these persons. There has been, as the House knows, for some time the general desire floating in the minds of great numbers of the people that there should be a national campaign against tuberculosis. Many eminent people, medical men and others, were most anxious that this should be undertaken. But everyone felt that the task was a hopeless one until the State intervened and brought in the strong arm of the law and the deep purse of the taxpayer to assist in this object. That has been done; the work is now launched and is being completed with rapidity. When hon. Members opposite have succeeded in accomplishing one-tenth of the good social work which has been done in this and other matters by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, and not till then, let them cast the first stone.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman ended on a rather controversial note. My hon. Friends were singularly uncontroversial in the way in which they put their case before the House, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have devoted rather more attention to the matters which they unfolded than indulged in the form of words with which he ended his speech. After all, we are not here tonight to deal with these party questions at all. It seems to be one of the extraordinary things about this Act that we are called upon to deal with and discuss it at times when party feeling is stirred to its depths by other questions. Hitherto we have endeavoured to do all we could to keep party bias out of our discussions of this matter in this House. One thing that ought to take it out of party politics is the fact that we are discussing matters that vitally affect an enormous number of people who are compelled to come within the ambit of this Act whether they like it or not. The question which has been raised to-night is whether or not the treatment which was held out to them is being actually received by them. My hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) had something to say about the adequacy of the medical benefit. He pointed out that the benefit laid down in the Act is undefined. It is described generally and broadly as "ade-
  324
  quate," and the whole question whether or not insured people are getting the benefit to which they are entitled turns on the meaning of the word "adequate." This House did not define it The Chancellor of the Exchequer defined it outside the House in some of the picturesque speeches that he made. He said that insured people were to get the best of doctoring, the best of drugs, and the best treatment suitable to their particular case.
  We all know that they are not getting the best doctors, the best drugs, or the best treatment suitable to their case. Why? It is not the fault of the doctors; it is not the fault of the Insurance Committees; it is not the fault of this House; it is not the fault of the Insurance Commissioners. It is the fault of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did not provide enough money to give these people the best doctoring, the best drugs, and the best treatment suitable to their case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer called the tune, but he refuses to pay the piper. I think my hon. Friends have done well to raise the question in the House, in order that this aspect of the matter may receive some consideration. I have been interested in reading a report. which I suppose nearly every Member of the Committee has seen, an interim report issued by a committee of the Fabian Society. Many hon. Members may agree with, while others will disagree from, the Fabian Society. Some will agree with the conclusions of the report; sonic will not. But I think there can be only one question as to the ability and impartiality with which the inquiry appears to have been conducted, and the clearness and ability with which the report has been written. What does the report say in reference to the question of medical benefit? The report says, as a result of an inquiry which has been carried out in every county in the Kingdom, that
  "we see no reason to doubt that for the most part the insured persons who are on the doctor's list are getting under the Act the same sort of medical attendance and treatment that used to be obtained by the average club member, except in so far as the crowding of the doctor's surgery has in many cases become greater, the demand on his time more incessant. and the trial to his nerves and temper sometimes unbearably sharper."
  Do not we all remember the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to refer to the club member and to club practice, to the evils of the contract system? Cannot we almost see him now standing at that box and, with all his-

  325
  eloquent gestures, driving home to the minds of Members all the evils that attended the old system of club doctors? Do we not also remember the enthusiasm with which he held out the hope that all this inadequate medical treatment was to be banished by the passing of the Insurance Act, and that there was opening out a bright future for all these insured people in regard to medical treatment? The result of this impartial inquiry of the Fabian Society only confirms what every one of us can, from our own private experience, say, that the kind of medical treatment which is being given to insured persons now, through no fault of the doctors, through no fault of the insurance committees, is not that adequate treatment which was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was aimed at by the House of Commons, and which was provided by the Act. itself! I do not want to labour these points. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury alluded to the question of the inadequacy of the medical treatment, and commented upon the absence of modern methods of exact diagnosis. These were specifically insisted upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time he made his arrangements with the doctors. He laid it down as one of the conditions of giving the medical profession the extra grant that they should employ modern methods of exact diagnosis. The Insurance Commissioners have been unable to arrange for the provision of consultants without whose aid and assistance modern methods of exact diagnosis are absolutely impossible. I say that the administration of this Act falls very far short of the intentions of the House of Commons when the Act was passed.
  I have only one word to say in regard to the question of the second part of the Resolution, that of sanatorium benefit. The right hon. Gentleman has given us some very interesting figures as to the progress that is being made since the Act became law as to the provisions of accommodation in numerous institutions, and as to the number of people who have received sanatorium treatment. He was good enough to read us a little lesson upon what we ought and ought not to expect with regard to the provision of sanatorium treatment. He said that we ought not to assume that every consumptive ought necessarily to go into a sanatorium. We do not assume that every consumptive ought to have the right to go into a sanatorium. We were led to expect it by the
  326
  Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has forgotten the speeches of his colleague. He did not talk about the question of domiciliary treatment. He led a large body of people to believe that if a man was suffering from consumption he would pass almost automatically within the four walls of a kind of first-class hotel. That was promised by the Act. The right hon. Gentleman said that £1,500,000 was provided by the Act to create and bring into being these sanatoriums. Now the right hon. Gentleman tells us, and I listened with some surprise, that there is adequate accommodation now for all insured persons in institutions. Then what is the use of setting aside £1,500,000? If there is adequate accommodation now, we do not want to spend £1,500,000. If there is adequate accommodation why do we hear such complaints from every county with regard to people on the waiting lists of institutions who have been waiting for months and are likely to be waiting for many months more? He told us there were 20,000 people in England who received sanatorium benefit within institutions or within their own home.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not all in institutions.
  Mr. FORSTER: And a great many more who received domiciliary treatment in their own home.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Ten thousand.
  Mr. FORSTER: And a very large number receiving sanatorium benefit either in or outside institutions. The question is whether the treatment they receive is the treatment they ought to get. Is the treatment given to them, either in these institutions or in their own homes sufficient for the purpose? What is the purpose? To cure their disease and restore them to health. I do not know if hon. Members saw a very interesting lecture given the other day by a man who speaks with great authority on this matter—Dr. Sutherland, the tuberculous officer to St. Marylebone Dispensary. It was by no means an attack on this Act, or on sanatorium benefit, but he said he felt it incumbent upon him to point out from his own experience as a tuberculous officer, that sanatorium bene— fit given under the Act as now administered is not sufficient. He quoted figures to show that the average duration of treatment amounts to only just over twelve

  327
  weeks. Comparing that with the treatment given to tuberculous patients, subjected to almost identically the same kind of treatment by the Charity Organisation Society, he pointed out that as the result of the longer period given to patients treated by the Charity Organisation Society, a larger proportion of them are being restored to health than under the provision of this Act.
  We ought to make this Act as perfect as possible, and if there is any society dealing perhaps with a difficult class of patients and obtaining better results because it gives a longer treatment than that given under the Act, we ought not to be content with the administration of the Act as it is now being carried out. I hope that, as a result of this Debate, something more may be done. Let us look at what Dr. Sutherland has to say with regard to the institutions which bring such comfort to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He points out that it is not enough to call an isolation hospital or a fever hospital a sanatorium. You do not make it into a sanatorium by calling it one. He also points out that the buildings provided are unsuitable and overcrowded. I think the mere statement of numbers given by the President of the Local Government Board loses some of its charm when we find in the mouth of one of the tuberculosis officers a statement to the effect that these institutions are overcrowded and are losing some of their efficiency. Dr. Sutherland calls attention to the tendency to limit the extent of the treatment which insured persons get either to a certain period of time within an institution or to a certain amount of money spent in domiciliary treatment. I agree with him that the thing to aim at is the cure of the patient, and not the mere passing through institutions of the largest possible number of patients.
  I wish hon. Members would keep in the very front of their minds that unless we are giving these people the best kind of treatment we are not dealing fairly by them under the provisions of this Act. There is one criticism which Dr. Sutherland makes which I hope all insurance committees will take note of. He says that it is absolutely fatal to mix those who are just beginning and who are just found to be suffering from this awful scourge with others in the same ward who are in an advanced stage of the disease. I believe you are really doing far more harm than good by sending these
  328
  newly infected people and mixing with those in a far more advanced stage of the disease. I hope that the insurance committees, the Insurance Commissioners, and the right hon. Gentleman will do everything they can to discourage this practice on the part of the insurance committees, which is carried out merely with a view to showing the very large number of people who have been in receipt of benefits? I only want to recall to the mind of the House the statement which my right hon. Friend began the discussion with to-night. He said he was not attacking the Insurance Act and that he was not raising this question in a spirit of irreconcilable hostility to those charged with the administration. He has brought this matter before the House of Commons in order that attention may be drawn to the most important branches of administration of the Act, in which we believe there is room for very considerable improvement. I think the Government have no right to complain of the line and temper in which this matter has been brought before the House of Commons. I hope that they will pay attention to what has been said, and do their very best to see that this state of things is remedied.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The Debate has been a very short one this evening, and I am sorry that it is necessary that I should have to speak at this moment. I apologise to my hon. Friends behind me, who are much better qualified to speak than I am and who will not have an opportunity of doing so. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down charged us with treating this subject in a party manner. I must say that anyone who has taken any interest in the subject of the National Insurance Act must have noticed a marked difference between the way in which the subject is treated in this House by hon. Gentlemen, and the way in which it is treated in the country. We are told that they do not vilify the Act. I have not the slightest complaint to make of the line of the mover and seconder of this Motion, but unfortunately they are not the persons we have to deal with in the country. Will the right hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite, and who lately was Lord Advocate, say that he has never vilified the Act?
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Never, I have told the truth about it. It is the best electioneerer we have got in Scotland.
  Mr. BENN: That is precisely the point. Hon. Gentlemen who speak in this House say that they never vilify the Act. They send other people into the country to vilify it. The right hon. Gentleman says this:
  "He agreed with the friendly societies which characterised it as a monstrous Bill. There never was such a monstrous Bill. The electors are entitled to it and they want it."
  That seems to me to come very near vilifying the Act. How are we to administer the Act when the official party opposite go up and down the country telling people that they are paying 4d. in stamps in order that salaries may be paid to Members of Parliament. [An How. MEMBER: "Who has said that?"] I will read a pamphlet issued by an organisation called the National Union of Conservatives and Constitutional Associations. These are the only words in the pamphlet:
  "The Radical policy: Four hundred a year in their own pockets; 4d. a week out of the workers' pockets."
  What does that mean if it does not mean that the stamps are used to pay the salaries of Members? Take the hon. Member who sits below the Gangway (Mr. Worthington Evans), and who knows the Act, and who ought to be able to talk fairly about it. He goes up and down the country telling people that twice the benefits would be given if the thing were properly managed. There was the South Manchester by-election, one of the glorious victories for Tariff Reform and anti-Home Rule. This is a pamphlet, "Unionists and the National Insurance Act," by Mr. Herz, prospective Unionist candidate for East Manchester. There is a great deal in the pamphlet, and it concludes:
  "With the same money Mr. Worthington Evans. M.P., states that well-managed friendly societies would give twice the amount of benefits granted by the Government."
  How can you hope to get people to work with a will, and make the Act a success, when people who know the Act, and speak with authority, go up and down the country making statements of that kind? Hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight have pursued the same policy they have pursued on previous occasions. They have said: Why do not you give this or that benefit? Why do not you give a second opinion? Why do not you pay for an operation? Or why do you not do a great many things which the Act cannot and does not give because the money is limited? One of their favourite methods at by-elections has been to point out all the Amendments which they moved to this Act, and which
  330
  a wicked Radical Government refused to agree to, amendments which would have cost an additional £13,000,000 a year. Their other line of criticism was to come to the House and press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether the Act was not really insolvent—two lines of criticism which cannot be made to agree. All those things that have been said to-night that might be done, and as to the appalling state of affairs as revealed among the married women of the country, we admit. But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they had the power did not find out, and did not attempt to remedy them. If there are things which are not within the scope of the National Insurance Act it is not because it is a bad Act, because we are doing the best we can with the money at our disposal. The important thing we can discuss to-night is what hon. Gentlemen who are criticising us are proposing to substitute for the Act. They are proposing to substitute the voluntary system. The right hon. Gentleman who sits for the Walton Division started by saying that no desire of party interest would persuade him to abuse the main principle of the Bill, which is universality of compulsion. The Noble Lord at the other end of the scale said he would make it voluntary, and he added, "You would win more elections by that than by any other policy you can adopt."
  It is not the slightest use to show defects unless you propose a remedy. Their remedy is making it voluntary. I want to put a few questions to those who advocate voluntary insurance. In the first place, What about the sanatoria? The House knows at the present moment insured people of all kinds can be treated by-county councils under what is called the "Hobhouse Grant." Into that fund the insured population only contribute 9d. per capita for that purpose. Suppose you made the insurance voluntary, anyone who likes can go out and only those who wish need stay in. The result would be that a very much smaller number of persons would contribute in respect of the sanatorium benefit.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is the Act hated so much?
  Mr. BENN: If many hated it, not so many would be left in; you would not have the same number of ninepences, and consequently it would not be possible, if you had the voluntary system, to continue the sanatorium contribution by

  331
  insured persons. What does that mean? It means that the whole cost would fall on the county councils. Fourteen million ninepences per annum would fall on the rates, so that the first result of the voluntary system would he an increase of the rates by £500,000 a year. Take the second point in their remedy. The people who are left out would still have to pay taxes for the people who remain in. That is perfectly clear. Moreover, one of the arguments used by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) was that one of the bad effects of the Act was to lower wages.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can you quote?
  Mr. BENN: In the by-election in which he was returned, the Noble Lord said that one of the probable effects of the Act would be to lower people's wages.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not remember using that argument, but I do remember saying that a good half of the ninepence would come out of the wages.
  Mr. BENN: The argument used by the Noble Lord was to the effect that the fact that the employer had to pay three pence would influence him in the rate of wages he paid, quite independent of the four-pence. Consequently, if you had the voluntary system employés would suffer a reduction of wages for the benefit of those who had come under the Act, and employers would pay, not in respect of their workpeople—for the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bonar Law) said that they would pay whether their men were in insurance or not. What is the result? The reason that the employers accepted the Act was twofold—first, because they believed it would improve the tone of their workpeople; and secondly, that it would make them feel that they were themselves doing something for those who co-operate with them in their business. If under a voluntary system the employer's workpeople do not come in he will be paying not for his own workpeople, but for the benefit of those of his rivals, and his own workpeople will still be entitled to come to him and say, "Here I am, I have worked for you for many years; you have contributed for the benefit of somebody else. Now, help me in my time of distress." So the inducement to the employer would be entirely removed. What about the health of the community, of which the hon. Gentleman who moved
  332
  this Resolution made such a deal? Fourteen million people have now access to proper medical attention. If a large number of those who detest the Act, as the Noble Lords says they do, go right out, a large number of them would lose the right to the medical help they have at present. Hon. Members will remember that in the Act of 1013 provision was made that exempted persons, who number over 50,000, should have the right to a doctor, and of those over 35,000 have already selected a doctor. Moreover, all deposit contributors, or the vast majority of them, become entitled to medical benefit. You hazard the health, and the attention to the health, of all those people if you make the Act voluntary and give them the right to go out.
  Who is going out, and who will be left in if the Act becomes voluntary? Experience has shown that in Belgium and Denmark that it is not the rich people who are left out, but the poor people and the young people who had not much money, and who feel that it would be cheaper for them not to come in. It is not the ill people who will be left in, not the people we hear of by question and answer in this House who have received £13 6s. for their contributions and only had thirteen weeks' treatment when they think they might have had it longer. What is going to be the effect of this upon the finance of the Act? Can you continue to charge people a flat rate which they pay at the present time? Even with the present sickness experience for the whole of the fourteen million people, men of fifty-five have to pay 1s. 4d. to get the benefits of the Act. What will the right hon. Gentleman do in his voluntary insurance scheme with these people? When they subsidise a society what sort of examination are their going to make? Are they going to say, "What benefits are you going to give, because on that will depend the rate of the subsidy?"
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: It will depend on the age of the members.
  Mr. BENN: That will govern the rate of the subsidy. If they say, "We will give you, as we do now, a reserve value equivalent to the age of your members," what will be the result? That a person will say, "Why should I go into insurance now? I will wait until later on in life, and then get the subsidy promised under the new scheme." The result of that would be that the whole finance of the Act would be absolutely wrecked. Then about

  333
  societies. We have heard a great deal about their position and about the guaranteeing of the benefits, and the fact that people are paying for their stamps but are not being guaranteed their benefits. I ask the hon. Member if the scheme were voluntary, does he think there would be any guarantee of benefits? What about the independence of societies? I notice that the hon. Member for Colchester made a speech the other day, in which he complained of all the red tape and all the interference with societies.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Hear, hear!
  Mr. BENN: Exactly. Suppose you made the Act voluntary and the man pays his contribution, the State its contribution, and the employers their contribution. Is not the State going to inquire into the way in which the society administers the money? Is there to be no control? The fact of the matter is that experience shows, both in Belgium and in Denmark, that. under a voluntary system you must have complete State control and complete supervision of the societies. For the hon. Gentleman to pretend that voluntary insurance means independence for the societies is to make a statement which I do not think can be substantiated. In con-elusion, I would ask the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution in a speech of admirable tone, Does the profession for which he speaks authorise him to say that they wish to leave this system and go back to a voluntary system, because, if they do, what are they going to charge the patients? Are they going to be content to deal with a population in which all the well people have gone out at the same rate that they deal with a population which contains an average sickness experience? Of course, they can do nothing of the kind.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, who has not referred to a single argument advanced on this side, whether lie is going to see that the chemists shall be paid or not?
  Mr. BENN: I will ask the hon. Member this question in return: Is he authorised by any body of chemists in Manchester or Salford to complain that money is owing to them?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I ask the hon. Gentleman once more whether, on behalf of the Government, he will give a
  334
  pledge that the chemists will be paid the money that is due to them under the Act?
  Mr. BENN: When I have reason to suppose that the chemists through authorised channels are making the demand, au answer can be given to that question. I will ask the hon. Member these questions: Under his voluntary system how are you going to pay the doctors, and what control are you going to have over societies?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in discussing the question of a voluntary scheme?
  Mr. BENN: The Motion says the Act is based on wrong principles. I am endeavouring to examine other principles on which it might be based.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is examining other principles on which he thinks it might be based.
  Mr. BENN: I will ask the hon. Member these questions: Under his system what is he going to pay the doctors? Is he going to pay them more or are they going to do their work for the same capitation Grant? Is he going to promise less control over the societies? What, rate is he, going to charge the insured persons? What benefits is he going to give insured persons, and what guarantee will he give them?
  Mr. ASTOR: The hon. Gentleman has asked my hon. Friend a series of questions which it is quite impossible for him to reply to in three minutes. The hon. Gentleman has, as far as I could see, not directed his attention to a single argument which was put to him by the Mover or Seconder of the Motion. He dealt with by-erections in Hitchin and Manchester, he dealt with leaflets, he dealt with voluntary schemes, but, as far as I could hear, he did not attempt to meet a single one of the arguments which were put forward by the Mover and Seconder. I wish to say a word about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel). He said it was all right about sanatoria and institutions. All the institutions and all the sanatoria were there for insured persons. I want to put before him a statement which he made at Question Time only a month ago. An institution for the purpose of sanatorium benefit is not merely a sanatorium. There are also other institutions. In answer to a question from this side

  335
  of the House, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "In some districts there is insufficient accommodation at present for advanced cases of tuberculosis. The councils are taking steps to provide full accommodation."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Advanced cases.
  Mr. ASTOR: But they are insured persons. The Insurance Act does not restrict sanatorium benefit only to early cases, therefore the right hon. Gentleman has no right to say there is accommodation in institutions for all insured persons. The Labour party claim to represent particularly the insured persons. On these occasions there is hardly a speaker for the Labour party to deal with questions of insurance. If hon. Members really had the interests of the insured persons at heart they ought to bring more pressure to bear upon the Government to give adequate treatment, whether medical or sanatorium treatment.
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  SUPERANNUATION (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SHORT WEIGHT.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether any and, if so, what steps should be taken to protect purchasers of goods sold in packages and of bread from short weight or measure.
  Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Montague Barlow, Mr. Bentham, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Du Cros, Mr. Du Pre, Mr. Field, Mr. Hinds, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Parker, Mr. Radford, Mr. Rowntree, Colonel Weston, Sir Archibald Williamson, and Sir Gilbert Wills.
  Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, that Five be the quorum.— {Mr. (Jutland.]

  CANTEEN IRREGULARITIES.

    QUARTERMASTER HARLOWE MARTIN.
    Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move "That this House do now Adjourn."
    Mr. PETO: I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter of urgent importance, which is one in which the War Office can do something, and do it at once, and in which something is urgently needed td be done. It has reference to the suicide of Lieutenant and Quartermaster Martin at Devizes Barracks on the 11th of March. The facts that led up to the suicide are these. The lieutenant, who was a quartermaster in the second battalion of his regiment which is now stationed at Gibraltar was recalled home more than four mouths ago. He was ordered to report himself at Knightsbridge, where at the time certain of the defendants in what is known as the care teen scandal case, who have a sort of overflow into the Wellington Barracks, were quartered. He consequently thought from the fact of his being ordered to report himself there that his recall from Gibraltar was in some way connected with the canteen scandal. He was at home for four months: first of all at Knightsbridge for something less than half the period, and then for two months and some weeks he was at Devizes Barracks, and he was kept with no employment whatever during the whole of those four months with no charge formulated against him and nothing told him as to whether he was brought home as a witness or as a defendant. At the inquest, which was held the day after the suicide, one of his fellow officers said, with regard to Martin's condition of mind, that he was in very low spirits and quite upset. His brother a sergeant-major in the 1st Wiltshire Regiment also said that he was not expecting any charge to be made against him, but what worried him was the fact of being brought home for so long while nothing was preferred against him, and having a wife and family at Gibraltar. The Coroner said:—
    "I can quite realise and understand what a terrible, condition of mind he was in. having been recalled is I presume in connection with the canteen scandal, and then having nothing at all to happen for months either in the way of acquitting him of any suspicion or formulating any charge against hint, or even calling hint as a witness."
    Two points arise on those facts. First, I say that such procedure cannot possibly be defended on the ground of Army discipline, or anything of that kind. It

    337
    practically amounts to a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, in the case of this particular quartermaster and others who are now in this country under similar conditions, one at Devizes Barracks, and others to whose case attention was called on the 16th March by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet. These men have now been here for many months in the same state of doubt. and uncertainty and mental strain as Quartermaster Martin. In answer to the question which I asked on 18th March, the Secretary of State for War said that this particular officer had not been under arrest. There was nothing in my question to suggest that be lad been under arrest, and I think that the answer given shows the attitude of mind of the War Office in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that as long as the man was not under arrest they were entitled to bring him home under conditions of terrible suspicion and mental anxiety, and to keep him waiting an indefinite period and formulate no charge whatever against him.
    I will call the attention of the House to the fact that at first it was intended to proceed by court-martial. A court-martial was constituted, and was subsequently disbanded, the War Office having decided to proceed in the ordinary Civil Courts, and I believe that the magistrate who is hearing the case is only sitting one day a week, and consequently the inquiry will be protracted to an almost indefinite extent. I desire to read to the House the answer of the Secretary of State to a question which was asked by my hon. Friend (Mr. Norman Craig). It is a very long question, and his ingenuity has enabled him to fill a column of the OFFICIAL REPORT, but the important part of the question is at the end:—
    "Why, in these circumstances, the officer named was not included in the prosecution and so afforded an opportunity of defending his good name, but was placed upon retired pay?"
    The answer of the Secretary of State for War was:—
    "Until the present proceedings have been completed and I ant in a position to be advised on the whole matter, it is impossible for me to say who are the persons who are or may be implicated."—[OFFICAL. RRPORT, 16th March, 1914, col. 1685.]
    From that I conclude that all these officers who are at present in these circumstances are to be kept waiting till the magistrate sits (one day a week) to investigate this long and complicated matter. I really feel that those circumstances—one officer having already taken his life, as was clearly brought out at the inquest, owing to his
    338
    mental condition, arising from his being kept in this country four months doing nothing, while his wife and children dependent upon him were at Gibraltar—may lead to further disastrous results, unless the War Office see that these proceedings. are carried out with reasonable speed. and that those officers are either accused or acquitted, to join their proper battalions. The second fact I want to bring out—and it has nothing to do with the actual case which is pending—for the consideration of the House is whether there is not a grave responsibility resting upon the War Office in this condition of affairs. I contend that the pay of the quartermasters is wholly inadequate for the great responsibilities that are placed upon them: and the style of living which is necessitated by their promotion to commission rank. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we frequently have in the civil courts similar cases to these, and where it is shown in the trials that people in posts of responsibility are paid an utterly inadequate salary in respect of the great duties they have to perform, the judge invariably comments in the most severe manner upon the parsimony of the. employer who is paying inadequate salaries. I say that applies to this case. where the salary is 9s. a day, amounting to £164 a year, which is wholly inadequate considering the responsibilities.
    What are the responsibilities that a quartermaster has to take up in the course. of his duties? He is responsible for the ammunition, clothing and equipment of the whole battalion, for the correct receipt and distribution of forage and rations, and he is responsible for barrack equipment in barracks and in camp. He has nothing to-do under the King's Regulations with the canteen proper, but, of course, for his position, his advice is naturally asked, and it is very important that it should be given absolutely independent of any consideration whatever. Not only so, but I am informed—and I do not think it is open to dispute—that in the Guards the quartermaster is also assistant paymaster, and in that capacity he handles something like £500 a week, and for that additional responsibility he is paid by the War Office the magnificent additional salary of £20. That is not all. The pay that he receives is utterly inadequate, considering the social Position he has to assume and that his wife, as it was put to me, is a bridge between the officers' wives and wives of the non-

    339
    commissioned officers and men on the strength. She has to keep a servant and to keep up certain style. He has to pay for messing expenses and things of that sort, and so utterly inadequate is the provision, that I am informed, quoting the words of one who knows from personal experience, he is appointed to a position that he cannot possibly keep up, and has become a charge on the officers of the unit, which is entirely wrong, because he would not possibly pay his mess bill unless he depended on the generosity of officers in the commissioned rank. Therefore, I say that on that second point the War Office are to blame, for when they raised the pay officers of commissioned rank, on 1st January, there was no addition made to the pay of the quartermasters. Their pay is insufficient for their post, considering their position and responsibilities. The first point I ask the hon. Gentleman to see at once is that reasonable steps are taken to bring this long drawn out inquiry to an end, and that he should not take up the position that was taken up by the Secretary of State for War when he answered me by saying that this man had not been under arrest. I say that the conditions under which these men are kept in this country without accusation, without exoneration, is far worse than the position of arrest. At least the man in the latter case knows where he is, and under the other conditions he does not, and I say that it is simply placing the man in a position where it amounts to nothing less than mental torture, which is being deliberately kept up week after week until the whole thing is settled and threshed out, and until, with slow process of law, the right hon. Gentleman can form an opinion as to who is or is not implicated. I feel bound to raise this question, although I fancy the Secretary of State has other and grave matters for his consideration, and I do so because I wish to shorten this period by every day that I can. I am perfectly certain it is an urgent matter, and that the man should never have been put in the position to take his life under those circumstances, and the War Office is directly responsible for it.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. H. J. Tennant): The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) I think realises that the Secretary of State did not know he was going to bring this subject on or he would have been in his place.
    Mr. PETO: I sent a message at half-past eleven o'clock to-day reminding him of the fact that we had given five days' notice we were going to mention it.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am aware the hon. Gentleman did take that course, but I think the Secretary of State asked whether it would be possible for him to postpone it in view of the other business of the War Office, and we rather thought the hon. Gentleman was going to do that. I am sure the hon. Member will excuse me if I am not able to go into details. I will say this: I feel very sympathetic to the case made out by the hon. Gentleman. It is no doubt a very severe strain on any man to bring him home from a foreign command and keep him for months without informing him what he is to answer for—whether he is to be in the witness-box only, or whether he is to be in the dock. I am sure we should all feel that that was a very great strain. At the same time, if the quartermaster in question was only brought home to give evidence, it seems a great pity that he should not have been told so, and very likely his life would have been saved. It must undoubtedly have been from the fear that he was not going to be only a witness that his mind became deranged. I very much regret the circumstance, and I can assure the hon. Member and the House that., so far as I am concerned, I will make what representations I can, and so far as we can do so we will endeavour to have the inquiry expedited. In point of fact, I am sure the House will realise that the War Office has no control over the Civil Courts. If there be necessity—and I take it that there has been—for this long drawn-out inquiry, I am sure it will be very difficult for us to do anything to alter the minds of those who do control the Courts. However, the hon. Member may rest assured that I will make representations in the proper quarter in order that that matter may be put right. I do not know whether that will be possible or not. In regard to the pay of quartermasters, we realise that a great responsibility is placed upon these officers. They receive higher pay than any other noncommissioned officers—
    Mr. PETO: Commissioned!
    Mr. TENNANT: They are promoted to be commissioned officers, because they have these extra duties. It is very easy to complain of the pay of officials in various departments of life, but when it

    341
    comes to finding the money from the taxes it is rather a difficult matter. I am not going to enlarge upon that, but I think that we have done what was possible, and what has not been done for nearly a century in raising the pay of officers.
    Mr. PETO: Not the pay of quartermasters.
    Mr. TENNANT: I should say that they would have the next claim upon any further money that it might be possible to extract for the purpose of the pay of the Army. I should say, having raised the pay of the officers and not of the quartermasters, that places the quartermasters in the position of having first claim upon any increase that it may be possible to make. It is not easy for us to do all that we would like in the way of granting extra pay to these men. We should like to give larger sums, but it is not possible at present.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I think the House will have heard with some surprise the reply of the Under-Secretary. entirely associate myself with the hon. Member opposite. I have had the facts of this case put before me, and I cannot conceive of a satisfactory reply being given on behalf of the War Office in regard to it. The hon. Gentleman has made a very important admission. He has stated that if only this unfortunate man had been told that he was a witness instead of being a victim, shall I say, his life might have been saved.
    Mr. TENNANT: That is a surmise.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The War Office is criticised a great deal just now, but I do not think they ought to surmise in a matter of this kind. It is not a question of notice. This matter has been in every paper in the country; it has raised a good deal of sympathy for the unfortunate man. Surely the War Office could send for facts and papers and be prepared to answer Members who might wish to raise the matter. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman; I am blaming the War Office and the system which allows him to come here without having all the facts and being able to make a definite statement. I say, unhesitatingly, that this man was badly and cruelly treated, and the manner in which he was treated is a disgrace to the War Office and to the Government. I understand there are many of these men concerned. This poor man has gone, and
    342
    we can do nothing for him. No doubt, the hon. Member sympathises with him—as every hon. Member does—for he is a human man, but what is he doing with regard to the other men? We do not know where we are in regard to this matter. The War Office have brought men from all parts of the world, who have left their families behind them, and they are waiting day by day. The War Office appears simply to be waiting for something to turn up, in the hope that they may get some evidence against these men. It is not business! The hon. Member ought to have been here to-night to say that the War Office expressed their regret that this man was treated as he was, and that there would be an immediate inquiry into the whole matter, so that charges, if there were charges, should be formulated against the men who have been brought to this country. The manner in which the War Office has gone about this matter is a disgrace to the Government and to the War Office. You had your private inquiry, which is not known, even in Russia. You bring up these quartermasters. You hedge them with lawyers. You do not even give them the benefit of a solicitor. You ask them "Yes" or "No," with regard to this subject, and, having got from them all their evidence, you take them to Bow Street and prosecute them! They have not been treated in a worthy way, and the War Office will hear of it in time to come. It is impossible to conceive greater bungling than has taken place in this matter. I ask the hon. Gentleman to-night to inquire into the case of the other men who are waiting at the present time, and who are in the same position as the unfortunate man who has taken his life. Let the inquiry be made at once so that the men may know whether or not there are any charges going to be brought against them, or whether they are simply witnesses waiting about on the chance of being called. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows that the case closes in a day or two, and, therefore, he ought to be able to tell them, so far as the police court is concerned, whether they will be required. It is not British justice to keep these men hanging about as they have been, month after month, by the War Office without the War Office being able to formulate any charge against them. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman to look into this matter at once, and not leave it to Members of this House to bring

    343
    it home to him, for if there are charges to be formulated, let them be formulated, or let the men go back to their regiments and stations.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I agree with what hon. Members before me have said. There are a number of other men whose lives and characters may be saved if the War Office act at once. The War Office have done what they ought not to have done, and have actually refused a Court of Inquiry. One of these men has been brought home from India, and no charge has been formulated against him. He has been kept hanging about for four months, not knowing whether or not a charge was going to be made against him. He has applied for a Court of Inquiry which is his right, and the Army Council or the War Office, for some reason or another, has refused it. Surely it is not right for any man, whether he is a civilian or under military law to be treated in that way. if a civilian were treated in this way there would
    344
    be a hubbub from every bench in this House, but it happens to be that these men are soldiers under discipline, and they find it difficult, perhaps, to urge their case in the same way that a civilian would. But men who are under regulations are entitled to a Court of Inquiry. It has. been asked for, and has been refused. The hon. Member need be under no difficulty in getting the names of the men concerned—I do not want to mention them here—who have been ordered to report themselves. At any rate, in these cases he ought at once to give them the Court of Inquiry they are asking for, if these proceedings are not likely to be completed for some time, and if he cannot make up his mind as to whether or not he is going to prefer a charge against them or whether he only wants them as witnesses.
    Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Member will give me the names I will make inquiry.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I will.
    Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Glasgow Water Supply.
  Glasgow Water Supply.
  Congested Districts (Scotland).
  Congested Districts (Scotland).
  Road Improvement (Ireland).
  Road Improvement (Ireland).
  Road Board Grants (Ireland).
  Road Board Grants (Ireland).
  Pensions Officers.
  Pensions Officers.
  National Schools (Ireland).
  National Schools (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Poor Law Rate Books (Ireland).
  Poor Law Rate Books (Ireland).
  Town Holdings (Queen's County).
  Town Holdings (Queen's County).
ROYAL NAVY.
  "DREADNOUGHT" TYPE (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN POWERS).
  "DREADNOUGHT" TYPE (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN POWERS).
  HAULBOWLINE.
  HAULBOWLINE.
  Market Overt.
  Market Overt.
  Sale of Opium (Restrictions).
  Sale of Opium (Restrictions).
  Lead Poisoning.
  Lead Poisoning.
  Government Railways (Supplies).
  Government Railways (Supplies).
  Indentured Indian Coolies.
  Indentured Indian Coolies.
  Trade Statistics (India).
  Trade Statistics (India).
  Anglo-Indians (Punjab).
  Anglo-Indians (Punjab).
  Trade Trusts (Monopoly Trusts).
  Trade Trusts (Monopoly Trusts).
  Local Authorities (Loans and Boundaries).
  Local Authorities (Loans and Boundaries).
  Deaths Not Certified (England and Wales).
  Deaths Not Certified (England and Wales).
  Railway Stations (Telephone Service).
  Railway Stations (Telephone Service).
  Insurance Claims (Arbitration).
  Insurance Claims (Arbitration).
SKEGNESS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  SKEGNESS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Leave given to the Select Committee to continue sitting in the absence of the Lord Oranmore and Browne.
CLECKHEATON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
HIGHTOWN GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
ASHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read la, and referred to the Examiners.
LEIGHTON BUZZARD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Lamington be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Haversham, and that the Lord Lamington be Chairman of the Select Committee; read, and agreed to.
SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday next.

SMOKE ABATEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a Bill which is supported by various smoke abatement societies and by a large number of municipalities or their health committees, and I feel convinced that the
662
object of it is one with which everybody will sympathise. For a long time past there has been an incessant demand for a purification of the atmosphere, and the atmosphere really requires purification just as much as water and food or anything of the kind. There have been innumerable conferences on the subject, and the general ill effect upon the health and comfort of the community is not disputed. It is not disputed either that, unfortunately, England suffers more than any other country. I think it will be admitted that the first impression one derives, after passing any time on the Continent or elsewhere, upon returning to this country is an impression of a dull atmosphere, of an absence of sunlight, and the prevalence of fog No doubt this is largely due to climatic causes, and that is an additional reason for taking proper precautions. It would be an exaggeration, of course, to state that the whole of this country suffers from smoke. There are certain happy districts which do not suffer at all.
I will only touch upon two districts affected. One is, for instance, the case of London. London under present conditions receives only about one-third of the winter sunshine as compared with places in the immediate neighbourhood. The annual sootfall in London is no less an amount than 70,000 tons, which, I believe, formed in the shape of a pyramid would occupy more space than the Victoria Tower. It has been calculated on the analogy of Pittsburg, which I believe is the filthiest place on the face of the globe, that if smoke costs the inhabitants here only half as much as it does there, the deterioration and damage would amount to £9,000,000 a year. The other case is the area included within a parallelogram of which Sheffield and Leeds would be the eastern boundaries and Warrington and Preston the western boundaries. I think this district, which includes something like 1,500 miles, might without exaggeration be described as the workshop of the world. It contains a population of, I suppose, something like 4,000 per mile, and in this district is included some of the most pleasing scenery in the country. It is really not much of an exaggeration to say that there is no area within this district which is really clean. I speak from experience, because I live within it myself. Even in the districts where there are grouse moors, for instance, the atmosphere

663
is impure, and there are certain districts in the neighbourhood of some of these large towns where the atmosphere is almost inexpressibly filthy. Even when the people are engaged in such an Arcadian occupation as haymaking they often emerge from their labours in the condition of colliers.
I might also say that in many parts of this area, supposing the inhabitants never went elsewhere at all, they would never realise what sunshine really is, never see the real colour of a tree trunk, and would probably go to their graves under the impression that all sheep were born black. Years ago I remember accompanying a very distinguished man, the last Lord Derby but one—a statesman who enjoyed the unique distinction of being a Cabinet Minister in both a Conservative and a Liberal Administration—when he went to cut the first sod of a railway in the neighbourhood of St. Helens. St. Helens is a very prosperous town in Lancashire, where the industry of man has considerably defaced nature. The local joke was that there would be no green sod for Lord Derby to cut, and I remember that when he was about to perform the operation he said, "It is a very creditable thing of St. Helens that there is not a green sod to be found in it." I thought this a deplorable sentiment, but at that time, between twenty and thirty years ago, dirt, black buildings, black sheep, and the like were considered invariable indications of prosperity and no steps were thought necessary to improve that state of things, but I am happy to think that opinion has largely changed upon the subject owing chiefly to the admirable work done by the various smoke abatement societies in this country.
The present law with regard to smoke abatement is contained in the Public Health Act, 1875, which places on the sanitary authorities the power and duty of preventing smoke nuisances and requiring furnaces and fireplaces to consume their own smoke. The weakness of this Act lies in the wording of it, and there are technical difficulties which I will not discuss at the present moment because I do not wish to unnecessarily occupy your Lordships' time. As a rule what usually happens is this. When a local authority proceeds against an offender in consequence of black smoke being emitted there is great
664
difficulty in deciding what constitutes black smoke, and when the offender is fined only a small nominal fine is imposed, and perhaps he modifies the nuisance for a short time. About six months afterwards further proceedings are taken against him. Again a nominal fine is inflicted, the offence being treated as a new one, and so the matter goes on indefinitely. I said that great difficulty arose in defining what actually constitutes black smoke. I believe that black has been defined as the negation of colour, but the point is that smoke is objectionable no matter what its colour may be; and it is quite conceivable that in certain lights black smoke may take all the hues of the rainbow. In view of these technical difficulties it has been found in practice that this particular Act has not been of much avail, with the result that numerous towns have applied for special Acts, amongst them being London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield, Birkenhead, Edinburgh, Leeds, and Bradford.
This particular Bill, the Second Reading of which I am now moving, is based to a great extent upon the Bradford Act of 1910. The working of that Act in Bradford has been extremely successful. I went there myself in order to make inquiries, and I found that since the town, which is one of an extremely progressive character, had enjoyed these powers the smoke nuisance had to a great extent disappeared, and that the Act worked as smoothly as possible. In fact, I believe there are no complaints whatever against it. Clause 2 of this Bill assumes that smoke is caused by the improper construction of furnaces and fireplaces, and it simplifies the matter of prosecuting offenders and makes the fine deterrent. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 protects manufacturers from unfair attacks. Subsection (3) of the same clause, which deals with exemptions, deprives anybody of a grievance against this measure, because any one who imagines that his trade is likely to be injured will have the right to appear before the Local Government Board. As noble Lords are probably aware, there are certain trades which are already exempted from the provisions of the Public Health Acts, and their position will remain precisely as it is. Clause 4 appoints joint committees, which are urgently required in order to enable authorities in wide areas to combine and

665
take common action. It also gives the valuable privilege of enabling one authority to prosecute another. One of the grievances in connection with this matter is that when one local authority does its duty it suffers from neighbouring negligent authorities who take no steps to enforce the various Acts. Manchester, for instance, is an example of a town which does its best to abate this nuisance and which suffers considerably from its neighbours. Clause 7, with regard to the appointment of inspectors by the Local Government Board, is based on procedure adopted under previous Acts; and Clause 8 reserves the powers which local authorities already enjoy.
I do not think it is necessary to say more in explanation of this Bill. But I should like to point out that it is framed on extremely moderate lines. The pro-motors have taken especial care not to drag in unnecessarily the Local Government Board, because, not unnaturally, the action of the Local Government Board is frequently resented by local authorities. The Bill is framed on the assumption that local authorities are ready to act if they get the power. It is also founded to some extent upon the belief that public opinion, as I have already said, has largely changed upon this question; and if public opinion has changed it really is due more than to anything else to the invaluable work which has been performed by the various smoke abatement societies. These societies have not only succeeded in influencing public opinion, but they have been able to show, in cases which I will not quote now, that considerable economy results from the use of smoke consuming apparatus, and so forth.
However reasonable and moderate this Bill may be, I recognise perfectly well that there is not the remotest chance of my seeing it passed into law. I may possibly succeed in getting it through this House, but I know quite well that the moment it goes down to another place it will be blocked by some ardent democrat in the interests of Democracy, or possibly by some gentleman on the same side of politics as myself. But what I venture to put before the Government is that if they approve of the principle of the Bill they should grant an inquiry of some kind. If the Government would consent to give an inquiry in the nature of a Royal Com-
666
mission or a Departmental Committee the subject could be thoroughly investigated, and it could be done without loss of time. I feel sure that if this course were adopted it would meet with general approval. I believe that public opinion is ripe for a change in the law with regard to this matter, and I am convinced that if such an inquiry were decided upon it would be attended by results which would be beneficial to many millions of our fellow citizens. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Newton.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill concluded his speech with an appeal to the Government that they would institute some form of inquiry into this matter. I desire to join in that appeal, and for this reason. The noble Lord's proposal is very largely based, though not actually word for word, on a clause in the Bradford Corporation Act of 1910, a clause which was fought very hard for two or three days before a Committee of your Lordships' House on which I had the privilege of serving as chairman. I think I am voicing the unanimous opinion of the Committee when I say that we felt that a case had been made out for doing something, but when we came to close quarters the difficulty was to know exactly what to do and exactly what words to put into the clause; and that was why the last subsection of the clause in the Bradford Act enacts that the clause given to Bradford should only remain in force for five years unless Parliament should meantime otherwise determine. It was undoubtedly our intention, having heard the case, to see that, as far as we could manage it, at the end of five years another inquiry should be held— obviously a more detailed inquiry than we were able to hold, because there would have been the five years experience of Bradford. I am extremely glad to hear what the noble Lord says of the success of the experiment in Bradford. But it seems to me obvious that all parties— and this must concern traders very deeply —should have an opportunity of being heard before any general legislation is enacted. I personally should welcome this inquiry, and I feel sure, being as I am in touch with many of the munici-

667
palities, that all would welcome a solution in the direction of some step along the road covered by this extremely important Bill.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in support of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Newton. Firstly, I should like to congratulate him on moving in the matter as he has done. We all know him as a determined rooter-out of the various pests and scourges of the community, human or otherwise, and now that he has turned his eye upon the smoke fiend that has preyed upon us too long, I feel that there is really some chance of its extermination.
I have two grounds for supporting my noble friend this evening. The first is this, that I think a very strong case can be made out, and has in part been made out by him, for legislation. The second is that the same thing practically has been done with success elsewhere. And here, if your Lordships will allow me, I may quote my own experience in India. When I went out to Calcutta as Viceroy I was horrified at the extent to which the beautiful climate of Bengal was being vitiated and injury was being done to public buildings and the amenities of the place by the smoke from the great factories that are constantly growing up around Calcutta. Every afternoon I used to look out and see the sun sink to rest across the bosom of the Hugli draped in a funeral mantle of black, and I felt that steps were required to put this matter right. I am bound to say that, in the first place, I got not much support from local opinion. The Local Government were averse from moving in the matter because so many important mercantile interests were involved. But I was resolved to push the matter forward, and accordingly I got an expert from England. He came from Sheffield, where they have great experience of these conditions, and he delivered to us a most excellent report. Upon that we legislated in Bengal, and we did very much the same sort of thing that the noble Lord wants to do by his Bill.
We set up in Bengal a Smoke Commission with an equal number of members, half official and half non-official, with power to appoint inspectors. We made rules as regards the emission of smoke from
668
the tall chimneys and as regards the construction of furnaces. So successful was this Bill when enacted that in less than three years the average emission of dense black smoke from those tall chimneys at Calcutta had diminished by over 80 per cent. We found that the generating plant was being improved, that stokers were trained to serve their furnaces in a more economical and scientific fashion, and that gas engines and other motors were widely taking the place of coal fires. At first—and this is a difficulty that has to be met with here—the factory owners were, if not hostile, at any rate suspicious, but soon they came into line, and presently they gave us their hearty co-operation, no doubt influenced largely by the fact that we were able to show them that the expenditure in which they were involved was more than recouped by the saving in the fuel which they used. The upshot of it was that in only a few years time Bombay introduced the same legislation. It was equally successful there, and at the present moment not a doubt is cast anywhere in India upon the advisability and practicability of this method of dealing with the subject. I draw from that brief narrative an omen of encouragement to the noble Lord in the ideas that he has placed before us.
We are dealing in this week of our history with important events which occupy and distract our attention; and yet, after all, is it unfair to ask your Lordships for half an hour to contemplate that which is really a great injury and incubus in the daily life of the nation? I am not going into the question of the great factory towns, although I am fairly familiar with the evil there. But take the question as we know it in London. You have merely to look at medical statistics to see how injurious this smoke nuisance is to the health and vitality of our people. Doctors will tell you of the number of pulmonary diseases that are due to it alone. Look at its effect on our public buildings, our ancient historical fabrics in London, always wearing a livery of sooty black, corroding their surfaces, impairing their beauty, threatening sooner or later, I suppose, something like destruction. Look at the effect on our own houses, our furniture, our clothes, the works of art in our public galleries, every one of which has, owing to the smoke of London, to be safeguarded by glass. Look

669
at the effect upon the vegetation and plants in the parks and gardens of London. That is, after all, only a very brief summary of the effects of smoke; and when you realise—because there are occasions when statistics, though repulsive, are more effective than any other argument—that annually 200,000 tons of sulphur are poured out over this city in sulphur gases and soot, and that it is calculated, 76,000 tons of soot are laid down upon London every year from the skies, you will have some idea of the magnitude of the evil with which we are grappling.
My noble friend said that substantial advance had already been made. That is quite true. But it has not been due so much to legislation as to other influences. It has been due partly to a change in public opinion on the matter, and still more to the activities of those bodies and leagues that he mentioned. There is an admirable body called the Coal Smoke Abatement League, which has in this matter, by instituting inspections and by here and there enforcing prosecutions, done a great deal to ensure a higher standard. I would ask your Lordships to submit it to the test of your own experience. Would not all of you agree that in our own time there has been an enormous difference in the atmospheric conditions of London? Thirty years ago the average number of days in the year on which there was a dense London fog was thirty; it is now less than ten; and really the time, I imagine, will some day come when the London fog—that most hallowed institution, which has inspired the genius of poets and painters for years, although it has never elicited anything but a groan from anybody else— will be only a memory of the past. You can look at the figures, too, at the Observatories of the number of sunshiny days in the winter; the proportion of increase is about the same as it has been of diminution in the number of London fogs.
But still—and here is the necessity for the new legislation contemplated by my noble friend—there is a great deal of apathy and indifference in the matter. Everybody is waiting for somebody else to move. There are a good many powerful interests involved. We have all of us got used to the smoke, and seem almost to regard it as a necessary condition of our
670
existence. There is no doubt also that the law as it now exists is ineffective, and that there are too many loopholes for escape in it. I have had evidence put before me showing that in some parts of the country, owing to the weight of local interests, the authorities are reluctant to put the law into operation. Lastly, I suppose the idea still exists, which I found so rampant in India, that this type of legislation will be an injury to manufacturers because it will cripple their industry and reduce their output. I believe that to be an absolute illusion. I believe that the reverse can be demonstrated, and that the real justification for this legislation in the restriction of smoke is not æsthetic but practical, businesslike, and economic. In other words, we can show to these persons that they will be the gainers in escaping the wastage of fuel in which they now indulge by getting a larger return for their outlay. For these brief reasons, which I thank your Lordships for having allowed me to put before you, I wish all power to the elbow of my noble friend. I hope that the Government, whether they actually approve of this Bill or not, will at any rate institute the inquiry for which my noble friend has asked. For, believe me, there is no subject more worthy of investigation by a Royal Commission or Committee than this; and when some day, if he is successful, my noble friend hangs the scalp of what I call the smoke fiend at his girdle, he will have added one more to his many achievements for the improvement of the condition of his fellow countrymen.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I would not have intervened in the debate on this Bill, as to which I understand that there is general agreement and that His Majesty's Government will consent to an inquiry, were I not under a sort of obligation to my noble friend who has moved the Second Reading to say a few words in support of it. I do not intend to recapitulate what has been said, but I think anyone acquainted with the history of legislation for the prevention of noxious vapours will know that it has not only protected the health and amenity of the country but has not been injurious to manufacturers. The noble Lord said that the statutory provisions now generally applying on this subject were contained in the Public Health Act, 1875. My

671
recollection is that the Alkali Acts, which prevented noxious vapours from factories in South Lancashire, date back to the late 'fifties, and everybody who knew Lancashire in those days will recollect how pestilent vapours utterly destroyed the whole vegetation and will acknowledge that the passing of those Acts not only protected Vegetation but actually produced a new trade which was a source of profit. I will not trouble your Lordships further, but I give my hearty support to this Bill.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, I am sure we shall all agree with Lord Newton that the question of the further prevention of the pollution of the air by smoke is of real national importance, and that if we could succeed in purifying the atmosphere of London and other populous districts it would have a considerable effect in making life more cheerful for all classes of the population, besides improving their health, and, as Lord Curzon has suggested, preserving our public buildings. Whether this particular Bill, of which Lord Newton has given us a very lucid explanation, will materially effect the object in view I do not pretend to say, but it is no doubt a step in the right direction.
I do not propose to discuss the details of the Bill either by way of criticism or otherwise, as I have the authority of my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board—who, I may state, is in entire sympathy with the objects which Lord Newton has in view— to say that he proposes to appoint a strong Departmental Committee to examine the present state of the law and its administration, and to make proposals for consideration before Parliament definitely commits itself to any particular amendment of the law. My right hon. friend proposes to ask representatives of local authorities, engineers, and architects to sit on the Committee; whilst, of course, all interests concerned, such as the various trades and manufacturers that might be affected, will also be adequately represented. Perhaps in view of my right hon. friend's intention the noble Lord will be satisfied with the debate to-night and will not wish to go further with the Bill to-day, but be content to wait for the Report of such Committee. The Committee which is to be set up will be appointed as soon as possible, and I am sure that if Lord Newton will consent to serve upon it his services will be
672
very much appreciated; and as soon as the Committee has reported, the Report will receive the serious consideration of the Government.
LORD BARNARD: I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he would be good enough, in the appointment of this Committee, to consider the interests of the agricultural community. Agricultural crops are liable to suffer a great deal of detriment from the smoke nuisance, and I therefore think that some representative of the agricultural community should be on this Committee.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: The President of the Local Government Board, I know, wishes that all interests concerned should be adequately represented. I will therefore take care to bring to his notice the matter mentioned by Lord Barnard.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to express my thanks to the representative of the Government for the way in which my request has been met; and I need not say that, if the honour is paid me of inviting me to serve on the Committee, I shall be most happy to do so.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, this Bill needs but a few words of explanation, and what I have to say in respect of it applies also to the Bankruptcy Bill which stands next in my name on the Paper. Last year your Lordships passed a great Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Bill. It made valuable changes in the law which were accepted by the other House, and the Act is now most useful. But the position that has resulted is this. The law of bankruptcy as it now applies in this country is contained in eight Bankruptcy Acts and in two other Acts; and the Deeds of Arrangement provisions of the law are contained in three Acts, the Act of last year and two other Acts. The result is that it is almost impossible for anybody

673
but an expert to find out what the law relating to Deeds of Arrangement and the Law of Bankruptcy is, not because the law is not now in an excellent condition but because of the enormous number of Statutes that have to be referred to. In pursuance of a policy with which your Lordships are well acquainted, it is proposed in these two Bills now before you to made Codes relating to the two subjects—that is to say, to take all the provisions with regard to Deeds of Arrangement in the various Acts and put them together in one Act, and to put all the Bankruptcy Acts and the provisions relating to bankruptcy in another Act. These two Bills, if passed, will be pure consolidation. No alteration of any sort or kind is made in the law. To ensure that, these Bills if they are given a Second Reading will be sent to a Joint Committee of the two Houses for examination to see that no change is made in the law. Should your Lordships think fit to read these Bills a second time and send them to the other House, I have good hope that they will pass without any difficulty or alteration, and then we shall have the satisfaction of having put two intricate branches of the law in the form of a Code easily accessible, though I will not say so easily intelligible.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Government for having adopted this policy of confining Consolidation Bills to purely consolidation, instead of incorporating changes of the law in them—a course which makes it very confusing and interferes with the passing of Consolidation Bills. As it is, the Government have for two or three sessions confined Consolidation Bills to consolidation and nothing else, and that makes it unnecessary for us to offer any observations upon them.
>THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wish to repeat to the House the assurance that these Bills make no alteration whatever in the law. It is very satisfactory that the noble Marquess should take the view he has regarding these Bills. I am sure there are few greater services which we could perform than by putting these complicated branches of the law into Codes and passing them as we are now doing.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

BANKRUPTCY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

TOWN CHARITIES (EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to extend the area and objects of town charities in certain cases.
I.—(1) The High Court may, by scheme made under their jurisdiction with respect to charities, and the Charity Commissioners may, by scheme made under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, provide that the benefits of a charity which are restricted to any municipal borough or to any parish or defined area within a municipal borough, may be extended, subject to such provisions as may be made by the scheme, to any area within or comprising the borough as constituted for the time being, or any adjacent or neighbouring parishes; and also where any charity the benefits of which are extended by the scheme is applicable in doles, that the charity shall be applicable for the relief of distress or sickness, or for improving by such means as may be provided in the scheme the physical, social, or moral condition of the poor in the area as extended.
(2) A scheme under this Act shall only be made on the application of the trustees or persons acting in the administration of the charity or a majority of those persons, or in the case of an application to the Court, on the application either of those trustees or persons or of the Attorney-General.
Section seventeen of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, shall apply to an application made to the Court for a scheme under this Act by any person other than the Attorney-General, and notice of any such application shall also be given to the Attorney-General.
(3) Nothing in this section shall authorise any scheme to be made—

(a) with respect to a charity the endowments of which are applicable solely for educational purposes; or

(b) with respect to any charity until the expiration of forty years from the date of the foundation thereof, or in the case of a charity founded before the passing of this Act by a donor or several donors any one of whom is living at the passing of this Act, until the expiration of forty years from the passing of this Act unless with the consent of the surviving donor or donors.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: The Amendments of which I have given notice are assented to by my noble friend in charge of this Bill, and therefore it will only be necessary for me to trouble the House with a short explanation of their purpose. The object of the Bill, as your Lordships know, is to provide for the application of charities where there has been a shifting of the population, and the Bill is limited to town areas where the difficulty has been found to arise in the proper application of charitable funds through the population intended to benefit by them having moved out of the particular area. But there is a provision in the Bill that no charity is to be affected unless it has been in operation for forty years, and that if the donor or one of the donors is still alive it is not to be affected until forty years after the passing of this Bill. It is the latter provision which I desire to amend. You may have the ease of a charity where the founder has survived the forty years, and in the case of a founder or one of the founders being alive at the time of the passing of this Bill no action in regard to that charity can be taken until forty years after the passing of this Bill. That gives a much larger scope to the old charity than could be wished for by my noble friend. I can conceive that while the founder survives no alteration should be made without his consent. The purpose of my Amendments is to provide that no charity shall be opened to the inhabitants of a neighbouring area until at least forty years after the foundation of the charity, and if the founder of the charity survives the forty years then not without the consent of the founder. These two conditions are quite sufficient, and will prevent some anomalies that might be created under the scheme as it is in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 12, leave out ("or") and insert" and")
Clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out from the second ("the") to ("unless") in line, 10, and insert ("death of the surviving donor or donors")
Clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out ("the surviving") and insert ("such").—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
LORD PARMOOR: In assenting to these Amendments I only wish to say this, that the Bill as it stands is in accordance
676
with the precedents to be found in the 1894 Act in England and in the 1894 Act in Scotland. But I do not think there is the least objection to the Amendments proposed by Lord Courtney, which guarantee the purposes of the trust during to lifetime of the donor.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This may be a convenient opportunity to state that the Government are cognisant of the provisions of this Bill and have examined them. We think this a valuable and useful Bill, and that is why we have assented to the various stages without comment.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 37.)

THE ARMY AND ULSTER.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONrose to move that there be laid before the 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 the report of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland to the Army Council in relation to the meeting.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, since I placed before the House last night the Motion which is on the Order Paper in my name I understand that a statement has been made in another place, and that the Prime Minister has announced that certain information and Papers will be laid to-night and will be available for the use of Parliament to-morrow morning. It is always difficult to make quite sure by hearsay what Papers are to be laid, and I would, before the noble Viscount answers and tells us precisely what it is intended to lay, mention one or two points on which, so far as information has reached us, we are not at present wholly satisfied. We were told, according to what has passed in the other House of Parliament, that there would be laid on the Table of the House the instructions given to Sir Arthur Paget last December, and also the in-

677
structions given to him on March 14 last; and those instructions we presume to be the instructions which were held to govern the action of the General Officer Commanding on Friday last.
But, my Lords, it was pointed oat in debate here last night by my noble friend Lord Salisbury that Sir Arthur Paget, after receiving these instructions on March 14, paid a visit to London and was in close communication with the War Office. If that was so, we submit that we are entitled to learn what passed between Sir Arthur Paget and the War Office in the interval between receiving those instructions and the action which he took on Friday last. That is a very important question, and I believe it was raised in the other House. It is absolutely necessary that we should know in some form what passed between the General Officer Commanding in Ireland and the Army Council in the middle of last week. I know that it is very difficult to give the gist of a verbal conversation, but unquestionably these Papers will be wholly incomplete unless they contain something of the kind. We were further informed that there would be laid before us Despatches which passed between the General Officer Commanding in Ireland and the Secretary of State for War after the interview on Friday last. I ask the noble Viscount, Will those Despatches give what I have moved for —namely, the report of the General Officer Commanding of the interview; not merely a report that a certain number of officers had resigned or had made this or that difficulty, but a clear statement of what passed at the interview.
Your Lordships will remember that the main difference of opinion, at least as regards facts which we have before us, not as regards our surmises of what has occurred, is with regard to the statement read out on first-hand authority from one of those present at the interview which was questioned by the noble Viscount opposite and also by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. At the time the noble Viscount characterised it as hearsay. I characterise it as first-hand evidence which deserves and requires first-hand refutation. Those two points are the kernel of the whole matter. Are we to have in the Papers a statement of what passed with the General Officer in London on Tuesday or Wednesday or
678
Thursday last, and shall we receive the report, the detailed report, of that interview. It is of importance that we should have this information in order that we may know, not merely in the first instance what instructions Sir Arthur Paget received, but whether those instructions were carried out in the extraordinary and, as we think, provocative manner in which they are held to have been carried out.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for 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 the report of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland to the Army Council in relation to the meeting.—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I promised last night to do my best to get these Papers laid before the House; and, as the noble Viscount has said, we intend to lay on the Table this evening and to have circulated among the members of your Lordships' House to-morrow morning most of the Papers, if not all, that the noble Viscount desires to have. But I must point out, surely he will see, as your Lordships will see, that there is considerable difficulty in one matter that the noble Viscount mentions. He reminded the House that Sir Arthur Paget visited the War Office, and he wants to have a record of what passed orally at that interview. I do not know what view the Secretary of State for War would take of it, but it occurs to me off hand that you are establishing a very dubious precedent if you insist upon the communication to Parliament of individual and strictly confidential communications between two important members of a Department—members so important as the Secretary of State for War and the Commander of the Forces in Ireland. It is a very awkward precedent, and I should have thought it was more than merely awkward; it is a subversion fatal to the successful working of Departments if important members, or unimportant members for that matter, of a Department are to have what passes—their obiter dicta, their conversations—reported and being reported, stiffened and hardened,

679
which may present an impression and an appearance in the Papers not at all like what really happened, not at all the truth, the spirit, and temper of the interview. However, I will make inquiry as to whether the Secretary of State assents to that. I admit that there may be importance in it; but I would beg your Lordships to remember the general objections to this kind of reproduction.
As to letters, there is no mistake about them; but the reproduction of an oral interview is a very different thing. Four of the documents or instruments or records which the noble Viscount seeks will, I think, undoubtedly be presented. As for the report from the General Officer Commanding the Forces in Ireland of the proceedings between him and Brigadier-General Gough and the other officers on Friday, the 20th, there again the same kind of consideration intervenes, but not so forcibly. This point, I believe, is not yet settled—this particular communication —but it is only a matter of a few hours before it will be settled. Personally I fully understand and appreciate the earnestness and the arguments with which the noble Viscount pressed for that communication, and I will do my best to meet his wishes. But, of course, it must be determined by the Department and by general considerations of policy. That being the case, I perhaps might submit to the noble Viscount that it would be more convenient if the discussion which he promises to the House could be deferred until the House has had the advantage of seeing the Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, there is one question I want to ask, which is of particular interest to me, as I have only recently returned from Ulster. I want to know whether the speech delivered by Sir Arthur Paget on Thursday at the Curragh and quoted by Mr. Bonar Law and Lord Midleton yesterday was made by Sir Arthur Paget after consultation with the Army Council and the War Minister, or did he make it on his own initiative That is a very important question, for in that speech there is this most remarkable sentence—
"Sir Arthur Paget said that active operations were to be taken against Ulster, and that he expected the country would be in a blaze by Saturday."
I was in Ulster on Saturday, and there was no doubt grave apprehension. I want
680
to ask on what grounds, or by whose authority, whether his own or that of the Minister for War, Sir Arthur Paget declared that on Saturday Ulster would be in a blaze. If Sir Arthur Paget made that speech by the authority of the War Office and Colonel Seely, then I say that he has been disgracefully treated; he has been thrown over, as he seems to have been yesterday. He has been made the scapegoat; and this is not the first time I have known heads of Departments make a scapegoat of their permanent officials. If this gallant officer has been made a scapegoat, it is a scandal and a disgrace. Therefore I ask what was the meaning of Sir Arthur Paget's expression when he said that Ulster would be in a blaze on Saturday.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I really think that I shall for once have the majority of the House with me in characterising the question of the noble Marquess as really unreasonable in view of the debate that is promised either to-morrow or on some other day. The question of the noble Marquess involves three or four issues which need very careful examination and full statement. I can give him no answer.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: We never get any answers.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I beg pardon. At all events, the noble Marquess must put up with my ineffective answers. I promise that to-morrow, or whenever the debate happens, I shall be ready to say what seems proper to be said on that point.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I earnestly hope that the information, the documentary information, which the noble Viscount promises to give us to-morrow will be full and complete. We do not want to have any more "honest misunderstandings." The noble Viscount suggested that there might be a difficulty in the way of presenting to Parliament accounts of oral communications passing between high officials and officers subordinate to them. Of course, we understand that it is impossible to reproduce and divulge every conversation that takes place between an officer and his superior, but when the oral communications are supplementary to documentary communications, when they qualify those documentary communications, then it is

681
most important that they should not be withheld from our information.
I understood the noble Viscount to indicate that there might be some doubt as to his ability to produce an official account of the interview which took place on Friday last between Sir Arthur Paget and his Brigadiers. I must say it seems to me that full information as to that interview is absolutely essential to the due consideration of this case. For the present the account given by the officers who were present on that occasion holds the field. We have received from them, from more than one of them, a full and circumstantial account of what took place. If that account is challenged, as it has been challenged, if we are to be told that there are misunderstandings, then it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to produce their own official account of what they believe, of what they are satisfied took place on that all-important occasion.
I hope we shall be given without fail full information as to the nature of the final intimation made, after all the previous communications and discussions, by Sir Arthur Paget to the officers under his command. We also want to know the conditions upon which General Gough has accepted reinstatement. We know quite well the reasons that induced him to resign. General Gough is not a man who will recede without sufficient reasons from any position which he has once occupied, and if he has been induced to recede from the position which he occupied two or three days ago we have a right to know what were the inducements offered him to take that course. I notice that the noble and learned Viscount told us last night that General Gough's reinstatement had been unconditional. I do not know quite what was meant by that expression. Does it mean that General Gough was allowed to go back to his post without any conditions being imposed upon him by 'His Majesty's Government? Some interesting items of information bearing on that point are public property, and we should like to know how far they are to be relied upon. In The Times of this morning I read the following passage—
"General Gough left London for Dublin last night. He resumes command of his Brigade, as we understand, with a written assurance from the Government that the troops under his command will not be used to coerce the people of Ulster into acceptance of the Home Rule Bill."
VISCOUNT MORLEY: May I say on that point—the point of the communication with which Brigadier-General Gough went away last night—that that will be among the Papers presented to your Lordships' House. It was a communication from the Army Council to the Brigadier-General.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then we may understand that whatever communications have been made from Army Headquarters to the General Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland, and by the General Commanding-in-Chief to his Brigadiers, will be laid fully before Parliament?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I understood the noble Marquess to refer to what Brigadier-General Gough carried away with him, and I say that communication was from the Army Council to Brigadier-General Gough, and that Paper will be presented to your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Am I to understand that that communication did not pass through the hands of the General Officer Commanding in Ireland?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I think not, though I am not certain.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That strikes one at first sight as a somewhat unusual way of doing business. However, I do not desire to anticipate the discussion which will take place to-morrow evening on these Papers. I merely rose to express my hope that that discussion would take place with absolutely full and complete information vouchsafed to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I beg to give notice that to-morrow evening I will call attention to the Papers which will be laid to-night, and which I understand will be in our hands to-morrow.
Correspondence relating to recent events in the Irish Command: Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of this day) and to be printed. (No. 38.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.