Sitting of 21 October 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
POLICE PENSIONS.
Mr. ALDEN: I beg to present a petition on behalf of 1,002 Metropolitan and City Police members of the Pensioners' Association, and 376 members of the Provincial Association, in which the petitioners ask for a revision of all police pensions granted before August, 1914, on the ground of the depreciation in the value of money and the increase in the cost of living, with a view to bringing pre-war pensions into line with those granted at the present date.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Lancaster, South-East Lancashire (Prestwich Division), in the room of Captain the Hon. Oswald Cawley, killed in action.—[Captain Guest.]
PRISONERS OF WAR AND CIVILIANS (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 20, 1918).
Copy presented of Agreement between the British and German Governments concerning combatant Prisoners of War and Civilians [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN NOTE (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 21, 1918).
Copy presented of Note addressed by the Austro-Hungarian Government to the Governments of all belligerent States [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST) (COSTA RICA).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 85)
398
Warrant, 1918 (Costa Rica), dated 27th August, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BANKRUPTCY.
Copy presented of Thirty-fifth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 119.]
CURRENCY AND FOREIGN EXCHANGES.
Copy presented of First Interim Report of the Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchanges after the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (WAR CONTRIBUTIONS).
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 30th September, 1918, as to Disposal of Gifts from various Colonies and Protectorates as Contributions to the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CORN PRODUCTION ACT, 1917.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland under the Third Schedule of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
INEBRIATES ACT (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Twelfth Report of the Inspector for Scotland under the Inebriates Act for the years 1916 and 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
Copy presented of Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1918–19 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 120.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    HOUSEHOLD FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER.

      COAL.
      Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that under the Coal Rationing Order many persons and institutions have been given the right to a supply of coal for this year exceeding the amount which they have consumed in any of the past two or three years, whilst others have not more than a third or half of what they consumed previously; and if he proposes to issue an Order that in no case is more coal to be allowed this year than was used in previous years by the same household?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Every scheme of allowance which adopts a fixed scale must produce some anomalies. No scale can take account of all exceptional circumstances. The scale of fuel allowances under Clause 6 of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, is a scale of maximum allowances, subject to certain exceptions, and less may be allowed when the facts are ascertained, and it is hoped the public will respond by exercising every economy even where under the Order they could claim a larger supply.

      ASSESSMENTS.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any change has been made in the date from which the allowances and assessments are calculated, as stated in Section 16 of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918; and, if so, will he say what is the amended date?
      Mr. WARDLE: The only variation made was the postponement of the commencement of the period for calculating gas and electricity supplies. The reason for this was that in view of the unavoidable delay in the issue of the Order it would have been unfair to take punitive measures against people who had exceeded their allowance for the first quarter.

      CANDLES AND LAMPS.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that shortly after the publication of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, householders were urged by official statements to use candles, night-lights, and oil-lamps in corridors and landings so as to economise gas and electricity, whereas in a recent statement the use of such substitutes was denounced by the Coal Controller as being unpatriotic; and whether he can state what is the cause of these contradictory views being issued by the Coal Controller to householders?
      Mr. WARDLE: The Controller of Coal Mines has no recollection of having made or issued contradictory statements with regard to the use of substitute fuel and lighting in replacement of coal, gas, and electricity. He has always emphasised the need for the utmost economy in all forms of fuel and lighting.

      COAL SUPPLY TO MINERS.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in certain mining districts it is the custom to allow miners and others working in the mines 1 ton of coal per month at a cheap price; that in many cases this quantity cannot be used by the person supplied, and is often sold at a cheap price; and whether, with a view to saving coal, he proposes to take any action to prevent this waste of coal at the present time?
      Mr. WARDLE: The allowances of coal referred to are comprised within a wages settlement or agreement and cannot be arbitrarily interfered with, but whether an arrangement can be arrived at to divert the surplus (where such exists) to ordinary consumers is being considered.
      Mr. WING: May I ask if it is not a fact that miners have as much difficulty in getting their coal as the people mentioned by the hon. Member in his question?
      Mr. WARDLE: I do not think they are under any exceptional difficulties.

      COAL SUPPLY FORMS.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain coal controllers in London sent out early in August coal supply forms to consumers and that they made allotments of coal at the end of September, which

      401
      quantities were then accepted by the consumers, who since then have received no authority or form to enable coal dealers to supply, and are therefore unable to obtain any coal; and, as over two months have been lost in supplying the consumers, will he say what action he proposes to take in this matter?
      Mr. WARDLE: I am not aware of any considerable number of cases in which the supply of coal to consumers has been delayed through a failure of the local fuel overseer to issue to the merchant the necessary certificate authorising the merchant to supply the quantity of fuel to which the consumer is entitled. What has happened in many cases is that certain consumers have failed to complete and return forms of requisition issued by the local fuel overseer for the purpose of finally determining the quantities of fuel to which the consumer is entitled.
      Mr. GILBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is now the intention of the Coal Controller that all small consumers of one and two hundredweights have to be registered in the same way as large consumers?
      Mr. WARDLE: I should like notice of that question.

    MERCANTILE MARINE.

      PAYMENTS TO PRISONERS.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of individual owners who have replied to the communication addressed to them by the Board of Trade suggesting that they should now consider whether they could make some payment to officers and men taken prisoner by the enemy from their ships, in view of the fact that their earning power is non-existent in internment; also whether he will give information as to the nature of the individual replies received?
      Mr. WARDLE: Sixty-two replies have so far been received from owners, and in fifty-three cases cither full wages, or partial wages, or some other form of ex gratia payment is given.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the officers and men of merchant ships who have been in terned at the Ruhleben camp since the beginning of the. War have remained in captivity owing to His Majesty's Govern-
      402
      ment having necessarily insisted that they should be regarded by the German Government as civilian prisoners; whether His Majesty's Government are aware that the House of Lords have decided that these seafarers are not entitled to pay whilst interned; and whether, in addition to the allowances at present made for the maintenance of the dependants of these prisoners in this country, His Majesty's Government will take steps ensuring that on the release of these prisoners the balance of pay which otherwise they would have earned may be paid to them?
      Mr. WARDLE: I do not think the statement in the first part of the question is correct, as, so far as I am aware, the German Government have not maintained that the Merchant Service officers and seamen at Ruhleben were combatants. I am aware of the decision to which the hon. Member refers in the second part of the question. I do not think it would be reasonable to compel all owners to pay wages during the whole period of internment.
      Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of the wives and children of those men who have been interned, in some cases for over four years, in those cases where the owners do not pay wages; and will the Government take any action in the matter?
      Mr. WARDLE: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of those cases, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

      PENSIONS.
      Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can see his way to reconsider his decision declining to appoint an official committee to consider the possibility of drawing out a scheme of pensions for merchant seamen, in view of the sacrifices which this particular body of men have made for the country during the present War?
      Mr. WARDLE: My right hon. Friend regrets he does not see his way, for reasons which have been given to those interested, to appoint an official committee on this question.

      STANDARD UNIFORM.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade what measures it is proposed to take to ensure that no form of uniform except the standard uniform now

      403
      authorised should be worn by those qualified to wear it, as laid down in the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the question of a national uniform for the Merchant Service?
      Mr. WARDLE: It is an offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations for an unauthorised person to wear the standard uniform prescribed by the Order in Council of 4th. September, 1918. To provide that no uniform except the standard uniform shall be worn by officers of the Merchant Service would require legislation, and it is proposed to introduce legislation on the subject as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will compensation be given to those who have to scrap their old uniforms?
      Mr. PETO: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that an opportunity is likely to occur between now and Christmas?
      Mr. WARDLE: That question must be addressed elsewhere.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
      Mr. WARDLE: I should like notice.

      TORPEDO BADGES.
      Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now decided to issue torpedo badges in a distinct form suitable for officers of the merchant service; and whether officers and men of the Merchant Service will be authorised to wear the same chevrons as are issued to the Navy?
      Mr. WARDLE: Arrangements are being made for the issue of a torpedo badge of a distinctive colour in the case of officers. The question of chevrons is being considered by the Departments concerned, and I hope to be able to inform the hon. Member of the result shortly.
      Mr. HOLT: What is the torpedo badge?
      Mr. WARDLE: I think the torpedo badge is for those who have been torpedoed.
      Mr. HOLT: Are badges to be given to officers whose ships have been torpedoed and not to officers who have succeeded in escaping being torpedoed?
      Mr. PETO: Is it not perfectly clear that unless chevrons are issued to those en-
      404
      gaged for a number of years in the Mercantile Marine the result will be exactly as it was put by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). The badge will be given for unsuccessful defence against enemy attack and not for successful defence?
      Mr. WARDLE: I certainly do not think that is likely to arise.
      HON. MEMBERS: It must!

      MERCHANT SEAMEN'S SOCIETIES.
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made of the extent to which the contributory funds of societies of merchant seamen have been depleted by the payment of claims in respect of seamen killed by the enemy; and whether the Treasury has agreed to recognise such in whole or part as a national burden in respect that the men so killed were engaged on national service?
      Mr. WARDLE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. So far as I am aware, no estimate of the kind referred to has been made, and there has been no decision to contribute to such funds; but the hon. Member will be aware that under the Government War Risks Compensation Scheme pensions are paid to the widows and dependants of merchant officers and seamen who lose their lives through enemy action.

    OMNIBUS SERVICES, DURHAM.
    Colonel WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the inadequacy of the omnibus services running into Bishop Auckland and through the mining villages in and about Durham which includes Bishop Auckland, Raisby Hill, Westerton, Ferryhill, Spennymoor, Durham, and Coxhoe; if he is aware that the workers in the places mentioned are engaged upon work of national importance, and that in many cases they have to walk to and from work; that the wives and children have to walk many miles to the shopping centres in consequence of the inadequate omnibus services; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. WARDLE: The attention of the Controller of Coal Mines has been drawn

    405
    to this matter within the last few days by the Durham Miners' Association, and he is making inquiries.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if it has yet been decided to pay compensation to the dependants of the ten Irish workmen who lost their lives owing to the sinking of the steamship "Fern" by enemy action on 23rd April; and if he is aware that those men wore provided with travelling vouchers by the Dublin Labour Exchange to take up employment with the British Dyes Company, Huddersfield?
    Mr.WARDLE: I am not aware whether any decision has been arrived at, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to supplementary questions on the 8th July, of which I am sending him copies.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say if he has made further inquiries since 8th July as to the way these people are ekeing out their existence?
    Mr. WARDLE: We have received no representations on the subject since 8th July.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      TEA AND SUGAR.
      Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the quantity of tea and sugar in bond at 1st October in the years 1918, 1917, and 1916 respectively?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): It is not considered advisable to publish stocks of food as such information is apt to prove misleading unless anticipated supplies are also taken into account. The stocks of tea have already been published and it may, therefore, be stated that the bonded stocks on 30th September, 1918, were 91,131,000 lbs. as compared with 34,850,000 lbs. on the corresponding date in 1917, and 118,663,000 lbs. in 1916. I am glad to say that the Sugar Commission have accumulated a stock of sugar sufficient to meet the diminished importation which lack of tonnage will entail. This last consideration also applies to stocks of tea.
      Mr. LOUGH: Is not my hon. Friend aware that these figures have been given many months during the year, and does he know of any change that has taken place how to prevent the continuance of the practice?
      Major ASTOR: I understand these figures were given once and misled the public considerably; and, because of the confusion which arose in the public mind it was not thought advisable to repeat them.

      FEEDING-STUFFS (IRELAND.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Food Controller what steps have been taken to secure that Irish agents who supplied feeding-staffs in 1916 should get their fair proportion supplied to them now; and whether, in view of the necessity of supplying stall-feeders and dairy-owners with feeding-stuffs, he will take action in the matter?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): The Department have entered into an arrangement with the Ministry of Food, under which Ireland is to receive, as from 1st June last, 12 per cent. of the total supplies of cattle-feeding cakes and meal available for the United Kingdom. Under this arrangement it was estimated that Ireland would receive during the year commencing 1st June last a total of 72,000 tons of such feeding-stuffs, or an average of about 6,000 tons per month. On the recommendation of this Department, the Ministry of Food have arranged for the distribution among Irish traders of the feeding-stuffs so allocated on the basis of their imports in the year 1916.
      Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as a matter of fact, that principle has been carried out, and that Ireland, during the last four months, has received the amount to which she is entitled?
      Mr. SHORTT: The principle has been carried out, but the amount has not. That point is receiving the present attention of the Department.
      Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the amount actually allocated to Ireland for the past four months—that is what matters?
      Mr. SHORTT: That is not in the question, and I am afraid I have not got it.
      Mr. BOLAND: I will put down another question.
      Mr. FLAVIN: How is it that many traders since last June have been unable to receive 1 cwt. of stuff; and if that be so, how is it that Ireland is not getting her fair proportion of feeding-stuffs?
      Mr. SHORTT: I have already said that that is a matter which has been taken up by the Irish Government.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who has the distribution of it: is it the Food Commission here, or the Department of Agriculture in Ireland?
      General CROFT: Cannot Ireland be put on rations the same as England?

      CHEESE.
      Mr. LOUGHasked the Food Controller whether the same price is fixed for skimmed-milk cheese as for the finer qualities of full-cream cheese; and, if so, on what grounds this course has been adopted?
      Major ASTOR: In the case of cheese, as in that of other commodities, such as tea, it has been found necessary for purposes of administration to pool the supplies received, and to issue them to the consumer at a flat rate irrespective of variation in quality. I may, however, point out that, except in the case of Caerphilly cheese, the quantities of skimmed milk cheese issued to the public at the flat rate have been so small as to be negligible.

      FAT CATTLE (IRELAND).
      Mr. FIELD(by Private Notice) asked the Food Controller whether he has received a wire from the South of Ireland Cattle Trade Association regarding the restrictions of export of fat cattle from Ireland; whether he will reconsider this decision in view of the facts put forward in the interest of consumers and producers?
      Major ASTOR: As I informed the House last Tuesday it has been necessary to restrict the slaughtering of cattle by refusing at the markets many thousands of beasts from English farms, and as the hon. Member for Boston was informed last Thursday, temporary restrictions have been imposed on the shipment of beasts from Ireland so as to place Irish farmers on an equality With the farmers of Great Britain. The Irish Department of Agri-
      408
      culture were approached on this matter a fortnight ago, and I understand that the question of limiting export was fully discussed with the Irish Cattle Dealers' Association. The Food Controller can only express the hope that Irish as well as British farmers will realise that the holding back of cattle at the present time is the only policy which will secure the necessary meat ration for the first four months of next year. With a view to encouraging farmers so to hold back cattle and in order to meet any additional expense incurred in doing so it is proposed to increase somewhat the prices already announced for cattle and sheep. The increases proposed and the periods to which they apply will be announced almost immediately.
      Mr. FIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cattle dealers are entirely opposed to this policy?
      Major ASTOR: I hope, when the Irish cattle dealers hear the policy, that they will not be opposed to it.
      Mr. FIELD: They have heard it, and they disapprove of it. I will put down another question for Thursday.

    MOND NICKEL COMPANY.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether permission was given by the Board of Trade to the Mond Nickel Company to transfer certain shares to enemy subjects resident in Germany during the War; and, if so, who was responsible for granting such permission?
    Mr. WARDLE: No shares in the Mond Nickel Company, Limited, have been transferred to enemy subjects resident in Germany during the War.
    Under a reconstruction agreement entered into before the War, and dated the 24th July, 1914, the Mond Nickel Company, Limited, had agreed to allot fully-paid shares to the shareholders of a previous company of the same name. On the 3rd December, 1914, the company wrote to the Board of Trade asking whether they could register the enemy shareholders of the original company as shareholders of the new company in respect of the shares to which they were entitled under the reconstruction agreement. The Board of Trade authorised such registration on the 8th December,

    409
    1914, and the Public Trustee was notified by the company of the shares registered in the names of enemies on the 18th December, 1914, but no certificates for the shares were sent to the enemy shareholders. All dividends on the shares from the outbreak of War have been paid to the Public Trustee, and in consequence of the policy of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act these shares have been vested in the Public Trustee and sold by him, except in the case of two holdings where a legal difficulty has arisen owing to the shareholders having been reported to be dead, and of one holding which is believed to belong to a British subject-No beneficial interest of any kind has passed or can pass to any enemy subject as a result of the transaction.
    General CROFT: In reply to the last part of my question, will the hon. Gentleman say who was responsible for making these arrangements?
    Mr. WARDLE: My reply says distinctly that the Board of Trade were responsible.

    INDIA.

      ARMY PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state what increase of pay and allowances has been granted to the British and Indian officers and men of the Indian Army?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The following are the particulars referred to:—
      Since the beginning of the War the pay of Indian Infantry officers has been raised, as follows:—

      Subadar Majors by

      Rs.30 per mensem.

      Subadars by

      Rs.20 per mensem.

      Jemadars by

      Rs.10 per mensem.

      Their field service batta has also been permanently increased by Rs.1½ permensem, to which a further temporary addition for the present War has been made of Rs.2 for Jemadars and Rs.3½ for Subadars and Subadar Majors
      The pay of N.C.O's of the Indian Army has been raised as follows:—

      Havildars by

      Rs..2 per mensem.

      Naiks by

      Rs.1 per mensem.

      The field service batta of N.C.O's and men has been permanently increased by Rs.1½ per mensem, to which a further temporary addition has been made for the present War of Rs.1½ for Havildars and Naiks and Rs.2 for men.
      Corresponding increases in pay and field batta have been made for the Indian officers and men of the Cavalry branch.
      As a temporary measure, a bonus of Rs.15 will be given to each recruit on the completion of his training or on his proceeding overseas, whichever happens first. Also to officers and men for every completed six months' service ranging from Rs.60 for Subadars down to Rs.24 for N.C.O's and men.
      Colonel YATE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can say whether any increase is to be given to British officers in the Indan Army? Has he heard how absolutely impossible it is for these officers to live on their pay now in India?
      Mr. MONTAGU: There is an increase, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, in the children's allowances. I am answering a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) later on.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether it has been brought to his notice that the families of officers of the Indian Army whose regiments have been serving out of India have been put to inconvenience owing to the immediate stoppage of the family allotments paid through the India Office on the return of the officer to India and before that officer could make arrangements in India for the remittance of money to his family direct; whether he will consider the question of cancelling the order for the stoppage of the payment of these family allotments directly an officer returns to India and permit them to be continued, if the officer wishes it, till the end of the War; and whether, considering the constant moves and changes that are going on amongst officers in India, it may be possible to permit all officers of the Indian Army, whether serving in or out of India, to have family allotments paid through the India Office so long as hostilities continue?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I hope that the cases of inconvenience mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member are exceptional, as I have endeavoured to secure that officers returning from an Expeditionary Force to duty in India receive notice in time to

      411
      make their own arrangements forthwith for remitting money to their families. I will, however, again draw the Government of India's attention to this matter.
      I cannot undertake to extend to officers of the Indian Army serving in India the special arrangements for making family remittances through the India Office which have been conceded to officers of the Indian Army serving with an Expeditionary Force. It would involve a heavy increase of work in the Accounts Department of the India Office, which hitherto has been discharged by Indian banks and Army agents, and with which the depleted staff of the Department is ill-fitted to deal.
      Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that during the War the cost to officers of servants, housing accommodation, and other expenses has, approximatey, doubled; and whether it is proposed to grant any increase in the pay of officers above the rank of lieutenant to meet the cost of these increased expenses?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Except as regards the proposed extension of children's allowances to officers of the Indian Army, no question of increase of pay drawn in India by officers above the rank of lieutenant is at present under consideration.
      Mr. PETO: May I ask two questions—firstly, whether the right hon. Gentleman will at once take into consideration this question of an increase of pay, to meet the enormously increased cost of living, of officers above the rank of lieutenant; and, secondly, whether he can give me any idea as to when the children's allowances will actually be made available and be paid to the wives of officers who are serving and who have not, so far as I know, received anything whatever?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The children's allowances will be made at once available, and they are to be retrospective in effect. With regard to the other question of the hon. Member, the matter has been under consideration with the Government of India for some time, and they have made no recommendation except in regard to the children's allowances for officers above the rank of lieutenant.
      Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman make fresh representations to the Government of India, in view of the statement made, which he does not deny, in the question on the Paper?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot be understood as admitting my hon. Friend's calculation that the cost of living in India has been doubled. I have no evidence that this is the fact, but I will see that his questions and arguments are conveyed to the Government of India.

      MEDICAL SERVICE (OFFICERS).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a reply from the Government of India regarding the position of officers in the Indian Medical Service; and if he can state what increase of pay has been granted to these officers, so as to ensure an efficient and contented Indian Medical Service?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I regret I am not in a position to announce a decision on this question, regarding which I am in telegraphic correspondence with the Government of India. I am doing all I can to expedite the settlement of what I recognise to be an urgent and important issue, and hope to be in a position to make a statement within a week or two. I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know when a decision has been reached.

      ARMY COMMISSIONS.
      Mr. COTTONasked the Secretary of State for India if he can state how many commissions in His Majesty's Army have been granted up to the present to Indians; whether it is proposed to add to the number, and, if so, when and to what extent; what are the names of the recipients and the class and provinces to which they belong; and what are the conditions as to training which have been decided upon?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the scheme for the grant of King's commissions to Indians which the Government of India announced in July last. The first avenue to such commissions is through distinguished service in the War. I understand that with a view to selection inquiries are being made from the various theatres of war in which Indian troops have been or are being employed, but recommendations have not yet reached me. In other cases the award of commissions will depend on the results of probationary training. The Government of India are engaged in selecting candidates for ten cadetships at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and are nominating probationers for admission to

      413
      the special military college which they have established in India for training for temporary commissions. So far some forty-four probationers have been nominated.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is it not intended that this concession shall be of a wider character than is indicated by the number of forty-four, which would not amount to very much spread over the whole of India?
      Mr. MONTAGU: That only applies to temporary commissions from among those who have not been in the Army. I have not the figures yet about the recommendations from among those who have been in the Army.

      CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for India if he will publish with the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the Committees he has appointed to consider his scheme of Indian reform, giving the terms of reference for each and the members appointed to serve on them?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I am publishing with the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of the two Committees which have been appointed to inquire into questions connected with the franchise and the division of functions between the Government of India and the local Governments, also the terms of reference to each Committee.
      The following is the information referred to:—
      In the Report of the Secretary of State and the Viceroy on Indian Constitutional Reforms, certain matters were left for settlement in detail in the light of the advice to be given by two Committees who were to inquire in India into questions connected with the franchise and the division of functions between the Government of India and the Local Governments; and between the official and popular elements in the Local Governments. The Secretary of State for India has appointed the two Committees, and they will begin their work in India shortly.
      The Members of the Franchise Committee are:—

      The Rt. Hon. Lord Southborough, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O. (Chairman).

      Sir F. G. Sly, K.C.S.I., of the Indian Civil Service.

      Sahibzada Aftab Ahmed Khan, Member of the Council of India.

      414

      Mr. W. M. Hailey, C.S.I., C.I.E., of the Indian Civil Service.

      Mr. Surendranath Banerjee, Member of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General.

      Mr. Malcolm R. Hogg, Member of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General.

      Mr. Srinavasa Shastri, Member of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General.

      The terms of reference to the Committee are as follows:
      I. As regards the Provisional Legislative Councils—

      (1) To advise on franchise and constituencies in each province, with the object of securing as broad a franchise and as representative a Council as present circumstances in each province permit (Report, paragraph 226).

      (2) To devise means of direct election as far as possible (paragraph 226).

      (3) To advise how far representation can be equitably and effectively secured by territorial electorates, or, where circumstances seem to require it in order to secure the adequate representation of minorities, of special interests, or of backward classes, by—

      (i) special or communal electorates, or

      (ii) reserving elective seats for special classes in plural constituencies, or

      (iii) nomination in such measure as the exigencies of fair and adequate representation entail (paragraph 232), or

      (iv.) other expedients, e.g., proportional representation, etc.

      (4) To advise as to the number of nominated official members.

      (5) As a result of (1) to (4), to propose a complete scheme for the size and composition of each Provincial Legislative Council.

      II. As regards the Indian Legislative Assembly—

      (1) To consider the best means of constituting that body in accordance with the recommendations in paragraphs 273 to 275 of the Report without necessarily adhering to the exact numerical strength suggested, and, particularly—

      (2) to advise on the possibility of direct elections, and if such a system is found feasible, to propose franchises and constituencies; otherwise to propose a scheme of indirect election.

      III. As regards the Council of State—

      (1) To advise as to the method of election to that body in accordance with the scheme set forth in paragraph 277, and in particular—

      (2) to consider (a) the material available for the six special constituencies and (b) the provisions necessary for securing that the special Mahomedan and landed members should, as far as possible, be representative of the whole of India.

      IV. In examining the above question the Committee will have regard to the decision of the Government of India as to the areas which are to be the subject of special treatment (paragraph 199).
      The Members of the Committee on the Division of Functions are:

      Mr. R. Feetham, Legal Adviser to the High Commissioner for South Africa (Chairman).

      Mr. H. F. W. Gillman, C.S.I., of the Indian Civil Service.

      Maulvi Rahim Baksh, C.I.E., President of the Council of Regency of Bahawalpur.

      Dr. Tej Bahadur Sapru, Member of the Legislative Council of the Governor's Council.

      Mr. C. H. Setalvad, Bombay.

      Mr. H. L. Stephenson, C.I.E., of the Indian Civil Service.

      Mr. J. P. Thompson, of the Indian Civil Service.

      The terms of reference to the Committee are as follows:

      1. The Committee will be guided by the principles enunciated in paragraphs 212, 213, 238, 239, and 240, and will also take into consideration the illustrative lists contained in Appendix II. of the Report.

      2. With a view to giving the provinces the largest measure of independence, legislative, administrative and financial, of the Government of India which is compatible with the due discharge by the latter of their own responsibilities, the Committee will advise as to—

      (i) the functions which should be discharged by Provincial Governments (paragraph 238);

      (ii) the powers of control which should be retained by the Government of India in relation to provincial subjects, in order to secure the dis-
      416
      charge of their own responsibilities, and the grounds on which and the manner in which these powers should be exercised (paragraphs 213 and 240).

      3. The Committee will further advise as to:

      (i) which of the functions to be discharged by Provincial Governments can be transferred at the outset in each province to the charge of Ministers (paragraph 238);

      (ii) the powers which should be exercised by the Governor-in-Council in relation to transfered subjects, and the grounds on which and the manner in which these powers should be exercised (paragraph 240).

      In that the work of the two Committees is interdependent, arrangements have been made to connect them. The whole inquiry will be conducted under the presidency of Lord Southborough and the two Committees will work under his direction. Lord Southborough will arrange for such joint sessions as seem expedient, and in order to enable him to devote time and attention to the co-ordination of the work of the Committees, it has been arranged that Sir F. Sly should act for him when necessary as Deputy-Chairman of the Franchise Committee
      The Reports of the Committees will be forwarded to the Government of India, who will submit them with their own observations to the Secretary of State.

      PRESS CENSORSHIP.
      Mr. COTTONasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that for several weeks past copies of certain Indian newspapers which have been dispatched by the mail have not reached their addresses in this country; whether this is due to the action of the censorship at Bombay; and whether he will inquire into the matter and issue the necessary instructions, so that newspapers which circulate largely in India itself may also be available for the use of the British public?
      Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member will let me have the names of the newspapers to which his question refers, I will make inquiries.

    PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.

      PRESIDENT WILSON.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the fourteen points stated by President Wilson, on the acceptance of which the German Government is now negotiating with President Wilson for a cessation of hostilities, have been definitely approved by Great Britain or the Allies; if not, whether they will now be formally approved; and, if already approved, whether any extensions or reservations were made?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): It is not desirable at the present moment to discuss the matters raised in this question.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that meetings are contemplated in London protesting against the fourteen points, and is it not well therefore that there should be a declaration from His Majesty's Government as to their policy?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I was not aware of that.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether President Wilson has at all approached this Government with regard to these negotiations?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I ventured to suggest half a moment ago that it is not desirable to discuss this matter now, and I hope that reply of mine will be allowed to stand.
      Mr. HOGGE: May I ask why those of us who have borne the brunt of this War for four years cannot know what the Government, who is responsible to this House, has to say with regard to that point?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I am quite sure that the efforts of my hon. Friend have been of the strenuous character he has suggested—
      Mr. HOGGE: As strenuous as yours, anyhow, and let us be frank about it.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I was not criticising the energy of the hon. Gentleman, nor do I desire to do so; but what I wanted to point out was that it was not expedient in the public interest that the constant communications between the various Allied Governments should always be thrown on the Table of the House in the course of the negotiations to which they apply.
      Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman extend that principle so far as to discourage public discussions in public meetings?
      Mr. BALFOUR: Public discussions in public meetings may or may not be expedient, but I do not see what relation they have to questions asked across the floor of the House.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be assured by the Government that these covert attacks on the policy of President Wilson in the Press will be put a stop to?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Are they not being encouraged by the Government?
      Mr. BALFOUR: That suggestion should not be made. The Government have done nothing—and the hon. Member must know they have done nothing—to justify the insinuation which he has just made.

    RUSSIA.

      M. NABOKOFF (PAYMENTS BY BRITISH GOVERNMENT).
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether M. Nabokoff, the Russian Minister who has been repudiated by the Russian Government, is still being supported with funds supplied by the British Government; if so, on what date was the last payment made to him; how much has been advanced during the last twelve months; whether any conditions as to repayment of the advances have been agreed upon; whether any part of the moneys advanced is designated for Russian officers stranded in this country; and whether he has received any complaints as to the way in which Russian officers receive or are refused grants of money?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The last advance to M. Nabokoff was made on the 18th of this month. The total amount advanced during the last twelve months for the maintenance of the Russian Embassy is £4,230 9s. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the fifth part, I understand that certain moneys have been advanced through M. Nabokoff for Russian officers stranded in this country, but I have no particulars. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

      EASTERN UKRAINE (BOLSHEVIK INFLUENCE).
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the rapid growth of Soviet influence in Eastern Ukraine; and that with German military support failing their enemies the Bolshevist Government is gaining ground in Ukraine, Samara, and Siberia; and whether he can make any statement on the internal position in Russia?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I should be sorry to express any official opinion on the growth of Bolshevik influence, or to make any official statement on the internal position in Russia without more accurate information than it is at present possible for me to obtain.

    TURKEY (BRITISH SUBJECTS' PROPERTY).
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state whether the Government have in hand any funds belonging to the Ottoman Government; if so, what do they amount to; and whether the Government will agree that such moneys shall be utilised for compensating British subjects who have suffered financial losses in consequence of confiscation of or damage to their property by the Turks?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on this subject on 23rd July. The matter has been carefully reconsidered since then, but His Majesty's Government have felt themselves unable to alter the policy then stated.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the reply which was given on 23rd November the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that he would look into the matter, and see whether anything could be done on the lines I suggested, and therefore, apparently, he was of opinion that the suggestion was one that might appeal to the Government?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. and gallant Member's own statement was that he thought the question should be revised, and the subject has been revised, and no ground for alteration of the opinion of the Government has been arrived at.
    Sir F. HALL: Have any steps been taken to make any payments to any of these British subjects who have had their property confiscated and are in a very bad financial position before the expiration of hostilities?
    Mr. BALFOUR: If that question is not covered by the answer I have already given, I would beg the hon. and gallant. Member to put it down on the Paper.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    General COLVINasked the Pensions Minister whether he can see his way to modify Army Order 268 of 1917, Article 11 (1), to enable gratuities to be paid to widows of officers who die of sickness due to active service?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): As I have stated in reply to previous questions on this subjects, the present restriction of the gratuities paid to officers' widows was decided upon after very careful consideration when the Royal Warrant of August last was drafted, and with the strong support of military opinion.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Pensions Minister if he will have the treatment of Mrs. MacDonnell, 11, Golden Lane, investigated; if he is aware that this woman gave five sons to the Army, and that four of them have been killed and the other badly wounded; if he is aware that the only pension received by this woman is 17s. 5d. per week; and if he will see that an adequate pension is paid to her?
    Mr. HODGE: We much regret that we have heard of the death of three sons, and sympathise with the mother in so great a loss. We have no information as to the death of a fourth son. We are making further inquiries into the case and will let the hon. Member know the result. I can assure him of sympathetic consideration.
    Sir F. HALL: But will it be financial consideration?
    Mr. HODGE: That is the intention.
    Mr. WINGasked the Pensions Minister if the principle of alternative pensions extends to widows with or without dependants; and, if so, are such under the same conditions as those granted to men?
    Mr. HODGE: A soldier's widow, who was married before the War or before the soldier's enlistment, may be granted, in lieu of her ordinary pension and children's allowances, an alternative pension of an amount not exceeding two-thirds of the alternative pension which might have been granted to the soldier if he had survived and had been incapable of earning.
    Sir M. BARLOWasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware, in view of the increased standard of comfort of the industrial classes, of the dissatisfaction amongst the fighting troops at the existing scales of payments and allowances to the dependants of those actually fighting and of the rise in prices since last the scales of payments and allowances were fixed; and whether he will now have the matter considered by the Cabinet with a view to increased scales proportionate to the rise in prices?
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Government proposes to review the existing scale of payments and allowances to the wives and families of men in the Navy and The Army in view of the increases granted in all other directions to cover the rising cost of living?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I would refer my hon. Friends to the Government's proposals, which were circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Thursday last.
    Mr. HOLT: Do the Government accept the proposition that there has been an increased standard of comfort amongst the industrial classes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not considered that point, but I think it is a fact.
    Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased cost of living, he will consider the granting to non-commissioned officers and men of the Army, and equivalent ranks in the Navy, who, prior to the declaration of this War, have been discharged on pension, an increase in their pensions, ranging from 25 per cent. in the case of the younger men to 50 per cent. in the case of men over sixty years of age, or who, though under sixty years of age, are incapacitated by illness or infirmity?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt the course suggested.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Pensions Minister said two days ago that they were going to increase them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that fact.
    Mr. HOGGE: But he did.
    The HON. MEMBER (by Pricate Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that no flat rate increase in allowances is yet awarded to wives of any class, and other anomalies in the new scale of allowances, such as prospective instead of retrospective increases, he is now prepared to give the House an early opportunity of discussing the whole question of separation allowances on which the House has never yet been consulted until after they have been determined?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If there is a general desire for such a discussion, I shall be glad to arrange it, and, if the hon. Member will repeat this question on Thursday, I shall give him a definite reply.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
    Sir M. BARLOWasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the delay in obtaining repairs to the artificial limbs of discharged sailors and soldiers; whether, in view of the suffering and hardships entailed, he will consider the advisability of having such limbs standardised; and whether he can state how long it is likely to be before he is able to carry out his promise of issuing a spare limb to each man so that he will be able to substitute one while the other is being mended?
    Mr. HODGE: My attention has been drawn to the delay. A recent Instruction which enables local war pension committees to authorise repairs (locally where possible) without previous reference to the Ministry will, it is hoped, obviate delay in minor cases, and with regard to major repairs and the re-admission of pensioners into limb fitting centres, the increase in the number of beds at fitting centres from 972 in February, 1918, to 2,196 in October, will enable cases to be more expeditiously dealt with. It has not yet been found

    423
    possible to standardise limbs, as no specimen brought to the knowledge of the expert Advisory Council has shown such advantages over any other as to warrant it being made the standard pattern. The promise to issue a spare limb to all cases will, I hope, be carried out within a reasonable period, but clearly the primary fitting of limbs must be the first consideration. It is proposed to supply a light provisional peg-leg of fibre or other prescribed pattern in all cases for use in emergency. This should obviate inconvenience to men until the spare limb can be provided.
    Sir M. BARLOW: In view of the fact that after three years of war it has not been found possible to provide a standardised limb, will the Government consider the question of taking over the manufacture of these limbs, and, with that end in view, appoint a strong Committee to go into the matter?
    Mr. HODGE: May I point out that the Pensions Ministry has not been in existence for three years, and it was only after I became Pensions Minister that this Advisory Committee, consisting of expert surgeons, expert engineers, and expert limb-makers, was constituted, and is at present, and has been for some months, experimenting?
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Pensions Ministry refuse to allow a man, who cannot be fitted with a limb by the Pensions Ministry, to get a limb from an outside source when that outside source can fit him with a limb which enables him to walk; and why do they refuse to pay the cost of that?
    Mr. HODGE: Everything of that kind must be subject to some kind of control. You cannot permit outsiders to say whether a limb is a right kind of limb for a soldier or not.
    Mr. HOGGE: If my right hon. Friend is assured by evidence that these people can produce limbs to enable men to walk, will they consider payment for it, rather than insist that the men shall have a limb from the Pensions Ministry?
    Mr. HODGE: Certainly not. The limb must first be approved by the Advisory Committee of experts.

    DISABLED MEN.

      RE-EMPLOYMENT AFTER WAR,
      Mr. HAZLETONasked the Pensions Minister whether he is taking any steps authoritatively to mobilise employers for the purpose of finding employment for disabled men after the War; and, if so, how does he propose to do it?
      Mr. HODGE: I am taking active steps, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, to secure the re-employment of disabled men. I have circularised all local authorities, inviting them to agree to definite arrangements to give a preference, as far as possible, to disabled men in the local public service, and I have approached the large public corporations connected with tramway undertakings and with water, gas and electricity supply with the same object. In both directions my appeal has met with a ready response. As regards trade and industry at large, certain proposals to provide for the general re-employment of disabled men are under my personal consideration and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and I hope that a definite con-elusion will now be reached very shortly.
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the unsatisfactory character of the arrangements now in existence for finding employment for ex-officers, he will set up, in connection with the local committees, special ex-officers' branches, with executive powers, whore ex-officers and their dependants may be dealt with on the spot on similar lines as are now available for the men?
      Mr. HODGE: I do not agree with the view that the arrangements now in existence for finding employment for ex-officers are unsatisfactory, but they are possibly not so well known as they should be. The functions of the Ministry of Pensions in this matter are carried out in co-operation with, and through the medium of, the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour, which was instituted primarily for this purpose. That Department has a complete organisation of centres throughout the country and a thorough system of transmitting information as to applicants and vacancies. Officers applying to the Ministry of Pensions are put in touch with this organisation, and, furthermore, for some time past

      425
      officers on retiring have been given by the Admiralty or War Office a form to enable them to apply to the nearest local director of the Appointments Department. Ex-officers and their dependants can always obtain information on questions affecting them by referring to the Ministry of Pensions, and I am certainly not in favour of setting up additional local bodies to deal with such questions.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many posts the Ministry of Pensions have found for ex-officers?
      Mr. HODGE: I cannot say, but my hon. Friend can put a question down.
      Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Are any funds provided for the purpose of advertising this new Department and issuing notices to the public; if so, how much?
      Mr. HODGE: That is a question within the usual administrative functions of the Department.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there any pamphlet or guide book issued to inform officers as to what is available for them—what training, treatment, and employment?
      Mr. HODGE: Small booklets are issued containing that information.
      Colonel YATE: Are these provided in the hospitals where the officers are?
      Mr. HOGGE: No!
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Would it not be useful to have these pamphlets together in one book?
      Mr. HODGE: No. If that were the case I do not think they would be read.
      Colonel YATE: Are they provided for the hospitals?

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      INDIAN OFFICERS AND MEN.
      Mr. COTTONasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) if he will state the number of Indian officers and men now held in captivity in Germany; how many have been exchanged or interned in a neutral country; and what are the latest Reports in his possession as to the camps in which they are confined, the nature of the work which they are being compelled to perform, and the character of the treatment which they are receiving?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed by the India Office that there are 2 Indian officers and 513 rank and file at present prisoners of war in German hands, 2 officers and 13 rank and file have been exchanged, and 9 officers, of whom 8 have since been repatriated, and 60 rank and file, of whom 2 have since died and 16 have been repatriated, have been transferred to a neutral country. As regards the last part of the question, I am informed that the great majority of these prisoners have been transferred to Roumania, the remainder being interned in various camps in Germany. On the whole, their treatment appears to be satisfactory.
      Mr. COTTONasked the number of Indian officers and men now held in captivity in Turkey; how many have been exchanged or interned in a neutral country; and what are the latest reports as to the camps in which they are confined, the nature of the work which they are being compelled to perform, and the character of the treatment which they are receiving?
      Mr. HOPE: The number of Indian officers and men prisoners of war in Turkey is 217 and 6,569 respectively, and the number who have been repatriated on grounds of health is 6 and 1,170 respectively. None have been transferred for internment to neutral countries, as there is no agreement in force with the Turkish Government for this purpose. The only recent reports on camps in Turkey are those by the representatives of the Netherlands Minister at Constantinople referred to in my reply of the 17th instant to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, on seven working camps and hospitals in the neighbourhood of Constantinople. Only a few Indians were interned at these places, the greater number being in the working camps on the Bagdad Railway, in the Taurus, and to the south-east of the Taurus. The latter camps are, unfortunately, not within the districts which the representatives of the Netherlands Legation are entitled to visit. I may add that under the exchange of prisoners with Turkey which is fixed for next month, 700 Indians are entitled to be released.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: Would it be competent for any neutral Power to send representatives to the Taurus to visit the camps there and report?
      Mr. HOPE: Up to the present that has been refused, but a further request might be made.
      Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Seeing an exchange has been fixed for next month, will the hon. Gentleman give the date?
      Mr. HOPE: I think it advisable not to give the date.
      Sir J. D. REES: Have any representations been made as to the supply of warm clothing for the Indians now in the uplands of Asia Minor so that they do not suffer in the coming winter?
      Mr. HOPE: Oh, yes; that has not only been ordered but provided, and will, I understand, go out at the first opportunity.
      Mr. COTTON: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to publish the reports of which he spoke in reply to my question?
      Mr. HOPE: There is always a difficulty about these because they are the property of the neutral Government, and publication might hinder the further efforts of the latter.
      Mr. ROCH: Up to what date do the figures apply as to prisoners in Turkey?
      Mr. HOPE: I cannot say that offhand, but I think it is up to quite recently.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: When will be the first opportunity of sending this clothing?
      Mr. HOPE: When the repatriation ship sails from Alexandria.
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: When will that be?
      Mr. HOPE: I have just said that it is undesirable to give the date.

      GERMANY, AUSTRIA, AND TURKEY.
      Mr. ALDENasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether he will state the number of British prisoners now in the hands of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey, respectively; what attempts are being made to alleviate the sufferings of these men, apart from the threat of reprisals on the part of the British Government; and what action Bulgaria has taken with regard to our prisoners?
      Mr. HOPE: I am informed that the number of British officers (including officers of the Dominion Forces and the Royal Navy) now in captivity in Germany
      428
      is 5,362, and of other ranks 142,987. In addition to these there are two Indian officers and 513 other ranks. In Austria there are twenty-eight officers and 242 other ranks. In Turkey 430 British officers and 217 Indian officers, and 2,381 British other ranks, and 6,569 Indian other ranks.
      With regard to the second part of the question, it is of course impossible within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question to give particulars of the steps which are being taken every day by a number of agencies for the alleviation of the sufferings of these men, but if my hon. Friend will communicate with me I shall be glad to give him all the information in my possession.
      As regards the last part of the question, our Armistice with Bulgaria provides for the handing over of all prisoners of war, and the General Officer in Command at Salonika has been asked to send early information on this subject.
      General CROFTasked the Prime Minister if he can now state whether an early date can be granted to discuss the whole question of British prisoners of war in Germany?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: If there is a general desire for this discussion, I shall be glad to arrange for it. If the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question on Thursday, I hope to be in a position to give him a definite reply.

      RUHLEBEN (EXCHANGE OF CIVILIANS).
      Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the Government will make any further proposals to the German Government with regard to the exchange of civilians interned at Ruhleben?
      Mr. HOPE: We have recently made a proposal which covers the merchant officers and seamen over the age of forty-five. Otherwise the repatriation of these men is dependent on the ratification of the Hague Agreement by the German Government.

      LORD HALDANE.
      General CROFTasked whether it is the fact that escaped or exchanged prisoners of war have been at any time subjected to examination by Lord Haldane?
      Mr. HOPE: As far as I am aware, the answer is in the negative.
      General CROFT: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he has no knowledge that Lord Haldane has examined these prisoners?
      Mr. HOPE: Neither I nor anyone in the Department has any knowledge of his having done so; in fact, there is every presumption that he never did.
      General CROFT: Is it not a fact that Lord Haldane has been to the War Office for this specific purpose? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]

      REPRISALS.
      General CROFTasked whether, in the event of further brutality against British prisoners, the Government will take instant measures of reprisals and not wait for the expiration of one month's notice?
      Sir F. HALLasked if the arrangements made by the Government's representatives on behalf of British prisoners of war are such as make it necessary for four weeks' notice to be given before steps can be taken to prevent their ill-treatment, will the Government, having regard to the need for action, supplement their last Note by intimating that, unless the abuses complained of are immediately redressed, that fact will be taken into consideration at the expiration of the period of grace?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The communication sent to the German Government requires them to redress the grievances complained of forthwith, and if after the receipt of this communication the German Government should sanction further brutalities to British prisoners their action would (I think) amount to a deliberate rejection of our demand, and His Majesty's Government would be entitled to take action on the notice at once.
      I take this opportunity of saying that the stipulation requiring four weeks' notice before any reprisals are taken is contained, not (as assumed in some quarters) in the Hague Convention of 1899, which has been frequently violated by Germany, but in the Agreement of 1917, to which the same observation does not apply. I am informed that the stipulation was originally intended as a safeguard against sudden reprisals on British
      430
      prisoners, and has in several instances served as a protection to them against such reprisals; and His Majesty's Government did not feel that it would be justifiable in itself or in the interest of our prisoners in Germany to depart from their signed agreement in this respect.
      General CROFT: May the House take it that if a single further case comes to the notice of the Government of the ill-treatment of these prisoners punitive measures will be taken immediately, notwithstanding any notice of the period such as was given?
      Sir G. CAVE: I cannot answer a universal question of that kind. Certainly if we find evidence of the nature which I have described in my answer, I should at once ask my colleagues to consider the matter, and take proper action.
      Sir F. HALL: Is this four weeks' business once and for all, or is this feeble farce to be gone through on subsequent occasions?
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means. There is no farce at all. Notice to that effect has been fully stated, and if the German Government do not take certain steps within this time, we will take such reprisals as we think fit. There is no need to give any further notice of any kind.
      Sir F. HALL: That is all right.

    GALLIPOLI MEDAL.
    Sir M. BARLOWasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet have now been able to reconsider the question of the Gallipoli medal or decoration promised to the Australian and New Zealand troops; whether the Memorandum signed by over 100 Members of Parliament asking that the Navy and British troops, who behaved with such heroism in Gallipoli, should receive equal recognition has been placed before the Cabinet; and, if so, what is their decision?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South-West Manchester on Thursday last.
    Sir M. BARLOW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a certain number of the Australians have expressed their

    431
    unwillingness to accept any decoration of the kind unless it is also awarded to the gallant 29th and other famous regiments?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have carefully considered this very difficult problem, and have made definite proposals, which I think will be satisfactory. As I mentioned before, these proposals have been submitted for the concurrence of the Dominion Governments, and as soon as we hear from them I shall make a statement.
    Colonel McCALMONT: Have the War Cabinet borne in mind the necessity for not putting these men who have served continuously on one front or the other in a worse position than those who have served on two fronts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That was most carefully considered. The whole matter was gone into by a Committee, and I believe that the House of Commons will approve of our proposals when they see them.

    ECONOMIC POLICY AFTER WAR.
    Colonel YATEasked when the statement on the economic policy after the War will be made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham on Thursday last.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is not not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman then stated that he would be able to make some announcement this week, and is he now in a position to make that announcement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This week does not end to-day.
    Mr. PRINGLE: When is it to be done?

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked whether the War Cabinet, in discussing the setting up of the reforming machinery necessary to prepare the foundations of a League of Nations, have decided that it shall apply to Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked what action the Government intend to take to prevent enemy aliens now interned in this country remaining here after the signing of peace?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter has been carefully considered by a Commtitee. It is undesirable to enter into any discussion of the matter at present, but I can assure the hon. Member that the Government is ready with its proposals, which will be introduced in good time.
    Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who constitute the Committee and whether the Report will be made public?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather not say about publishing the Report, and I do not remember the names at present.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it a fact that the First Commissioner of Works is the chairman of the Committee?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In considering this question of sending Germans back to their own country will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that a very considerable number of German wives of interned Germans here have already been sent back to Germany, and does he not think that it is desirable that the husbands should join their wives?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my answer covers that point. The matter is being carefully considered, but I do not think that this is the proper time for discussing the details.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether the oath of allegiance recently instituted for Civil servants is not required of persons temporarily employed in Government Departments; and, if so, why it is considered desirable to exempt persons temporarily employed in time of war, often on very confidential duties, from an oath which has been decided to be advisable in the case of pensionable permanent Civil servants?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I stated in answer to a question by my right hon. Friend on the 22nd July last, the Govern-

    433
    ment decided to apply the oath of allegiance to established Civil servants in Government offices. This is being done, and it is not considered desirable further to extend it.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean temporary or permanent employes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As my right hon. Friend suggests in his question there is no logical difference, but there is a great practical difference. Men have been temporarily employed in Government Departments who are citizens of Allied states and it is obvious that it cannot be applied to them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Government considered the question of the reimposition of the oath against transubstantiation?

    COST OF LIVING (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the Report of the Committee on the Cost of Living, and the date when the Committee was appointed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to receive the Report in the course of the week. The Committee was appointed on the 21st March last.

    MUNITIONS.

      EXPLOSIONS (COMPENSATION).
      Mr. CROOKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the number of workmen who have lost their lives in explosions in munition works; that the maximum amount of compensation payable is £300; that where the widow is left with a large family of young children this sum is soon exhausted; and whether he will consider the possibility of dealing with the dependants of men who have lost their lives in this way in the same manner as the dependants of soldiers and sailors who have been killed in the War?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of the exact number, but this information is, I have no doubt, on record in the Ministry of Munitions. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to adopt the course suggested in the question, conditions of service in
      434
      munition factories and in the Army and Navy being wholly dissimilar, more particularly in respect of wages and discipline.

    BANK AMALGAMATIONS.

      SCHEMES OF PURCHASE.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can, state particulars of the amalgamation of banks within the past six months, giving, approximately, the amount of capital so involved; whether the Government have introduced safeguards to prevent a money trust being formed to the disadvantage of the trading community; and whether it is intended to allow such amalgamations to be formed until nearly all the smaller banking concerns are absorbed?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The following schemes of amalgamation or purchase have been agreed to:

      1. Lloyds, with the Capital and Counties, National Bank of Scotland, and London River Plate. The paid-up capital of the banks concerned amounted to over £9,000,000.

      2. London City and Midland and London Joint Stock. Capital over £8,000,000

      3. Barclays and the London Provincial and South Western. Capital nearly £7,000,000.

      The Government have introduced the desired safeguards, on lines recommended by the Colwyn Committee, by appointing a special Advisory Committee to consider all schemes before they take effect. I feel sure that the Committee may be relied upon to consider very carefully any future proposal for an amalgamation or purchase scheme before recommending His Majesty's Government to approve it.
      Mr. FIELD: Are we to understand that no amalgamations are passed definitely until the Government have considered all the facts?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I have stated so before. This Advisory Committee will consider all such proposals.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the names of this new Advisory Committee who are investigating schemes for bank amalgamations?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I mentioned them before. I think I remember them, but I would rather not charge my memory They were mentioned in the House.
      Mr. TERRELL: Are they the same as the original Committee which advised upon the subject?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member will wait, I will send them to him, or, if he will look up my previous reply, he will see them.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Admiralty is still the responsible Department in regard to the large investment which was made in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company prior to the War; and, in view of the fact that no statement has been made since 1914 as to the progress of the undertaking, whether he can cause one to be made now?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The interests of the Government in the undertaking are represented by the two ex-officio directors nominated respectively by the Admiralty and the Treasury. Accounts of the company's progress are given in their annual reports and in the speeches of the chairman to the shareholders, which have been published from time to time in ordinary course.
    Commander BELLAIRS: My right hon. Friend refers me to the report of a private company. Will he not imitate the report of the two Suez Canal Directors and call for a report from these two directors, seeing the large sum of money involved?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider whether it is desirable.

    ROYAL NAVY (PRIZE MONEY).
    Sir M. BARLOWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the question of the distribution of prize money is one that arouses interest throughout all ratings of the Fleet; and whether he can now state what arrangements have been made for paying out such prize money as has already accumulated and how soon the first payment will be made?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The tribunal set up by the Naval Prize Act, 1918, is now at work. It has already been stated to the House
    436
    that, in consequence of the system of distribution to the Fleet as a whole engaged in the sea operations of the War—as against the old system of distribution to the captors in each case—no distribution can take place until after the close of the War.

    OCCUPATION OF OSTEND.

      GERMAN WAR VESSELS (ESCAPE).
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state how many German destroyers escaped from Ostend; and in view of the circumstance that it was well known that they would have to make good their escape, whether the Admiralty are satisfied that everything was done to prevent it?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty has good reason to believe that all the German destroyers and torpedo boats which were based at Ostend and Zeebrugge have escaped to German ports. The precise number is not known. It was realised that sooner or later the evacuation of the ports would force these vessels to endeavour to escape, and every possible step was taken to intercept them. Seeing, however, that the passage from the Flanders ports to the German bases could be made in the dark hours, and that Dutch territorial waters could be made use of, there could be no certainty that any measures which were practicable would prove efficacious.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to these destroyers having escaped up the Scheldt?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not.

    SALT EXPORT (PROHIBITION).
    Mr. BRUNNER(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the export of salt is prohibited; whether this prohibition involves the stoppage of half the salt trade of the United Kingdom, the loss of £700,000 in exports, and the dismissal of approximately 2,500 employés; and whether the President will state the reasons for this prohibition?
    Mr. WARDLE: The exportation of salt to all destinations has been prohibited

    437
    except under licence, in view of the possibility that the coal supplied to salt works may have to be reduced substantially, and that the output of salt may be reduced correspondingly. In view of this situation it has been felt neccesary to control exportation in order to secure the maintenance of adequate supplies for domestic consumption and in order to ensure that our Dominions and Colonies shall secure a preferential share of the reduced quantities available for export. There is no intention of stopping the exportation of salt, but only of restricting it to some extent and of regulating its flow.
    Mr. BRUNNER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether other trades are to be affected this way?
    Mr. WARDLE: That will depend entirely upon the coal supply. I believe that other trades will be affected if the shortage continues.

    Public Parks (Closing Hours).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the First Commissioner of Works why the Green Park should be closed early in the summer months from the point of view of public decency, when in the case of the neighbouring Hyde Park no such necessity exists; and upon whose complaints the former park is closed so early in the height of summer?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): If the interests of public morality were the sole consideration it would certainly be of advantage to close Hyde Park at 10 p.m. The convenience of the public has, however, to be considered, as there is a considerable flow of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic between north and south up to a late hour in Hyde Park. No such hardship is caused by closing the Green Park at 10 p.m. in summer and 9 p.m. in winter. These hours have been long in force, and I see no reason to change them.

    NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Rhys Williams, Baronet, K.C., D.S.O., for the County of Oxford (Northern or Banbury Division).
    Captain Charles Talbot Foxcroft, for the Borough of Bath.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister when he intends to take the Second Beading of the Special Commission (Belfast Prison) Bill; why it is not yet circulated; and whether he intends to pass this Session the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This question was answered by my statement about business on Thursday.
  Mr. KING: Did that statement cover the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill?
  Mr. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill has been upon the Order Paper several times, it has not yet been printed, and that we cannot get copies of it from the Vote Office. In view of this fact is it proposed to take the Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend thinks that it has been printed, but at all events it is upon the Order Paper, and we hope to take it.
  Mr. DILLON: I have just been to the Vote Office, and cannot get it.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I think I owe the House some apology for the fact that copies of this Bill, the Second Reading of which I now rise to move, were not available in the Vote Office before last Saturday. Owing to alterations of drafting which were found necessary at the last moment, there were certain delays in printing, but I can assure hon. Members who have not had an opportunity of studying the text of the Bill that in all its main parts it has been correctly summarised in the White Paper issued on 8th August. In these circumstances, I hope the House will
  472
  pardon the short interval which has elapsed between the publication of the Bill and the Second Reading Debate.
  Everyone who has the interests of national education at heart will welcome the determination of the Government to provide a generous scheme of pensions for teachers in Grant-aided schools. We have, of course, a system of superannuation allowances for teachers in our elementary schools, supplemented in their case by an annuity formed out of their own contributions; but this provision of pensions for elementary teachers is altogether too meagre to meet the requirements of the case. It is notorious that it has become increasingly difficult to find recruits for teaching work in our elementary schools, and if the Education Act which has recently been placed upon the Statute Book is to be effectively worked, it is clear that something should be done, and done promptly, to render the position of the teacher in an elementary school in this country more attractive than it has hitherto been. When I inform the House that a male assistant certificated teacher in an elementary school becomes entitled, after 'forty years' service, and at the age of sixty-five, to a pension which will amount in the year 1930 to a sum equal to about 30s. a week, and that the female certificated teacher who has served for the same period of forty years and has retired at the age of sixty-five will become entitled at the same date to a pension of about £1 a week, it is quite clear that the inducements in respect of pensions are not altogether brilliant. I suggest that if the State accepts the principle of granting pensions to teachers it should grant adequate pensions. It should grant pensions which would enable the teachers to retire before the age of sixty-five, and it should grant pensions upon such a scale as to give the teachers that sense of elasticity and freedom from care which is essential to the proper discharge of their duties.
  4.0 P.M.
  I have spoken of the pensions granted to elementary teachers, and I have urged that they are insufficient. If we turn our eyes from the elementary schools to the secondary schools of this country, and there are something like 1,050 secondary schools in receipt of Government Grants, we shall find the situation even worse. The salaries in the secondary schools, as I have already pointed out to the House, are altogether upon too low a scale. Although it is true that the liberal Grant

  473
  to secondary schools made in 1917 have enabled improvements to be adopted, still the salaries are not yet adequate to attract the kind of ability and quality which it is desirable to attract to this form of service. The lowness of salary is not the only disability under which the secondary schools suffer. There is no form of pensions whatever for teachers in secondary schools, although here and there there are local pension schemes. The absence of such systems led to the appointment in 1912 of a Departmental Committee to Report upon the best system by which provision can be made for the superannuation of teachers in secondary and technical schools and institutions, schools of art, colleges and schools for the training of teachers, pupil teacher centres, and other schools and institutions not being universities or university colleges aided by Grants from the Board of Education. This Departmental Committee reported in favour of a system of insurance for full-time teachers in secondary school, resembling the system adopted by the Federation of Universities and supported by contributions from the teachers themselves and from the employers, to be supplemented by assistance from the State in the shape of superannuation and disablement allowances. The Report of this Committee was published, and although widely commented upon at the time, has never been given effect to. The War supervened, and the hopes which had been created by the publication of the Report have not yet been realised. In these circumstances, and in view of the great development of education which we expect to ensue from the recently-passed Education Act, the Government has come to the conclusion that it is essential at the earliest possible moment to bring under one State pension scheme all qualified teachers in aided schools of all kinds below those of university rank.
  Let me say, in the first instance, that the scheme proposed in this Bill is no niggardly scheme. Its generosity has been widely and freely acknowledged by all who have studied the White Paper and who are interested in the welfare of the teaching profession. I think the House will realise that if the pension scheme for teachers is to err it should err on the side of generosity. Teaching is one of those professions which demand the preservation of a buoyant temper and of a fresh outlook under conditions which too often
  474
  make for deadly monotony. Since the State has undertaken to make provision for the teaching profession it is for the State to find some means of relieving those school teachers who have reached that period of life when vitality is lower and when the spirit tending to usefulness is almost gone. Seeing that the salaries of teachers generally are on a modest scale, this affords additional reason why the pension should bear a high ratio to salary. The scheme, generous in its terms, is non-contributory. I gathered from some observations from my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow and Aberdeen University (Sir H. Craik) while the Financial Resolution was being discussed, that he was inclined to prefer a scheme under which contributions should be demanded from the teachers and from their employers. I do not wish in any way to disparage the value of contributory schemes. They have their place in the national system. But a contributory scheme to which the State makes a contribution is open to certain objections, the force of which is increased in direct ratio to the size and complexity of the scheme. If you have a contributory scheme it may be worked by an insurance company, and if it is worked through an insurance company you are at once confronted with the objection that public money is going in dividends to the shareholders of those companies. You are also confronted with the objection that the Minister of Education will be beseiged by different insurance companies pressing on his notice the advantages which they are enabled to offer to their clients. You will be confronted with the objection that the State is subsidising and guaranteeing a private company, and these objections become, of course, seriously aggravated when the sums involved are large.
  If you do not go to the insurance company, and if you compel the teachers and the employers of teachers to make their contributions to the fund, then you are open to another set of objections. Teachers know that such a fund earns a comparatively low rate of interest, and they know that the benefits to be obtained from such a fund compare unfavourably both as to amount, elasticity and variety of options with the benefits which may be obtained from an insurance company. The teacher will say with some reason that if he is to be asked to contribute his money—to make a contribution from his modest

  475
  salary in order to secure provision for his old age—he should at least be allowed to take that money to the quarter in which it will earn the best rate of profit. There is another objection. If you have a fund, then that fund must be subjected to periodical valuation. I have a very great respect for the sombre science of the actuary. But the science of the actuary is not an exact science, and whenever a fund of this kind comes up for revaluation there will always be disputes as to the rate of mortality, and there will also be disputes as to the rate of interest. Again, I say, the larger the operation the more complex it becomes. We have decided that this scheme of superannuation shall be non-contributory, and we have also decided to bring under our scheme qualified teachers in aided schools of all kinds below those of university rank, whether they are certificated or uncertificated, whether they are teachers in special subjects, whether they are teachers in elementary, secondary or technical schools, or in teaching centres, or training colleges, or other aided institutions which are neither universities nor departments of universities under university colleges.
  In the discussion on the Financial Resolution some preliminary objection was taken to what was called the bureaucratic tendency of this Bill. It is apparently bureaucratic to grant a good system of pensions to teachers in State-aided schools, because by so doing you are providing an official inducement to schools which at present stands outside the State system to come to the Board of Education for Grants. I think it was urged also that one of the results of this Bill would be to extinguish enterprise and suppress experiment in a number of public and private schools which are at present working in this direction. I am convinced that all this talk about the bureaucratic tyranny of the Board is a little exaggerated. Of course some people will watch with suspicion any sign of activity on the part of a Government Department and describe it as bureaucratic tyranny. I agree, of course, that any attempt to suppress or regulate the private enterprise that represents the university method or university curriculum, things it is desired to maintain, should be carefully watched and, if necessary, put down. But I remind the House that there is at least as much difference of variety of experiment in the schools which are at present receiving Grants from the Board
  476
  as in the schools which stand outside State aid, and if any hon. Member of this House would study the list of schools at present in receipt of Grants from the Board he would at once realise that it comprises an extraordinary variety of schools. Moreover, as regards the present Bill, I do not see that the determination to grant pensions to teachers in State-aided schools will affect the variety of curriculum in those schools. We have always to remember that our present educational system is administered upon the lines of the Department by the local education authorities. It is probable that one of the effects of the passing of this Bill will be to bring more schools on to the Grant. It may also make it difficult for some schools that do not at present see their way to accept a Grant from the Board to maintain themselves without raising their fees.
  But do not let us exaggerate the influence of these disadvantages, if disadvantages they be. I have had a good deal of experience in advising young men at the Universities as to their future career, and my impression is that when young university men are making up their minds as to the kind of school in which they wish to take up work, they are affected by a large number of considerations of a non-prudential character. The personality of the head master, the social status of the school, its record in scholarships and athletics, the general amenities of its surroundings—all these factors weigh very much more in a young man's mind than the purely prudential factor. But even if we put the prudential factor as high as possible, what is our alternative? It is, I think, quite clear that if the State grants pensions to teachers, it must have some guarantees as to the quality and efficiency of the school in which those teachers exercise their calling. It is difficult to see how the State can grant pensions to teachers in schools run for private profit. Again, it is very difficult to see how the State can grant pensions to teachers in schools which, although they may be subjected to the inspection of the Board, and although they may be reported as efficient, still do not see their way to comply with the conditions which the Board has attached to the receipt of moneys from the State. The secondary school regulations of the Board may be reasonable or unreasonable. I am not concerned to discuss that point here. But although I should like to be in a position to recommend the House to grant pen-

  477
  sions to teachers in any good school in the country, I feel, as a taxpayer and a representative of taxpayers, that such an enlargement of our patronage would be very difficult to justify to the House and to the country.
  Now, let me describe the benefits provided by the Bill. These consist not only of annuities to those who reach the age of sixty, and to those who, after ten years' service, are disabled, but also of lump sums, which are payable to the teacher on retirement, and death annuities, which are payable to his representatives if he dies after five years in the service. Furthermore, there are gratuities for those who become disabled after less than ten years' service, and there is provision for a death gratuity in the case of pensioners who die before they have received, in the form of pension, a lump sum as much as the amount of the average salary from which their pension is calculated. In these respects the benefits are wider than those provided by the existing system of pensions for elementary teachers. The terms upon which these benefits are calculated closely resemble those of the Civil Service pension system. They may be proportioned to salary, and may be assessed on the average salary the teacher receives during the last five years of service. Under the Bill a teacher may receive by way of annual superannuation allowance, as many eightieths of that average salary as the years of his service amount to, and by way of lump sum as many thirtieths of the average salary. The maximum limit of these benefits will be, as in the Civil Service, forty-eightieths of the annual superannuation allowance, and forty-five-thirtieths of the lump sum. Thus, a teacher who has an average salary of £400 a year during the last five years of his teaching service will, upon his retirement at the age of sixty, receive a superannuation allowance of £200 a year, and in addition thereto a single lump sum of £533. The hon. Member (Mr. King), in his speech upon the Financial Resolution, raised a point of very considerable interest. He urged that to defer pensionable rights to the age of sixty, at any rate, in the case of women teachers, is to defer those rights to too late a period in life. He urged that women teachers are often worn out at fifty-five, and that it would be a benefit both for them and for the children in their schools if they were able to receive a pension at the age of fifty-five. I quite agree that many
  478
  women teachers would be the better for a rest at the age of fifty-five, but I am informed that a pension at fifty-five would be only half the amount of a pension at sixty, and it is a pity for the State to grant insufficient pensions. Further, the Board has always encouraged school authorities to grant teachers a grace year during the later period of their teaching life, and although under the Bill no pension can be drawn before the age of sixty, the teacher is entitled to a pension after thirty years of service, so that a woman teacher who feels that she has outlived her interests and her powers can retire at fifty-five with the knowledge that she will be entitled to a full pension at sixty.
  I will pass to another point to which the House will naturally attach very great importance. It is clear that no system of pensions for teachers can be regarded satisfactorily unless it provides for the free passage of teachers from one type of grant-aided school to another, and from grant-aided schools to non-grant-aided schools and vice versâ, and in this respect I think the Bill will satisfy the House. Of course it places no obstacle in the way of migration from one kind of grant-aided school to another. The teacher who has taught in an elementary school will carry his or her interest in life into the secondary school if he or she passes into a secondary school. But the Bill goes further than that. It allows migration from grant-aided schools to schools which are not aided and for re-migration—and, indeed, it allows the teacher the privilege of interrupting his teaching service altogether, though, of course, if a teacher does go out of the teaching profession for a period, that period will be altogether ignored for pension purposes. Here I may take the occasion to explain the difference between what the Bill calls qualifying service and what it calls recognised service. No service in future will be pensioned except that which is rendered in grant-aided schools, with an exception in favour of schools which come upon the Grant list within the next five years. In order to get a pension at all, therefore, a teacher must have rendered ten years' service in a grant-aided school, and that service is described in the Bill as recognised service. He must have rendered a minimum of ten years' recognised service in a grant-aided school. But he must also, if he is to receive a pension in respect of that period of recognised service, have rendered a

  479
  minimum period of thirty years' qualifying service, and thus it is possible to qualify in a non-grant-aided school. A teacher, for instance, who spends thirty years' teaching service in a school outside the State system, and who then spends ten years of recognised service in a school in receipt of a Grant, would be able to qualify for his pension in respect of the thirty years' service in the non-aided school, although he would only have received a pension on the ten years of recognised service.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what happens in the case of a teacher who goes from a rate-aided school to a non-aided school?
  Mr. FISHER: In that case he must, to draw a pension, be in an aided school. These provisions are calculated to secure an object which I am sure the House will regard as one of very great value—that is, mobility within the teaching profession itself—and the provisions of the Bill with respect to existing pension schemes are informed by the same principle. Many of the great urban authorities, such as London, Liverpool, and Manchester, have pension schemes of their own which are no doubt much appreciated by the beneficiaries under them, but which certainly exert a restrictive influence over the movements of teachers. Once under the London pensions scheme, a teacher is naturally unwilling to transfer his service to another authority under which he loses his pension rights. Accordingly we think it desirable that these separate pension schemes should be wound up eventually, and no further schemes of the kind shall be created, and provisions are inserted in the Bill to give effect to this intention. Teachers under these local pensions schemes are, however, given the option either of coming under the Bill or of remaining in those schemes. The Bill institutes only one differentiation between the sexes, and this is a difference in favour of women who leave the profession in consequence of marriage and afterwards return to it. For such teachers it is proposed that twenty years should be substituted for thirty years as the qualifying period. At present the pensions scheme for elementary school teachers is differentiated against women. Their contributions bring them smaller annuities than the contributions of the men, and when a woman breaks down, her disablement is calcu-
  480
  lated upon a rate lower than that of men. In future the benefits of men and women will be proportionate to their salary.
  Many schemes for pensions are framed for the benefit of future beneficiaries, bat this Bill makes provision not only for future entrants to the teaching profession but also for existing teachers, and although service in a Grant-aided school is the only service which in future will be pensionable, it admits as pensionable all the services rendered before the commencement of the Act in a school which though not now on the Grant List comes on the Grant List within five years within the passing of the Act, and it treats existing teachers with exceptional generosity, because it allows them to count for pension service in a school which, though not Grant-aided at the time of the service, become aided before it expires. It further empowers the Board of Education to frame rules under which service rendered in any such schools before the commencement of the Act may, up to a maximum of ten years, be counted, even though those schools are not granted aid within five years. It is not intended, under this section, to make past services in non-aided schools generally pensionable. This special provision is intended to meet hard cases which might otherwise arise in assessing the pensions of existing teachers of the kind for whom the Bill generally is intended to provide. No one can frame a Pensions Bill without being conscious of the great difficulty of distinguishing between pensionable and non-pensionable cases. This is a Bill for the relief of teachers in Grant-aided schools, and it is natural, especially in view of the generous provision that teachers outside the charmed zone, and officials connected with the administration of education, should desire to be included within the scope of the Bill. Representations particularly had been made to me on behalf of officials engaged in local administrative Services of education, and it has been pointed out with some force that if local authorities were to find it difficult to obtain experienced teachers for the work of inspection or the work of administration then the educational system of the country would suffer. This is a Bill for the superannuation of teachers, and I am advised that it would be impossible to bring within the scope of the Bill or within the scope of the Financial Resolution administrative officials not engaged in teaching, in

  481
  respect of their administrative service, and I would remind the House that only to-day my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board published the names of a committee which he has set up to consider a scheme of superannuation for just this class of officials to which I have alluded.
  I feel however that it is most important that inspectors should be drawn from the ranks, of teachers. I think it at any rate desirable in many cases that that course should be pursued, but I would like to remind the House of the steps taken under this Bill to satisfy that very reasonable demand. Under the pension system, which exists at present, no provision is made to meet the case of the man or woman who serves as a teacher and then becomes an inspector of schools. The existing law on the subject is that unless he serves, as a teacher, the whole time necessary to qualify him for a pension under the Superannuation Act, 1893, he cannot obtain a pension in respect of his teaching service. Now I think that it will be generally agreed that it ought not to be necessary that a man, before becoming an inspector, should have served as a teacher for the full time necessary to qualify him for a teachers' pension. You may get many good inspectors who have had ten or fifteen years service as teachers, but, under the system as it exists at present, local authorities cannot offer such men posts as local inspectors without asking them to forgo all pensionable rights which have accrued to them in respect of their teaching service. Now we are proposing in future that it shall be possible for teachers, who have completed ten years' service as teachers, to become inspectors without any loss of pensionable rights which have accrued through their ten years of service in an aided school.
  Mr. COTTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say which Clause in the Bill provides that?
  Mr. FISHER: I am afraid that I have not got the Clause by me at the moment.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does this apply to other officials under local education authorities or to inspectors only?
  Mr. FISHER: To inspectors only. Then, again, there are some persons who are serving as inspectors to local education authorises and have been allowed to reckon their service as pensionable under the name of organising teachers.
  482
  The vested rights of those organising teachers under the Superannuation Act of 1898 will be preserved; and further, teachers who have gained their pensions as teachers before becoming inspectors will now have the pension to which their service as teachers entitles thorn calculated under the terms of this Bill instead of under the less favourable terms of the existing Act. In all these respects I think that the House will recognise that the Bill is amply generous towards those teachers who enter the inspectorate. I have already drawn the attention of the House to the provision in respect to local pension schemes contained in Clause 14 of the Bill. There is perhaps one other Clause which deserves a little explanation. In Clause 12 we make provision for the winding up of the deferred annuity fund. The deferred annuity is granted to teachers in elementary schools under the Act of 1898, and is derived entirely from teachers' contributions. It gives them a pension of a certain amount on a purely actuarial basis at the age of sixty-five. In the past these contributions have been paid into two funds—one for men and one for women—and the Act of 1898 prescribes that tables shall from time to time be constructed showing the benefit that may be paid out of the funds without exposing the fund to any loss. The effect of the present Bill is that teachers who accept the arrangement—and it is anticipated that these teachers will be the the great majority—will cease to make any further contribution to this deferred annuity fund, which will accordingly become modified, and it is proposed that the Treasury shall take over both the assets and liabilities of the fund and pay the teachers the annuity to which they are entitled upon the basis of the present table.
  It may, I imagine, be objected that this proposal is unfavourable to the teachers, and that they would gain, or that they might gain, by some such subsequent valuation of the fund. But that, of course, is a purely speculative opinion. It is really impossible to say whether the proposal is favourable to the teachers or not, because that depends largely on the rate of interest which the fund may be able to earn in the future. This step is taken, not with the idea either of benefiting or prejudicing the teacher. It is taken because it is practically necessary. I am not so sanguine as to suppose that a Pensions

  483
  Bill of this magnitude and complexity will be perfect in all its details, even after it has received all the improvements which the acumen of this House may be able to supply. The casuistry of life is so infinite that it is almost inevitable that unforeseen cases of hardship should occur, and that amendment of detail should be rendered necessary. A few years' experience of the working of the Act is almost certain to reveal a number of minor defects calling for amendment, but making allowance for this contingency, I am confident that the passage of this Bill will achieve three objects of great educational reform. It will promote the unity of the teaching profession. It will improve the quality of the instruction given in the school, and it will secure for the great educational developments which are bound to ensue under the operations of the Education Act an army of men and women teachers who will be attracted to that calling not only by the additional material benefit which the Bill will give them, but still more by the sense that for the first time the State has been giving adequate recognition to the teaching profession.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cost will be?
  Mr. FISHER: We anticipate that in ten years' time the additional cost—that is, the cost over and above the cost of the present pensions scheme, when it has developed in ten years' time—will be about £2,000,000 per annum. The total cost will be about £2,428,000.
  Mr. BOOTH: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, will he make some statement with reference to that last Clause, which does not apply to Ireland or Scotland, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man?
  Mr. FISHER: As the hon. Member is aware, the President of the Board of Education has no jurisdiction over Scotland or Ireland.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I desire to say a few words, and they will be very few, on the Second Reading of the Bill, which has been introduced by the President of the Board of Trade. I say that I shall be brief, for two reasons. One is that I do not wish to do anything that might delay, even by a day or an hour, the passage of this Bill through the House; and, secondly, because it is only within the last
  484
  half-hour that I have had an opportunity of reading the Bill, and of considering its Clauses. It will be at once admitted, as has been stated by the President, that the Bill is one of considerable magnitude, and, at the same time, of some complexity, and I could have wished that those who had drafted the Bill would have been able to draft it in some simpler terms than those in which the Clauses are now worded. But that may be due, perhaps, to my want of legal knowledge; at any rate, it will be admitted that those of us who have only had a few minutes really for consideration of the Bill will not be able to criticise it in any detail, and all I can do is to thank the President very heartily indeed for the clear exposition which he has given to the House of the main provisions of this important measure. I have said that I am very desirous of seeing this Bill placed on the Statute Book at as early a period as possible. I do not know any measure that is more necessary to the interests of education in this country than the measure which has now been brought to our notice, and, speaking on behalf of the very large numbers of teachers in our Grant-aided schools, I desire to thank the Board of Education and the President for having introduced at this time a measure which, in his own words, can only be described as very generous in all its conditions.
  Having said so much, as regards the Bill as it is before us, perhaps I may be allowed to refer very briefly indeed to those parts of the Bill which seem to me to be, perhaps, less satisfactory than the general principle which dictates it. Let me here say just one additional word of thanks to the President for having included in his scheme teachers of special subjects. This is a very important part of the Bill. Personally, not long ago I had the privilege of introducing a deputation of manual training teachers to the President, requesting that some such measure as this might be introduced, and I am very glad to see that teachers of special subjects will, provided that they give their whole time to school work, be included in the scheme. The President has told us that the scheme will apply to 1,050 secondary schools. That, of course, is a very large number, but at the same time, as you will readily admit, it does not include, I will not say an equally large number, but certainly a very large number of important and efficient schools in this country. Certainly, no apology was needed from the President for introducing at the present

  485
  time a Bill of this description, for unless we are able to attract to our elementary schools, and equally to our secondary schools, competent teachers, the Education Act which has already been passed will prove inoperative. I refer therefore to this Bill as the necessary sequel of the Education Act already passed.
  The President referred to some other classes of schools that are not included in this scheme, and he also stated in his concluding words that one of the effects of this Bill would be to unite the teaching profession. I very much wish that the President had taken a wider view of what we understand by the teaching profession. Surely, he would not exclude from the teaching profession teachers who are engaged in schools not receiving Grants from the State. Therefore, as regards this Bill being a measure which will unite the teaching profession by giving to those who are engaged in it the opportunity of obtaining these pensions, I am sure, if he will allow me to say so, he fell into a fault which he had ascribed to others, by somewhat exaggerating his own case. The question whether other classes of teachers can be included in this scheme or not is not one that ought to be dealt with on the Second Beading, and personally I do not want at the present time to say one single word which would indicate that I am not favourable to the Bill, for I am very anxious that it should pass. If it does not do all I want for the general teachers of the country, it gives more than I expected, and I am very glad that all should be given that is given to a very large number of teachers. But an opportunity will be given to us to discuss certain Amendments which may have the effect of enlarging the scope of the Bill, and by so doing will increase its value as a great measure of educational reform.
  I was very pleased to see in to-day's "Times" the matter to which the right hon Gentleman referred, namely, that the President of the Local Government Board has appointed a Committee to consider under what conditions, and whether, pensions can be granted to those who are engaged by the local authorities in various occupations, and, with regard to this Bill, particularly inspectors and directors of education. The fact that such a Committee has been appointed will render unnecessary what has been urged by certain Members, that the Bill should be so far extended. I hope that when we are in
  486
  Committee we shall have an opportunity of expressing more forcibly the desire of large numbers of schools throughout the country that the teachers in those schools may be included. The President was unable at times to avoid saying that pensions would be provided for the teachers of all efficient schools, and that the country required a guarantee that no pensions shall be given to schools which are not efficient. I need hardly say that I am entirely at one with him there. No one would for a moment suggest that pensions should be given to teachers in any school which was not pronounced thoroughly efficient. I have no desire to argue that question at the present time. I would only say that, speaking on Tuesday last, I did state that it was possible that this Bill might have the effect, which I did not desire to see, of bringing all schools under the control of the Board of Education, and of making our educational system more bureaucratic than it has been up to the present. I do not think I was the one who used the phrase "bureaucratic tyranny." At any rate, at the present time, I do not think it would be advisable to go into a discussion which would be better taken on Amendments that may be introduced in Committee, and therefore I shall conclude by giving the Second Reading of the Bill my hearty support.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. COTTON: I am glad to say that I was able to give more time to the consideration of this Bill than the hon. Member for London University, having been fortunate enough to get a copy of it last Saturday morning. Therefore I shall make a few comments, and they shall be very few, after a careful study of this Bill. I make these observations from the point of view of one who has been closely connected with education, and with the administration of education in London, for the past nine years. It has been said that there is no one so ignorant of education as those engaged in its administration. I shall risk that imputation, and I shall venture to put one or two suggestions before the right hon. Gentleman. I should like, first of all, to say that I, in common with the hon. Member for London University, heartily welcome this Bill, and I desire most warmly to congratulate the President of the Board upon its introduction. I was very glad to hear him say that in giving pensions one should err on the side of generosity, and there is no question about it that the scheme is of a most large-minded and liberal

  487
  character. Surely, therefore, that is all the more reason why it should not be unduly restricted in its operation. While the scheme apparently treats all teachers affected on the same footing, yet great inequalities exist. Take, for instance, the case of the poorly paid teachers in small rural schools. Those teachers, however highly qualified, will fare much worse under this scheme than some of the highly paid teachers in urban areas. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, why not meet this by fixing a minimum pension of at least £52 a year? The next point that occurs to me is that of earlier optional retirement period of qualification. Very many are bound to complete their period of qualification before they reach the pensionable age of sixty. I should like to ask the President to consider the suggestion that he should fix the age at fifty-five instead of sixty. What is the good of telling a man or woman, who retires at the age of fifty-five, that he or she is going to get a pension at the age of sixty? It may give the man or woman something to exist for, but after all it does not give them what they want—something in hand—and it is not much consolation to explain to them, "You just go on living for five years, and you will then be all right." I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the additional expense to the State involved by fixing the pensionable age at fifty-five instead of sixty will be more than compensated for by the character and volume of the recruits he will get. The more attractive he makes the profession the better will be the recruitment. That is the great difficulty which all of us who are engaged in the administration of education are finding. We want to do all we can to encourage the volume and the quality of the recruits. Let me now refer to three very important classes who are left un-provided for in this Bill. First of all, there is the question of the teachers who have become inspectors under the Board of Education. In the year 1913 the Board instituted a new class of assistant inspectors, and those who offered themselves for the appointment were required to be certificated teachers of at least eight years' training experience, and below the age of forty-five. The average age of appointment would be about forty. What happened? All the teachers who were so appointed and who had served as certificated teachers for less than half
  488
  the possible period between the date of certification and the date of reaching sixty-five have forfeited their rights under the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme which was then in force. Although I asked the right hon. Gentleman to point out to me the Clause on this important point when he mentioned the subject, he was not able then to do so. There was not, of course, any grievance at that time on the part of those teachers who accepted those appointments under the Board of Education, because they were compensated then by improved status and by a prospect that when they reached the age of sixty they would qualify for a Civil Service pension based on the average value of one-fourth of the final salary.
  The position now is wholly altered. I should like to put a concrete case. A man of forty earning £275 per annum as head teacher, became an assistant inspector at £250 per annum. He did not mind at the time abandoning the extra £25 per annum because he was assured of a retiring allowance of £100 per annum at sixty, and of course as well had the prospect of a higher salary. The school of which that particular man was head master is now, as far as the present head teacher is concerned, graded with the salary of £320 instead of £275—that is to say, if this man instead of becoming an assistant inspector had remained on in his school, he would have £320 instead of £275, and he would be able to retire on a pension of £160. Therefore you will arrive at the strange position that the people who you will send out to inspect the schools will be inferior in financial status and inferior in financial prospects to the teachers upon whose work they report, and you will further find, I venture to suggest, that the next time you try and obtain teachers to accept appointments as assistant inspectors under the Board, you will not get many applications. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that those who he has already obtained as assistant inspectors from the ranks of the teachers have been very good indeed-I think, if I may say so, that everyone who have had experience of their work will agree as to that. The position he is going to create is a very anomalous one. I find on examining the Bill that on page 11 it is stated that the expression "qualifying service" means any employment whether in the capacity of teacher or otherwise which the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Board, may declare to be qualifying service for the

  489
  purpose of calculating the period qualifying for a superannuation allowance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to give us some sort of assurance that the Board will make a recommendation under that definition to meet the case of the teachers who have become inspectors.
  I come now to the case of those teachers who have already retired. The number cannot be large since they retire at the age of sixty-five, and is bound to decrease rapidly. In a number of cases where no local schemes prevail, teachers have retired on pensions of less than £40 per year. The London County Council is endeavouring to help the case of the teachers who are on the point of retiring by extending their engagements until 1st April next. That is the arrangement for London teachers, whose time would normally be terminated before the appointed day. That will only take in a few. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give consideration to the case of these retired teachers. As I have said, their number is small and is bound to decrease rapidly. To exclude them is only to create a feeling of injustice and of irritation. After all, a man may have to retire two days, or five or six days, before the appointed day. Is he to be excluded, and what is going to be the result of exclusion of that kind? I suggest that the new scale ought to apply to all teachers under existing Acts, and I submit further, if you are going to do this thing at all, that it is far better, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, to do it in a large way and so as to leave behind as little feeling of grievance among any section of the teaching profession as possible.
  There is next the case of the supplementary teacher. We have not, I am glad to say, got this problem at all in London, but of course it exists in the country districts and is a very urgent question there. Take a small village school of ninety children under the scale of the Board there is a head master allowed for sixty and an assistant for the other thirty. What happens in practice? It is easy enough to get the head master, but it is not so easy to get the assistant. There for what happens is that the head master has two, or perhaps three, supplementary teachers. With regard to them, the only qualification is that they must be women of respectability and above the age of eighteen. It is no fault of theirs, very often, that they have not got the necessary
  490
  technical qualification. What is their position? They have got absolutely nothing to look forward to, and yet you cannot do without them as things now are in the village schools. They have got absolutely no prospects and must go on working to the day of their death. I do not envy the inspector who has to go round the village schools, and make a report with regard to the retention of a supplementary teacher. He knows that if he makes an adverse report it means practically the workhouse for her, because on the salary she receives it is absolutely impossible for her to put by anything for her old age. It does seem to me that the case of the supplementary teacher is a very hard one indeed, and I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, might have had something to say with regard to them. Why not include all supplementary teachers who are actually at work on the appointed day? There is no question about it that in all schemes of this kind it is very difficult to draw the line, but I do suggest that the classes whose case I have mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman are extremely hard cases and cases that are deserving of consideration. I hope very much, when the Committee stage comes on, that he will find himself in the position to lend his assistance and co-operation to some of the suggestions I have ventured to put forward.
  Sir J. D. REES: I do not pretend to any knowledge of the administration of education such as that possessed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Cotton), who, while he addressed the House, seemed to me to recall with extraordinary exactitude the voice and manner of his honoured and lamented father, once familiar in this House. I rose for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to endeavour to extend the concession he has made, since the deputation of the 11th of October, to other officials who then begged that they might be brought under this scheme. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details of educational technology to know whether or not the concession made to inspectors applies to-directors, secretaries, organisers, or other educational officers under local educational authorities, and as those officers have quite rightly called upon me to represent this matter, and are, I am sure, well fitted to present their case. I will now, on Second Reading, only express the hope

  491
  that the right hon. Gentleman will benevolently deal with an Amendment which, in Committee, will be brought before him on this subject. It seems to me it is very difficult to separate the administrative from the teaching staff. They are a pair of noble brothers whose energies must be combined to bring about the desired result, and I understand that the cost of including them would be extremely small. It is usual when one says, "He does not count the cost," to impute an unrestrained extravagance. I do not impute it to my right hon. Friend, but I do suggest it is very characteristic, if not of himself, of this time of unrestrained and fantastic expenditure, that he should not mention the amount of the expenditure until when he sat down my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) and I got up simultaneously to point out what appeared to us a large omission.
  Mr. FISHER: May I explain that I dealt with the cost on the Financial Resolution, and made a speech on the cost on that occasion?
  Sir J. D. REES: I heard that, but it did seem to me as this was the field day of this Bill, the Second Reading, when all the points of importance were to be dealt with, that the question whether there was money to do what was wanted was a question to be touched upon on this occasion amongst others. It seems somewhat inconsistent in me to be urging that these officers should be included, because that would, I confess, increase—as my information is—by 1 per cent. the cost of this measure. I am 10th to say more, because I have not got up in the character of an expert on this subject. My experience of education has been more subjective than objective in character, though, indeed, I have examined others as much as any Member of this House. It seems to me more natural that the officials on whose behalf I speak should be grouped with the teachers than with the officials of other Departments, such as the tramways, the electric lighting and the parks. I think it necessary to make these remarks because there are those in my own Constituency who will be adversely affected if, when the time comes, the President and the House do not give a favourable hearing to their representations.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I intend to detain the House for a very few minutes, and certainly will not do what my hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) deprecated, delay the Bill by a day, or even an hour. I confess I am indebted chiefly for my own knowledge of the Bill to the very lucid explanation of my right hon. Friend. This Bill is the natural sequel to the great education measure my right hon. Friend carried a short time ago. We are all deeply impressed with the fact that if that measure is to be effective—and we all appreciate its importance to the country—you must, as a necessary consequence of it, raise the status of the teacher, and I am quite prepared to admit that this is a very admirable method of raising the status of the teacher. One point of my right hon. Friend's speech, however, was not quite convincing to me, and it is entirely to deal with that point that I have risen. We are dealing with a very large class of State-aided schools, but there is a class, very much smaller, but still important, of public schools which do not receive Government Grants. I do think it is a defect in this Bill that it does not deal with the teachers in those schools. Of course, I should be the very last person to suggest that these benefits could be conferred on teachers unless the Board of Education had means of satisfying itself absolutely that the schools were effective, and the education given in them all that was required, but I do not think my right hon. Friend put up a convincing case for omitting those teachers. It is obvious that it must place those schools at a very great disadvantage. The teacher in those schools, serving perhaps for a very long number of years becomes entitled to no pension. Some of the richer of these foundations may be able to provide pensions for the teachers themselves, but there are a number of schools doing most admirable educational work as good as, and perhaps even better than, that of the more famous foundations, which are not able to afford any further drain on their resources. They will be seriously handicapped in the competition for teachers.
  No private Member of the House will be able to carry an Amendment to deal with this subject in Committee, because it would raise the cost, but we shall have, I think, to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend to give this matter further consideration before we come to the

  493
  Committee stage, because I think it would be a great thing if he could claim for this Bill that it embraced the whole of the teachers in all the really efficient public schools in the country, even though they are not State-aided schools. I have been connected with the Board of Education, but I have always maintained the view very strongly that it was undesirable that we should follow the example of Germany and really bring all education under the control of the State. I have always felt it was a great thing to have some independent education, and I could not understand my right hon. Friend's argument. I agree with him in so far as he said he was entitled to see the education was effective, but why the fact that a school obtained the Government Grant should be any security to the public I do not understand. What I mean is this—I am not putting that quite right—is it necessary, in order to give the benefit of pensions to teachers in a school, to insist that the school should take other Government money? It does not seem to me a very economical proposition, nor, if I may say so without offence, an entirely logical proposition, and if it is intended (I do not think it is, I think probably my right hon. Friend Trill agree with me that it is desirable to have some free education outside the control of the Education Department), why should you adopt a proceeding that will drive a great many schools into the State-aided ranks? That is a subject to which, I think, nearly every speaker has referred, and I think it is well my right hon. Friend should appreciate that there is a widespread opinion on the subject.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: In the very few words I shall address to the House, I desire to associate myself almost completely with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend in regard to the limitation of the scope of the Bill to State-aided schools. Yon cannot bring into this House a Bill of the importance of this one without regard to the indirect results on education as well as the direct benefit it gives to the very deserving section of the community who will benefit by it. I shall not take up the time of the House by saying what has been said with great force and precision by my right hon. Friend, but I desire to associate myself with his argument, and I would like to say this, that surely the right line to go upon in regard to superannuation
  494
  is to aim at providing superannuation for all the members of the profession rather than for those who are employed here and there in this type of school or that. It is really an endowment from State funds of a great profession, the conditions of whose work are such as not to allow them to obtain that wealth that is open to men of no greater attainments in other walks of intellectual activity. From the point of view of the profession which has special claims on the State, I have no doubt this Bill will be supported and will become law. If that view be taken it will strengthen, I think, the argument we have already heard, to make it extend to persons in that profession in whatever schools they are serving, provided such schools are undeniably efficient by such test as may reasonably be applied. In supporting this Bill we are also making a precedent for a very far-reaching principle of finance, for we are now supporting a measure which proposes to give State superannuation to persons who are locally engaged, in local employ, and to a large extent under the control of local authorities or local boards of governors. If these were times in which we had time and opportunity to think out first principles, this very important first departure might deserve far more close and careful analysis than it has had either in the Debate on the First Reading or the Debate to-night. But in this country, after all, we take most steps forward not from theory or argument in itself, but according to what in practice is necessary, and anyone who has had experience of the great problem of dealing with teachers, their salaries, and their conditions cannot doubt that this Bill is necessary or refrain from thanking my right hon. Friend for bringing it in.
  The other point that has been raised is the point of the administrative services. I quite realise it is impossible within the limits of this Bill to deal with pensions for persons in local administrative services, many of whom, at any rate in the less important positions, are interchangeable between the Education Office of the town or county council and other offices. But I hope my right hon. Friend will make an effort to secure what I respectfully venture to say is not now secured, that no person who has become an administrative official after years of teaching experience shall be in any worse position than if he or she had remained a teacher. It seems to me that would not be incon-

  495
  sistent with the Financial Resolution on which this Bill is based, and it is of the greatest importance to the proper carrying out of education in the various parts of the country that there should be no hindrance to moving people with teaching experience to posts where that experience is of the greatest value. Otherwise it means you cannot ask a teacher to become an inspector because it removes or limits the chances of superannuation, and thereby limits the proper administration of education. You are limiting the field of choice, and putting on such a person a most difficult and invidious choice. Therefore I would urge my right hon. Friend—while leaving the case of administrative officials who have not been teachers where it is now, because however much we wish to remedy it, that cannot be done within the scope of the Bill—to say that those who have been teachers, and are now administrative officials, shall be treated as those who are teachers at the present time; and in future, if a person passes from teaching to administrative posts, the time he or she was a teacher shall count for superannuation purposes, even though it does not fulfil the conditions of the Bill, as would have been the case if the person had remained a teacher until the time of retiring. These are the points I desire to submit to the House as a supporter of the Bill, a strong supporter, who desires it to be as complete as it can be made, and to leave as little as possible to be done in years to come.
  Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSON: There is only one small point that I wish to mention, and I have been asked to raise it on this occasion, because although it is somewhat of a Committee point, it is probable that I could not raise it on the Committee stage. It is with reference to teachers in schools for the mentally defective. The Board of Control have, I believe, approached the Board of Education with the request that the system of superannuation should be made applicable to the teachers in the schools which are certified institutions and supervised by the Board of Control, and also in receipt of Government Grants. I understand that this Bill would not extend pensions to teachers in those particular schools, whereas there is a provision in Clause 16 by which schools that are almost exactly similar, namely, reformatory industrial schools, which are also more or less under private manage-
  496
  ment, but are certified by the Home office and supported by State Grants, will be such as will bring the teachers in the class of recognised service which entitles them to count the years employed in those schools for the purpose of pension. It seems to me that those schools stand precisely in the same position as the certified institutions in which the feeble-minded children are being taught at the present moment, and of course it stands to reason that it is, very important that teachers in those institutions should not be in a worse position than they would be if they stayed in ordinary employment. Therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he can meet this point, to meet it himself between now and the Committee stage because I rather anticipate that it would not be open to us to move an Amendment in this sense.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I should like to support the plea which has been made by several Members of this House in favour of extending the scope of this Bill to other teachers and to members of the administrative staff. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, I think used the phrase "comprehensive" in regard to the Bill. I do not think that that phrase can apply so long as we leave those members of the teaching profession outside the scope of the Bill. I am unable to appreciate why this Bill cannot include the administrative staffs. The administrative staff to the extent of 70 per cent., I believe, are recruited from the teaching profession, and if you do not extend this Bill to them you will inevitably create a divorce between the teaching profession and the administrative staff. You will cease to recruit to the same extent from the teaching profession, and that intimate connection between the two will be lost. I believe that just as much harm will be done to education if there is a divorce from the administrative staff as would be created as if we had a divorce between the administrative staff of the Navy and the Navy itself, or between the administrative staff of the Army and the Army itself.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think my right hon. Friend must be well satisfied with the welcome that this Bill has received at the hands of the House. There are criticisms in detail, it may be, but with the general objects of the Bill there is no inclination to quarrel, and I think the House feels that this money is well spent.

  497
  The teaching profession has always been badly paid, and does not expect the same salaries as can easily be earned by men of equal ability in commercial or other enterprises. Even when this Bill is passed it will still remain a badly paid profession. It has its other attractions, and those attractions have hitherto sufficed for the necessary recruits. But the stream of recruits is obviously failing, and it is really necessary that something of this kind should be done in order to maintain the stream of recruits which we must got in order to have the educated nation we hope to have in the future. So it may not be merely a good investment but absolutely necessary expenditure. That, I think, is understood, and we all hope most heartily that my right hon. Friend will succeed in passing this Bill as rapidly as possible through the House. I also, however, have my doubts on points of detail, and the point which really sums it up in my mind is this: It is quite true that we are going to have a Committee to deal with the cases of the officials who may be regarded as being under the Local Government Board. That has been talked about for a very large number of years, and it has not prevented considerable bodies of officials of different kinds getting their Superannuation Acts independently of a general scheme. When the Committee has worked out all the details of a general scheme, it will be, no doubt, a very expensive and burdensome scheme for the country, and it may well be that it will fall to the days when some regard is paid to economy, and Governments may shy at it, and a considerable interval of time may elapse before the scheme of the Committee, when it is elaborated, is accepted by the country. Therefore, if any class of teachers or officials can be fairly included in this Bill, I think they will not be deterred from pr easing their claims by the prospect of some eventual dealing with their case under conditions which we cannot exactly describe at the present time.
  The point which I think sums up my criticism is this. I am not quite clear that I understood the exact provisions of the Bill. I gave the best attention I could to the very clear speech of my right hon. Friend, but the matter is very technical, and I am not quite certain that I followed him. Still, I think it is clear that no one will get any advantage under this Bill unless, after the passing of this Act, he
  498
  is in recognised service, that is, in the different categories of the teaching profession recognised under the Act, and unless he is for a period prescribed by the rules in recognised service. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to extend his Bill so as to make that provision include both qualifying service and recognised service. I think that might meet both classes of cases which have been put forward to-day. There is the class of those teachers in the non-grant-aided schools. There is a good deal to be said in favour of the case made out by my right hon. Friend. After all, if the State is paying this considerable sum of money it is entitled to the advantages which it will get thereby, and if any non-grant-aided school chooses not to come into the State system, then it must meet the competition of the State system by having some scheme of its own, and it will not be much to the disadvantage of society as a whole, or of the teaching profesion, if the reaction of this Bill forces secondary schools, who sometimes do not pay very adequate salaries to their masters, to raise the scale of salaries which they propose, or the scale of pensions, in order to meet the competition of the State scheme. After all, the State scheme is one by which the State should benefit, and I do not think really that the State is called upon to do more than to allow for ability of transfer between State-aided and non-State-aided schools. If a teacher has done service for the State in a school which comes into the State scheme, I think, if he has given the ten years' service which is the minimum qualifying period, it would be unfair to deprive him of that amount of service which, subject to the other conditions laid down in the Act, might be regarded as pensionable service, even if he were at the conclusion of his service in a school outside the State scheme. That, I think, is about as far as I would wish to go. I do not think the State is bound to regard service in a school which, for reasons of its own, stands outside the State system as service which it need recognise for pension, but I think you might fairly say that a teacher who is qualified in other respects, and has done a minimum of ten years' pensionable service, should not lose the advantage of that service under this scheme. That would be a sort of halfway house, which, if I have made myself clear, I would like to suggest to my right hon. Friend.

  499
  Similarly, in the case of the officials who are engaged in organising, I agree with my right hon. Friend that you could not, in a Bill which grants superannuation to teachers, allow service in organising to count for pension, but I think it is hard for a teacher who has done good work in the teaching profession, and then changes over to the administrative side, and has really done his thirty years' service to the State in connection with the teaching profession, to lose the advantage of the pensionable service which he has performed and which would have reckoned for pension if he had remained in the teaching profession. I understand that the case of the inspector is met because he is an official of the Board of Education. The case of the official of the county council is not met, because he is regarded as under the control of the Local Government Board, and is therefore relegated to be dealt with at some future date. But is it not fair that in such cases he should be able, if he has given his thirty years of recognised qualifying service, to count for pension those years of service—a minimum of ten years in the teaching profession—which would have ranked for pension if he had remained in the teaching profession? I should have thought that my right hon. Friend might have regarded his service in the administrative capacity as part of the qualifying period, and in virtue of that given him the benefit of the years of teaching which he might then be allowed to reckon for purposes of pension. I think individual private Members of Parliament are under some difficulty in this matter. I am not quite certain whether any Amendment to increase the charge of the Bill would he in order. I am clear that we could not under the terms of the Financial Resolution go outside the categories of teachers, but I hope that if we, by reason of Rules of Order, are prevented from moving these Amendments, my right hon. Friend will see his way to put forward Amendments on these lines for himself. I know quite well the difficulty which any Minister has to face who comes forward with a Bill of this kind. We all welcome it, and then we begin to improve it, and we begin to improve it by pressing one point after another, until the Minister perhaps has great difficulty in getting through a Bill, the objects of which we all have at heart. Without pressing the right hon. Gentleman too far—we understand the limits under which
  500
  he labours at the present time, and no doubt he has to secure the assent of the Treasury—I think he might make this Bill rather more satisfactory by some Amendment, and I hope he has not closed his mind against further consideration of this case.
  Mr. FISHER: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to one point in the Bill. He seemed to assume that the inspector of a local education authority in future would not be entitled to count his minimum period of recognised service in the school for pension. That is not so. He will be enabled to count his minimum period of recognised service, and, of course, a fortiori, any longer period as minimum recognised service in a school, even though he passes to the inspectorate. That will apply not only to the inspector engaged by the local education authority, but the inspector engaged by the Board of Education. That does not apply to existing inspectors, but to the future.
  Mr. ROBERTS: How is it possible for that to be the case if it is laid down that, in order to obtain the pension, a man must be of the age of sixty years, and must have been employed for thirty years in recognised or qualifying service, and for not less than the prescribed period after the commencement of the Act in recognised service? Acting as an inspector would surely not be recognised service. If the right hon. Gentleman would say "recognised or qualifying service," I think my point would be met, but I think (1) (c) does rule out the case, so far as I can understand, at the present time. This is purely a Committee point, and I hope my right hon. Friend will look into it.
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: The mere fact that a Bill receives the friendly criticism of a few does not necessarily mean that it is to be accepted in the form in which it is introduced. I wish very much to press upon the Minister the claims of those at least who have had teaching experience and have passed into higher places in connection with a local education authority. I have in my mind several men who occupy highly responsible positions who are now the servants of borough or county councils, and who are to be deprived of their opportunity of sharing in this superannuation because they have passed out of the teaching profession and have become directors in large areas. That would be a great injustice. I am

  501
  given to understand that their inclusion in the Bill, as at present proposed, would only represent an addition of 1 per cent. to the persons benefited. I cannot conceive a Financial Resolution can be so tight in its terms as to prevent the addition of a class which represents only 1 per cent. of those intended to be covered by the Bill. I should like to see the whole of the administrative officers doing educational work included in this Bill, because it seems very unsatisfactory for us to continue to make these differences. A large number of men have given up opportunities of making very much larger incomes because they prefer to be associated with the bringing up of the young in this country. Those men, who have given up opportunities of going into the City and making big incomes, are to be deprived of the benefit of a measure of this sort.
  I hope before the Committee stage is reached at any rate the 1 per cent. will be included, and that, if possible, it will embrace the more important officers wholly giving their time to educational work even though they might not serve any period of their life as teachers. I view somewhat suspiciously the announcement made in the papers this morning of a Committee or Commission to deal with the broader question of pensions for municipal officers. One knows what those Committees and Commissions very often mean, especially in difficult times like the present. There is no reasonable anticipation of such a Commission being able to complete its labour and make a Report to this House which would enable legislation to take place so as to give those servants any opportunity of getting their reward. I am sorry to think that the Bill is drawn so as to exclude those men who are engaged in education but who are not under the Education Department, but under the borough, county, or district council. I hope if the Commission is appointed it will not deter the Government from reconsidering the matter, and, if necessary, amending the Financial Resolution.
  Sir JAMES YOXALL: The turn which this Debate has taken makes it perhaps desirable to point out that the distinction between the teachers, who are under the Board of Education, and the officials of the local education authorities, who are servants of the county council. I myself would be glad if the terms of the Bill and the
  502
  Resolution would permit of the inclusion of those teachers who, ceasing to teach as schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, become inspectors of schools and continue for some time to do teaching work. But when you go on further to suggest that the whole of the administrative staff of a local education authority should be brought under a school teachers' pension system, I think it is desirable to point out that the teachers—as to 100,000 of them, at any rate—are examined, tested, and certificated by the Board of Education, and that the clerks and directors of local education authorities are not; that, more or less, year by year, the work of the teachers done in the schools, whether elementary or secondary, is visited, inspected, tested, and reported upon by agents of the Board of Education, and that the work done by the staff of local education authorities is not; that the teachers are all through their career directly associated with the Board of Education, and more or less throughout their career under the control of the Board of Education, and that these big staffs of the local education authorities are not. Therefore, while I should be very glad to see the scope of this Bill extended as far as possible to cover those teachers who become inspectors and directors of education authorities, I do ask the House to remember that the main purpose of this Bill, and the main justification of it, surely, is to provide a superannuation system for 150,000 people who, as teachers, have all their lives long, from the date of adolescence, been under the control of, the guidance of, the fate of the Board of Education.
  If I may be allowed to bring the Debate back to that sound point from which it seems to me sometimes to go astray, I would ask the House to consider what this means to the education of the country and the teachers of the country. There are many points about this Bill which one would like to see extended. I would like to propose, if I dared, and if I had any chance of success, that the new system should apply to all those teachers who have retired on past conditions. How sore it must be to them to have this better system just outside their reach! After all, what is the justification for this Bill? What is the justification for the spending of this money? Surely it is to obtain what cannot be obtained in any other way in this country—a proper supply of teachers for the future. This I understand to be a business arrangement between the Board

  503
  of Education, representing the Government, and the nation. The Board of Education say to this parent or the other parent, "Give your son or daughter to us as a teacher and we will guarantee on retirement at a certain age that your son or daughter will receive not less than a certain proportion of the salary earned at that date." The Civil Service basis is adopted. I have never known that there is any difficulty whatever in getting entrants for the Civil Service, whether in the lower branch or the higher branch. Applicants for the Civil Service are always numerous enough. They have ceased to be numerous in the teaching profession Here, I understand, is an endeavour to give to the teaching service that attraction which exists with regard to the Civil Service, and, so far as I know the mind of the 150,000 teachers in the country on this matter—and I have taken some pains to discover their mind—they are anxious that this Bill should pass. They would like to see it improved so as to refer to the teachers who have retired, if it can be done, and also improved so as to provide the minimum of service of ex-teachers doing teaching work with the local education authorities, if that can be done. There are other Amendments they would approve if they could be accepted, but they are anxious that this Bill should pass, and they would be ready to accept this Bill without Amendment at all. So far as I understand their mind, it is this, that in the past they felt that the circumstances of their work were so untoward, their stipends so small, their superannuation prospects so limited, if existing at all, they could not themselves recommend to any parent as a wise procedure with regard to the child that that child should enter this profession. Now with this prospect before them, if it be realised, they will see that the teaching profession is become one that is worth while for the young person to enter, and they will endeavour, to the best of their ability, to keep a full supply of entrants.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. BRADY: I only rise for a few moments to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can see his way to extend this Bill to Ireland. In making that suggestion I have the strong support of the Chief Secretary. My hon. Friends and myself who represent the Divisions of Dublin have been very strongly impressed by certain classes of Irish teachers as to the necessity to
  504
  have this Bill extended to include them. I refer to the teachers under the technical education scheme governed by the Agricultural Departments in Ireland. Would it be possible so to modify the Bill in Committee as to embrace these teachers? Perhaps in no part of the United Kingdom is technical education of greater value than in Ireland, and I am bound to say that in most parts of Ireland technical education, I think, is being pursued with a very great success. I do not speak without some personal knowledge of the manner in which this work is carried on in the city and county of Dublin, and I know, from that knowledge, the very valuable work that has been done. I have but glanced at the Bill itself, and therefore cannot say, but I should be glad if it is possible to alter it in Committee so as to embrace Ireland. It may be possible, having regard to the preamble of the Bill, namely:
  "to make provision with respect to the grant of superannuation allowances to teachers, and of gratuities to their legal personal representatives."
  I shall be very much disappointed if the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to take the view I have expressed, and extend the Bill to Ireland.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: I wish in a sentence to express the feeling of Wales in regard to this Bill. There is no portion of the country in which a greater interest is taken in Education than in Wales, and I am glad, therefore, to think that all concerned welcome the Bill, not only on account of the personal benefits that will accrue to those engaged in the teaching profession in Wales, but on account of the higher interests of education, and, therefore, the higher interests of the country. We look upon this Bill as a measure of justice to the teaching profession, also a recognition by the State of the vital importance of teaching in the economy of the State. Very cordially and heartily, therefore, in view of the urgent importance of this matter, do I welcome the Bill, and I propose to give it my support.
  Mr. BIGLAND: The House is placed in rather an awkward dilemma at the present moment. This Bill was not published in time for the local authorities to obtain copies, and send to us, their Members, their views in regard to the matters in question. As a rule that would not have mattered so much, because in Committee

  505
  we would have been able to represent the views of our local education authorities. We hear, however, to-night that practically no Amendment by way of widening, enlarging, or altering the scheme of the Bill will, in Committee, be permissible and, therefore, the criticisms that would otherwise have been directed will be impossible in Committee. I would rather suggest to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should not take the vote in regard to the Second Reading to-night, but postpone it. For this reason. I know local authorities are exceedingly anxious to see the actual wording of this Bill and to send to those of us who represent them here their Amendments. I myself received a deputation last evening from the local Education Committee of Birkenhead. They are most anxious to have a copy of the Bill and to send up for the Committee stage suggestions as to alteration and enlargement. I quite see that touching the financial side that all these Amendments will be ruled by you, Sir, out of order, because they will increase the cost. Therefore, we shall not be able to move the Amendments that we would wish to move.
  On the other hand, I should like to say, as one who has taken the deepest interest in elementary education for many years, that I welcome this Bill from one or two very fundamental standpoints. When I was chairman of the finance committee of the education authority in Birkenhead, ten or fifteen years ago, we were faced with this difficulty: that the salaries provided and the position and status of the; teacher was such that we utterly failed to obtain young men for the profession. In the large towns and in the thickly populated areas young men of ability were always able to obtain more money than they could get by becoming teachers. Therefore, I welcome this Bill because it raises the whole status of the teaching profession, and it provides a future for the teacher which teachers in the past have never enjoyed. Some hon. Members have spoken of the miserable pensions that are now allowed to the teacher after thirty years' service—an amount upon which the teacher is utterly unable to live. At the same time there are difficulties in regard to this Bill. One criticism I should like to make, if I understand the Bill aright—and those of us who only received the Bill to-day find some difficulty in speaking with anything like definite conviction as to whether or not our opinions are right—
  506
  as I understand the Bill the teacher to-day in a public school receiving £300 a year, which school is not a State-aided school, will be to the bad to the extent of £60 a year as compared with his confrere in the State-aided school. I should like to point out to the House that in my opinion the managers and governors of these large schools which receive no State aid at all will be in a very difficult state. I do not think it is right for the Government to put through a Bill which will increase the competition in this way and force the governors of these schools to raise their teachers' salary by £60 on a salary of £300 in order to keep their teachers in their own schools. That is the kind of competition the State, I think, never desired to set up.
  I am not sure that I am right in the conclusion I have come to, but as I read it, on superannuation, a teacher receiving £300 a year who is inside the Bill compared with the teacher receiving £300 a year who is outside the Bill will be £60 per year better; or conversely, the teacher outside the Bill is £60 a year worse off than the man inside the Bill. This, therefore, will create an unfair competition between the school that is State-aided and the school that is not. One speaker has already suggested the widening of this Bill, so that the superannuation should embrace the profession of teaching, apart from whether or not the teacher has served his thirty years in a State-aided school, or in a school outside, recognised by the Board of Education for its ability and reckoned as thoroughly efficient. I do hope that there will not be this unfair competition—this endeavour to draw to the State-aided schools those teachers in our secondary schools that receive no Government Grant—for that must be the effect of it. It must tend to draw every good teacher from the position that he now occupies to get into a position where he will enjoy this very liberal and generous superannuation after his service of thirty years. I sincerely trust my right hon. Friend will consider this point, and see, if I am right, and seeing that no criticism or suggestion in the way of enlarging the scope of the Bill can be introduced in the Committee stage, whether it will not be his sense of his duty to the House to postpone the Second Reading Vote in order that the local authorities all over the country may send to their representatives in this their views and criticisms. These should

  507
  be, and would have been, offered on the Second Reading if this Bill had not been so different to the ordinary, so that nearly all Amendments will be ruled out of order in the Committee stage owing to the financial nature of the Bill.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to the request made by the last speaker to postpone the Second Beading of this Bill. I think the House is generally agreed, not only on the Bill, but on the extreme urgency of passing it into law. For my part, I rise to give the Bill my unqualified support. In a sentence or two I wish to refer to an appeal that has been made to the President by hon. Members in every part of the House to enlarge the scope of the Bill in order to include the teachers and masters in private and public schools that do not receive any State aid. To my mind that is a request addressed to the President that he could not possibly accede to. In view of the large number of appeals that have been made on this question to the Government, I think the problem ought to be examined with a little care, because the proposal is nothing less than that schools over which the Board has no control whatever should receive the same pension rights as the others—schools, too, without any regard to their financial position, and quite apart from their financial needs. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) behind me, whose speeches I always listen to with great interest and profit, suggested that in his plan Harrow School should be included. Is it seriously contended that schools like Harrow, Rugby, Eton, and other public schools, which are in no way controlled by the Government and are in no financial need, should receive the same pension rights? The position of the President would be quite intolerable if the right hon. Gentleman attempted to carry out any such idea.
  Consider further the difficulties. Many of the private schools not controlled by the Board of Education are schools run for private profit. Is it generally contended that the headmaster of a private school who may have been making a considerable personal profit out of the school is to be eligible, whenever he has attained a certain age, for a pension based upon his annual profits? The moment you leave the State schools the whole subject is full of difficulties. Again, many of the public
  508
  schools—my hon. and learned Friend referred to schools of the type of Harrow—are extremely wealthy foundations. The house-masters in these schools receive salaries which in some cases reach £2,000 per annum. These foundations are very wealthy. These schools cater for an extremely wealthy class of the community. They are in no financial need whatever. They are quite able to provide, not only magnificent salaries but pensions for the masters, and is it, therefore, seriously contended that the provisions of this Bill should be extended to any such cases? The appeal having been made, however, from many quarters the right hon. Gentleman will require to examine it with some care. All the same, I say that I hope nothing in my remarks will suggest that I am not wholly sympathetic with those pioneers of education outside the State system. I venture to make one suggestion to the President in connection with this matter in order to remove what I think is an obvious injustice in his present proposals. Take a teacher in a State-aided school who has served twenty or thirty years and a year before becoming eligible for a pension he goes to a non-State-aided school. That teacher loses all pension rights. If for thirty years the teacher has been qualified for a pension I cannot see why that teacher should not receive the pension for his years of service.
  Sir J. YOXALL: He does.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The President says differently. If a teacher leaves a State-aided school before he is eligible for a pension and goes to a non-State-aided school, he loses his pension. I think that is unfair and he should not lose those rights. This concession could be made upon the principle upon which the President has based this Bill. If a teacher begins service in a non-State-aided school the years served there count as years of qualification towards a pension if he leaves that school to go to a State-aided school. I should like to suggest to the President that there should be a minimum pension, and I say this especially in connection with the position of women teachers. I have pleaded in this House again and again for equality of payment as between men and women teachers and the abolition of the sex distinction. This is very relevant to this issue because the pensions for men in rural districts, although they are very small, those for women would be smaller still. In the interests mainly of

  509
  women teachers I think there should be a minimum amount for the pension. I submit these points for the consideration of the President.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to say at the outset that I heartily welcome this Bill, and nothing I shall say, I hope, will delay its progress into law. I think the sooner this Bill gets through the better. Those of us who have fought hard on Pensions Committees, as I have done for over six years, know the difficulty of getting money for this purpose, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the success he has achieved in this respect. With regard to what has been said by those who have been pressing the right hon. Gentleman to extend his Bill to other than State-aided schools, may I point out that the injury done in this respect is obvious. I assume that you desire to encourage schools other than State-aided schools. It is desirable to have strong and hardy schools doing good work outside the limits of those receiving State-aid and Grants. I think that is a most desirable state of affairs. This Bill does a large number of things to injure such schools, and quite unnecessarily injures them. You begin by making it a condition that if these schools come in within five years of the passing of this Bill and receive State aid, then all their masters shall be open to receive pensions, and if they do not come in within that period they will not receive them. That is a direct incentive to leave the independent schools and to come into State-aided schools. Is that sound economically? Certainly not, because you have to pay more for pensions.
  Is it sound educationally? I have my own opinion, and I do not think that educationally it is sound. You will get the glaring anomaly that a man who is in a non-State-aided school, if he transfers to a State-aided school, gets the benefit of the years he has served in that non-State-aided school, but vice, versâ he does not get any benefit at all. On the other hand, a man in a State-aided school for twenty years, if he goes into a non-State-aided school for the last year of his teaching life, gets no benefit. That is a very serious matter for education, and it is obviously so unjust that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will look into this point before the Committee stage arises. The result would undoubtedly be a great hardship upon the teacher and upon the
  510
  schools. I do not, however, put it so much on the ground of the schools, but on the ground of the State generally, because from that point of view it is desirable that these schools should be kept up, and if you take away the good teachers from them or prevent good teachers going to them, then you are doing an injury to education as a whole.
  The service has to be done in a school inspected by the Board of Education, and that would exclude Eton and Winchester, and most of the schools which had been mentioned. It is not likely that an exceptional school like Harrow would take advantage of this proposal, but it applies to all the first-rate schools which are doing such excellent educational work at the present time, and who have got good masters. Undoubtedly, the effect will be to do a considerable injury to a class of school, and on educational grounds that is what we wish to avoid. I have no interest in the matter either one way or the other, financially or otherwise, but I have seen the work these schools do. I have seen the work done in these smaller schools, and it is very good pioneer work. Nevertheless, I would not oppose this Bill on any account, but I do feel that in leaving out the smaller schools, which are doing such good work, you are not acting quite fairly, because the extra expense involved would be very small indeed.
  With regard to this Bill, there are a lot of things which scarcely carry out what appears in the White Paper. We were told that if a man had been doing work in some good inspected school in the country and afterwards came to a State-aided school, the time he had served would be counted in the qualifying period in regard to his pension, but I do not find a word about that in the Bill. According to the definitions given in the Bill, the expression "qualifying service" means
  "any employment, whether in the capacity of a teacher or otherwise, which the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Board, may declare to be qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the period qualifying for a superannuation allowance."
  I raised a point about certain inspectors, and I was told that they were outside the scope of the Bill. The definition I have just quoted defines the qualifying service as "any employment, whether in the capacity of a teacher or otherwise." That would include any persons engaged in the administrative duties of the local education authorities or any other authority you

  511
  like, and even a Cabinet Minister would almost come within that definition. The qualifying service will be in the entire discretion of the Board of Education, subject to Treasury sanction. I know these are all minor questions, but the reason I am raising them is in order that the right hon. Gentleman may look into them in order to see whether the intention he has expressed is carried out by the words of the Bill. There is another point I wish to raise on Clause 1, which provides superannuation to any teacher who
  "(a) has attained the age of sixty years and has either—
  (i) been employed—

  (a) for not less than thirty years in recognised or qualifying service; and

  (b) for not less than ten years, or, if he was employed in recognised service at the commencement of this Act, for not less than the prescribed number of years, in a Grant-aided school."

  That means only what is prescribed there. The prescribed period is not put into the Bill at all; it is left to the Board of Education to say whatever they like. Surely, when dealing with public money, you ought to say clearly and definitely, in the Bill who has the right to the pension, but you have left it entirely to the Board of Education to say what the prescribed period shall be. I also think that Clause 6 should be looked into. You really by this Bill mean to give these people certain right, but in Clause 6 you say
  "Nothing in this Act shall give any person an absolute right to any superannuation allowance or gratuity, and, except as in this Act provided, the decision of the Board on any question which may arise as to, or which may affect, the application of this Act to any person, or the qualification for any superannuation allowance or gratuity, or the amount of any superannuation allowance or gratuity, or on any question which may arise as to the amount of the average salary of any teacher, shall be final."
  It seems to me, if you give a man a pension, that you ought to give it definitely as a right, and that it should not be liable to be taken away or reduced or altered in any way according to the mood of the President of the Board of Education For the time being. The right should be given absolutely. This is an important Bill, very much needed and overdue, and I heartily appreciate it and am deeply grateful for it, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to give consideration to the teachers in schools other than State-aided schools. I also think that the Bill requires a good deal of consideration so far as its drafting
  512
  is concerned. Such things as the qualifying service require to be defined and not left to the discretion of varying Boards of Education from time to time.
  Mr. WATT: I should not be doing my duty as a Scottish Member if I did not join with my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Brady) in protesting against Clause 18, Sub-section (1), which excludes Scotland and Ireland from the benefits of the measure, while the Department at the same time and by the same Clause take power to extend them to other parts of the Realm over which the right hon. Gentleman has no jurisdiction. He has told us by the way of interpolation that he has not put Scotland and Ireland into the Bill because he has no jurisdiction over Scotland and Ireland, but that argument is entirely overruled by the fact that the Department take power to extend the advantages of the Bill to parts of the Realm over which he has no jurisdiction. This is a great scheme and of great advantage to the teaching profession. It extends to them the benefits of State superannuation. Why the teachers in England and Wales should get that great advantage, when it is denied to the teachers in Scotland and Ireland is very difficult to understand. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to tell the Scottish and Irish Members that he had consulted with the Education Ministers for both those parts of the Realm and that they were making their arrangements to bring about a similar result, then there would be no need for my observations at the present time, but he has not done so, and I am therefore driven to the belief that the English and Welsh teachers are to have this great advantage given to them, while it is withheld from the teachers of the nationalities that I have named. Of course, it may be said that the more that is taken from the State at the present time the less there is for the teachers of other nationalities. It stands to reason that so much money having already been given to English and Welsh people there is less for the Scottish and Irish teachers. This is the kind of scheme, however, which should embrace all parts of the Realm, and therefore at this stage along with my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin enter my protest against the exclusion of Scotland and Ireland.
  Mr. KING: The protest to which we have just listened is hardly well timed, because as a matter of fact Scotland has had a very good pension scheme for many

  513
  years, and if any protest is to be made it ought to be made on behalf of England which in many respects is more than four years behind Scotland in education. I so seldom disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Watt) that I trust he will pardon me for having corrected his point of view on this occasion. I feel that we ought to join with the teaching profession and all interested in education in welcoming this Bill which is really magnificent in certain respects, the amount of money which it gives was a few years ago beyond the dreams of avarice, and the fact that the Bill is non-contributory and brings in thousands more teachers than ever came under any pensions scheme before is most admirable. I, for one, cannot adequately express to the President of the Board of Education my gratitude and admiration for this achievement. When I come to consider the form in which the Bill has been brought forward, however, I have something to say. First of all, it is really too bad that the text of the Bill, which I suppose was drafted two or three months ago and was ready in August, was only put into our hands this morning. We know that there are printing and stationery difficulties, but if we had been allowed to see the text of the Bill before to-day we should have much clearer ideas about it, and it would have saved time.
  There are certain points in the Bill which ought to be seriously considered, and I therefore hope that the Committee stage will not be put down for this week, or, if it is, that it will not be before Thursday, and that when it is taken it will be the first Order, so that we may have a really adequate discussion on some of the points that have already been raised. I had already noted the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) and had intended raising it myself. It seems to me that to make the right to the pension dependent upon the autocratic power of the President of the Board of Education without any appeal is really Prussian bureaucracy. It is not liberty, and it is not justice, and I hope the President of the Board of Education will drop that Clause altogether. I do not think that would in any way weaken the Bill or make its working more difficult or more expensive. I referred on the Financial Resolution to the need for modifying the pen-
  514
  sions scheme by giving an alternative to teachers at fifty-five, or even fifty, and the right hon. Gentleman referred to the point in his opening remarks. Elementary school teachers, especially female teachers, ought not to be teaching up to the age of sixty years. The President in his speech used a very remarkable phrase. He said that it was necessary that teachers should maintain buoyant temper and fresh outlook. Does he really imagine that women teachers who have been teaching in elementary schools from twenty to past fifty-five—forty years—can maintain a buoyant temper and fresh outlook? They may be healthy in mind and body, but in most cases, in nine cases out of ten, you cannot expect teachers to go on teaching thirty or forty years and to have that spring, resiliency of mind and buoyancy which will enable them to cope with a class of young children. I therefore most earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to get into touch with the Treasury officials and to see whether some alternative system is not possible by which this difficulty could be met and a pension, possibly a smaller pension, could be given at an earlier age.
  There is another point with regard to bringing in inspectors and administrative officials. I did not quite understand when the right hon. Gentleman just now read out some words whether they were actually in the Bill or were intended as an Amendment, but it is desirable, and he recognised it, to have teachers and inspectors and administrative officials working together and not as separate classes or castes. Men and women ought to be able to pass from teacher to inspector, and from inspector to administrative posts. It is to the advantage of education to have these classes interchangeable, and fitting one into another. I think, therefore, the difficulty of having separate pension schemes for officials and teachers ought to be and could be got over. I cannot quite see why either the Bill, or even the title of the Bill, should be a difficulty in meeting the object we have in view, to give pensions to all those who under an education authority are engaged in giving education in the schools. There may be some things to raise in Committee, and I hope we shall have plenty of time, and that the points that have been raised will be sympathetically treated by the

  515
  President of the Board of Education. The Session is far advanced, and we must have the Bill through in a short time, but there is no reason why, with goodwill and co-operation between the various elements of the House, we should not materially improve the Bill, good though it be.
  Mr. BOOTH: I rise to repeat my request for an explanation of Clause 18. The President of the Board of Education indicated that his jurisdiction did not extend to Scotland or Ireland, and that that is the reason why they are not included in the Bill. I was rather wishing him to say why the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were included. I intend to ask in Committee for a ruling from the Chair with regard to the power of this House to legislate for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The Education Department here is going further than it has ever gone. I do not know whether it has anything whatever to do with the Isle of Man now, but it is connected, I believe, with Jersey, because Jersey adopted a previous Act.
  Sir J. YOXALL: So did the Isle of Man.
  Mr. BOOTH: But Guernsey, I know, did not, and that includes Alderney and Sark, so that, I take it, the purview of the President at present is rather stretched. But I am not at all clear, and we ought to have a definition from the Law Officers of the Crown as to what right we have to legislate for islands which are not represented in this House. I was not allowed to move to extend the Insurance Act to the Isle of Man, although I thought it advisable in the interests of Lancashire societies, and I certainly think that the Chair on that occasion gave a correct ruling, although it was against me. What more right have we to apply this scheme to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands than we had to apply the Insurance Act? The Bill contemplates a contribution from those islands, but there the President is not following out the idea he has been advocating this afternoon with regard to these extra and non-State-aided schools. He has rather been laying down that where schools are not within the State system they cannot come into this pension scheme. If there is any logic in that argument, if these islands are not under our taxation system, why should they have the bonus which it is the apparent design of the Clause to give them? I have not made up my mind on
  516
  the point, and I am not wishing to indicate that I differ from the attitude of the Department. I am putting it rather more in the form of raising the question in order to have it specifically cleared up. But I am not at all sure that this Clause is not going too far. I believe the Home Office claims to have jurisdiction in these matters. I dare say it is more properly a question for the Committee stage. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be quite competent to pilot the Clause through the House, but it seems to me that if we increase the remuneration so much as this Bill does for teachers in the United Kingdom, it would be exceedingly difficult for the Channel Islands to get any teachers at all, and if these pensions are to apply to the teachers of Jersey and not to the teachers of Guernsey, I foresee a deadlock in the educational administration of the Channel Islands. I do not know how that point is to be got over, but undoubtedly the teachers in the Channel Islands will look upon it with a great deal of concern if all the teachers in one island are to have these handsome pensions while the teachers in others are not qualified. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has a good answer. Perhaps it would be better if at this early stage he could tell us exactly what he proposes to do with regard to these unrepresented islands.
  Mr. ACLAND ALLEN: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very generous Bill he has introduced, and particularly on the large number of extra teachers who are brought within its scope, but I should like to emphasise a point which has been brought to his notice with regard to teachers who are at present in schools under the Board of Control. That is really going to be a very serious question. It is true that at present there are not many of these educational institutions under the Board of Control but it is hoped that after the War considerably more work will be done under the Act in question than has been done in the past, and the number of these schools will undoubtedly increase very largely. It will be impossible for these institutions to get certificated teachers if on going into the schools they have to give up their claims to superannuation. I was told only to-day of an institution which quite recently lost its chance of getting a certificated teacher because the certificated teacher was unwilling to give up his chance of a pension.

  517
  Seeing the large number who have been brought under this Bill, it ought to be possible to make some provision for teachers who are at present under the Board of Control. It can be said that these teachers are not in schools which are receiving grants from the Board of Education, but that is not a very sound argument, because at present all teachers in reformatories and industrial schools are within the Teachers' Pension Superannuation Scheme, and they equally are in schools in which there is no Grant from the Board of Education. It seems to me that teachers in these schools under the Board of Control are really practically on all fours, and teachers at present in reformatory and industrial schools which are certified not by the Board of Education, but by the Home Office, and seeing the difficulty that there is in any case in getting teachers to go into these institutions under the Board of Control, and seeing the great increase there will be in these schools as soon as the War is over and local authorities are able to take action under the Mental Deficiency Act, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to these points and will be prepared to give favourable consideration to any Amendment which may be moved in Committee.
  Colonel YATE: I should like to say how disappointed I feel that no pension is obtainable until the age of sixty. Sixty seems to me to be too great an age for a man to remain in charge of a school, and especially of young children. He should be able to get his pension at fifty-five, and I hope the Bill will be altered in this particular. You cannot expect to have much camaraderie or a bond of union between an old man of sixty years of age and a lot of young boys. You want younger and better men. Another question is that of pensions for teachers in schools which do not receive Grants-in-Aid. The question has been referred to in Clause 18 as regards the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but would it not be possible to make some similar provision as regards teachers serving in other than Grant-aided schools? I think a teacher who has served a certain time in a Grant-aided school and has qualified for a pension ought to be eligible to carry it on to a non-aided school if some provision were made for him in that school. The second
  518
  paragraph of Sub-section (2) of Clause 18 could be applied part passu to non-Grant-aided schools. I do not see how it is possible for any school which does not have a Grant to obtain masters unless some provision of that sort is made.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. FISHER: The valuable suggestions which have been made during the Debate will have my very careful consideration before the Committee stage is reached. I rise now to deal with two points only. The first is that raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson) with respect to Clause 6, which provides that nothing in the Act shall give any person any absolute right to any superannuation allowance. This Clause is common form in most pension schemes, and it governs Civil Service pensions. The object is twofold. In the first place, it is desirable that pensions should be forfeited in cases of grave misconduct, and, in the second place, it is desirable that aggrieved pensioners should not be able to take the Government into Court over disputes as to the amount of pension. The other question was raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Brady). He asked whether Ireland was included in the Bill? I have considered this with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and we have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to include Ireland. Ireland and Scotland have their pension systems and they stand outside the orbit of the Board of Education for England and Wales. Jersey and the Isle of Man stand on a somewhat different footing. They have adopted the Superannuation Act of 1898, and are expressly referred to in the Superannuation Act of 1912. I need hardly point out to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) that, in the event of this Act laying any charge on the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man some enactment will have to be passed in the local legislatures. I think everybody is agreed that, at any rate, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands should have an opportunity of enjoying the benefits of this Superannuation Act in view of the very great difficulties which they would otherwise experience in obtaining suitable teaching staffs.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Herbert Fisher.]

  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WITLEY in the Chair.]

  MIDWIVES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Future Revision of Constitution of Central Midwives Board.)
    (1) The Central Midwives Board may at any time represent to the Privy Council that it is expedient to modify the constitution of the Board either by—

    (a) increasing or diminishing the number of persons appointed by any body or person; or

    (b) abolishing the power of appointment by any body or person; or

    (c) conferring on any body or person a power of appointment of one or more persons; or

    (d) altering the term of office or qualifications of any members.

    (2) The Privy Council before considering such representation shall cause it to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
    (3) If either House of Parliament within forty days (exclusive of any period of adjournment for more than one week) next after such representation has been laid before the House presents an Address to His Majesty declaring that the representation or any part thereof ought not to be given effect to, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the representation in regard to which the Address has been presented; but, if no such Address is presented by either House within such forty days as aforesaid, the Privy Council may, if they think fit, report to His Majesty that it is expedient to give effect to the representation; and it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to give effect to the same, and any Order in Council so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WATT: I think we should have some explanation of the necessity for passing a measure of this kind. It is, as hon. Members are aware, an Amendment of an Act passed in 1902, which set up a Midwives Board consisting of nine persons, four being medical practitioners, two nominated by the Lord President of the Council, one appointed by the county council, one by Queen Victoria's Institute of Nurses, and one by the British Nurses' Association. This Clause gives power to change the constitution of the Board and to increase or diminish the number of persons upon it. It also provides for abolishing the power of appointment by any body or person, for conferring on any body or person a power of appointment of one or more persons, and for altering the term of office or qualification of any member. What I wish to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should tell us in what way, if any, this Board has proved
    520
    unsatisfactory, and whether he considers it is too large or too small. Who is it it is proposed to ask to nominate further members, and what further bodies are to be invited to send in nominations? We ought to know what has been the genesis of this measure, and if the Midwives Board has given dissatisfaction we should be told what is the cause of that dissatisfaction.
    Mr. BOOTH: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I should like to say I rather welcome this Clause. Its only object can be to improve matters, and that is what my hon. and learned Friend would desire, I imagine. But I want to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has anything more to say about the representation of women on this authority. Will he tell us how many women there are on the Central Midwives Board, and is he proposing to add to the number? Is he satisfied that the right persons are on the Board, including women? I do not know whether we can get any assistance from any member of the legal profession in the House on the point whether the term "persons" used in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this Clause includes women. I want also to know what will be the policy of the President of the Local Government Board with regard to making an increased use of women on the Board.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): May I say, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt), that this Bill is an attempt to assimilate the law of England relating to midwives to that of Scotland, and we desire to set a convenient form of machinery by which, without asking this House to pass an Act of Parliament, it may be possible by an Order in Council, with, of course, proper safeguards, to alter the constitution of the present Central Midwives Board, in a way clearly set forth in paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) of the Clause. I may also inform my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) that it is the intention of the Privy Council, which governs this matter, to give direct representation to midwives on the Board. There are already, I believe, two women on this Board, and it is intended to increase the number and to have direct representation of midwives upon it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 2 (Amendment of Section 5 of the Principal Act with Respect to Finance); 3 (Amendment of Section 7 of the Principal Act as to Evidence); 4 (Payment of expenses of Members); 5 (Annual Report); 6 (Provisions as to Suspension); and 7 (Expenses of Midwives) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Offences by Midwives.)
    (1) Where the Central Midwives Board decide upon the removal from the roll of the name of any midwife, they may in addition, prohibit her from attending women in child-birth in any other capacity, but such decision of the Board shall be subject to the like appeal as their decision to remove her name from the roll, and, if any woman so prohibited acts in contravention of the prohibition, she shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, unless she proves that she acted in a case of emergency.
    (2) Any woman whose name is ordered to be removed from the roll for disobeying rules or regulations, or for other misconduct, shall, within fourteen days from the making of the order, surrender her certificate to the Central Midwives Board, and, if she fails to do so, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether this Clause is strong enough. I am referring particularly to the words in Sub-section (1), "unless she proves that she acted in a case of emergency." The Clause deals with the penalties to be imposed where a woman who has been removed from the roll of midwives subsequently, without authority, attends a woman in a case of child-birth. The Clause says that unless she proves that she acted in a case of emergency she shall be subject to this penalty. But, as a matter of fact, every birth is a case of emergency, and I am pretty certain that any member of the legal profession called upon to defend a woman against such a charge would be easily able to prove that she acted in an emergency. He could emphasise the pain and distress of the mother. What I take it is meant is that if she acts when a qualified midwife is not available. But the Clause does not say that. I am not a draftsman and therefore cannot, on the spur of the moment, suggest any better form of words, but if there is a Report stage of this Bill it seems to me that this is a matter which might well be considered. I am afraid the present words are too vague.
    Mr. FISHER: Here again we follow the words of the Scottish Act, and personally I think they are strong enough. What is intended is that if a woman says, "Although I have been prohibited from doing this kind of work, yet, in this case there was no certified midwife who could possibly assist this poor woman in her trouble and I accordngly did it as an act of mercy"—in such a case it is intended that the fine should not be imposed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Notification of Change of of Address) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Reciprocal Treatment of Midwives Certified in Other farts of His Majesty's Dominions.)
    (1) Any woman who produces to the Central Midwives Board satisfactory evidence that she has been trained as a midwife and certified in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions in which there is for the time being in force any Act or ordinance for the certification and registration of midwives under a public authority and which admits to its register midwives certified under the principal Act on reciprocal terms, shall, on payment of the like fee as is payable in ordinary cases, be entitled to be certified under the principal Act: Provided that the standard of training and examination required in such other part of His Majesty's Dominions is equivalent to the standard adopted by the Board.
    (2) If any question arses under this Section as to the light of a woman to be certified under the principal Act the question shall be determined by the Privy Council.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should like to know, seeing it is intended to allow women trained in Canada to practise in this country, why the same privilege is not to be extended to women trained in the United States, provided that the States admit women trained in this country to practise in that country. I shoud like the Committee to recognise that the United States stands in quite a different position from foreign States. The language is the same. Nurses in the United States get an excellent training as midwives, and there seems to be no reason for admitting nurses from Canada to practise here while refusing those from the United States the same privilege in the event of the privilege being reciprocal.
    Mr. FISHER: This opens a very wide question. The Clause provides that a midwife who produces satisfactory evidence of having been trained as a midwife and being certified in any other part of His Majesty's

    523
    Dominions shall be allowed to practise as a midwife in another part of His Majesty's Dominions. My hon. Friend wants to extend that to certificated midwives whose training may have been quite as excellent in the United States. I do not know whether it would be possible to entertain a proposal for reciprocity as between this country and the United States unless we also have one for reciprocity between this country and France or some other country. I have never seen legislation founded on those lines. It opens up, indeed, a wide international question. I shoud advise the House not to make precedent, but to follow precedent and to content itself with extending to midwives properly trained in one part of His Majesty's Dominions the right to practise in another part of His Majesty's Dominions.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Power of Local Supervising Authorities to Contribute to Training a Midwife) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Repeal of Section Nine of the Principal Act.)
    Section nine of the principal Act (which enables county councils to delegate their powers and duties to district councils) shall be repealed: Provided that where at the commencement of this Act any powers or duties have been delegated such delegation shall not be affected unless on the representation of the county council concerned the Local Government Board otherwise direct.
    The following Amendment stood in the name of Sir J. BOYTON: After the word "repealed," to insert the words "except so far as it applies to the administrative county of London."
    Mr. G. THORNE: The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir J. Boyton) is only a limiting Clause. The Amendment which stands in my name proposes its extinction. What will be my position if my hon. Friend proceeds with this Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be prejudiced in any way.
    Sir J. BOYTON: I beg to move, after the word "repealed," to insert the words "except so far as it applies to the administrative county of London."
    On the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Thorne) and the hon. Member for the
    524
    Everton Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) both raised this question on behalf of large provincial county councils, and I have no doubt in the course of the Debate to-day they will move the Amendment which stands in their name. We are in a different position in London. We have created large borough councils, representing very large populations, and up to now you have delegated to them powders to deal with these matters, and it does seem a hardship, seeing the local interests which have been created during late years, especially in mothercraft and infant welfare centres, to destroy the work which undoubtedly has been started and which will greatly increase in volume. I am moving this Amendment at the instance of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing-Joint Committee, and they desire me particularly to say that they hold the opinion strongly that the Bill should be amended so as to preserve such power of delegation as regards the administrative county of London. They are supported in this view by a statement of the late Lord Rhondda. When President of the Local Government Board in connection with an application of the Lewisham Borough Council, which had adopted a satisfactory scheme of maternity and child welfare for the delegation of powers, he said that there would be an advantage in the delegation of powers of inspection to the borough council. From such an eminent authority as the late Lord Rhondda, and one who was very eminent in the direction in which this Bill tends, I think that is a very strong argument in favour of the view which I have been asked to advocate. I am hopeful that the President of the Local Government Board, whatever view he may take as to large provincial centres, will regard London and its boroughs as a particular case, and will see that the powers which are being given to the county councils for delegation to borough councils shall be adopted.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: May I ask for your ruling, Mr. Whitley? Both the Amendment which is now before the Committee and the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton really raise the same common point, and I am sure it would be for the convenience of the Committee if you would rule that we should have a general discussion upon the Amendment now before the Committee: otherwise we who are interested in the later Amendment

    525
    and, as we think, the more important Amendment, may find our arguments anticipated, and you might refuse to hear us on the second occasion. I therefore venture to suggest that we might take a common discussion now upon the whole point raised by the two Amendments.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. It would be convenient in all respects that on the first Amendment it should be possible to discuss the whole question of delegation, whether in London or in other parts of the country, only it is necessary to keep the actual resulting decision separate, because it may possibly differ in the case of London and other parts of the country.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I thank you, Mr. Whitley, for your ruling, and I think the Committee will not consider my action premature if I say a few words on this Clause and the suggested Amendments at the earliest possible opportunity. In form it appears a somewhat unusual thing to take away from county councils, which of course include county boroughs, and include London boroughs, powers of delegation previously given to them by Parliament. No doubt there is a presumptive argument against depriving local authorities of powers they already possess, but in practice delegation of this kind has not been found to be a success in the opinion of those persons who have been most intimately associated with the administration of the Midwives Acts and analogous Statutes. Therefore I, for one, prefer Clause 12 as it now appears in the Bill and as it has come down to us. This is not a case of direct administration. In the rural counties and counties generally it is obvious that direct and detailed administration must chiefly be done in areas smaller than counties. When you are dealing with inspection and supervision within the larger area in which that is exercised the greater the experience the inspector gets the higher rate of pay would be at command, the best quality of persons would be obtainable, and there would be a greater freedom from local predisposition or local embarrassments. Therefore on the general question of the county council itself appointing the inspector I submit that it is really in the interests of public health and of the efficiency of this Act, and I hope nothing will be done in this Committee or in the House at any stage of the Bill which will really seriously affect that method of
    526
    administration. I could give the Committee analogy after analogy. The main idea of county government in England and Wales is that the county should be the supervising authority and the smaller area the executive authority in the majority of matters. I hope the Clause will be accepted as it stands, but at the same time I do not wish to deny that there are certain cases, some no doubt in the county of Middlesex and some elsewhere, where you have areas which in population are larger than many county boroughs, and as county boroughs are county councils it would be open to criticism if to these large areas there could not possibly be delegations. I am entirely opposed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) to make the carrying out of this matter to be by districts wherever a district asks for the power. You must have the supervising authority not only cognisant but consenting to any delegation Under any circumstances. How far this will apply to London I am not at all qualified to say. London has its own difficulties, but there is no reason why the London County Council should not supervise this matter throughout the whole of its area. On the other hand, the boroughs have a very considerable population. While I should be glad if the Committee adheres to the Bill as it stands, I hope that if there is to be any limit the Committee will not go beyond this, that any delegation to be permitted must be on the initiative of the county council, with the approval of the Local Government Board, and it must be to authorities which have at least a population of 50,000, which is now the limit between county boroughs and districts which are not county boroughs. Only if these limits are enforced will it be possible to carry out the administration of this Act with proper supervision. I hope the Government will strenuously oppose any attempt to modify the Clause beyond this very moderate limit, which has special circumstances attaching to it.
    Mr. THORNE: When I raised this matter on the Second Beading I did so at the instance of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I regret if any expression I used gave a different interpretation. Speaking generally, our work in this House as regards local authorities is to give them powers and to enlarge their powers, and when one approaches a Clause such as this which take away existing powers, I think it is

    527
    the duty of those who are interested in local authorities to watch very jealously their operations, and the reason for them. I submit that the onus of proving Clause 12 rests upon the promoters of the measure and upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite who, I have no doubt, will speak on the subject. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Adkins) has indicated to me a line upon which I think we might have general agreement, because this is a case on which the House of Commons ought not to be divided. It is an administrative matter in which we are trying to promote the general health and well-being of the community, and surely it is a matter upon which all of us might come to some common agreement. I suggest that the line indicated by my hon. and learned Friend, in the modification of the new Clause I have put down in substitution for Clause 12, might fairly meet the case. It would mean, I think, only a slight modification of the Clause which is down in my name. I agree that it should be on the initiative of the county council, and that it should then require the approval of the Local Government Board. Then I recognise that there should be a limit as to the size of the authority to which that power of delegation should be granted. If agreement could be arrived at on those lines, it seems to me that it would be far preferable to leaving the Clause as it stands in the Bill. By putting in the Clause as it stands in the Bill, not only is there no direct authority for large district councils, but there is no indirect power. There is no direct opportunity at all. I have a case put before me of a large urban district like Rhondda and Willesden, with a population of 170,000, Tottenham with 150,000, and Walthamstow and Leyton with 140,000. It seems to me absurd that great communities like these, and those with smaller numbers, should be deprived of all powers in a matter so intimate and domestic. While I do not like limiting the powers already possessed by local authorities, I am quite willing that the power shall be limited in the direction I have indicated—first, on the initiative of the county council; secondly, to be approved by the Local Government Board; and, thirdly, a limitation as to the size of the authorities. If agreement could be come to upon that line, I should be prepared to modify my proposals if Clause 12 as it stands is left out.
    Captain BARNETT: I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Marylebone. The case of London is quite different from the case which has been made out by the hon. Member (Mr. Thorne). There is no doubt that the real local patriotism and real patriotism in the interests of public life is to be found in the boroughs and not in the bigger areas of London. We are asked to take away powers already possessed by the borough councils, powers which have been very well exercised in the past. The hon. Member (Sir E. Adkins) has spoken about supervision. I do not know what he means by supervision. Take my own borough of St. Pancras with a population of 220,000 with a most efficient medical officer of health. We have a large number of people who have given voluntary service on relief committees and maternity committees. To deprive the borough of the right to exercise these powers which they have got at present is almost a slap in the face to these people who have been doing most patriotic and useful work for years past. I do not deny for a moment the case made by the last speaker, but it is nothing like the case that can be made for London boroughs. I wish to reinforce every argument used by my hon. Friend the Member for East Marylebone, end strongly to urge on my right hon. Friend the desirability of accepting this Amendment.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I have been asked by friends of mine, who are interested in the conduct of midwives and the practice in the county districts, to say a word on this Clause. I may add on my own behalf that, before the Act of 1902 came into operation, I took some part in discussions which then arose in the House on the subject and which, as well as my own experience as a county councillor, made me conversant with what has being taking place in rural districts. I may remind the Committee that this power of delegation has in times past been exercised by a considerable number of county councils and has been found to be a failure in every county area in which that delegation has been made.
    Sir J. BOYTON: Not in London.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I know that London is technically a county, but it is not the kind of county with which my remarks are connected. It is urban, not rural, in character. In every rural county

    529
    where delegation, has been put in force there has been a failure of the Act, either because the action taken by the district council was slothful and wasteful or else because the supervision exercised by the district council was inadequate, and throughout the county area there are different standards of practice, methods, and efficiency, a fact which is most detrimental to the welfare of that part of the population which the Act was intended to serve. Therefore, from the point of view of experience, there is every reason why this power should be withdrawn. It is a power which is not desired by the county council, who never exercise it, and whose representatives desire that it should be withdrawn. The Bill proposes that the law in future should be uniform in Scotland, Ireland, and England. The Act which was passed in the earlier part of the Session for Ireland gives to Irish county councils no such delegated powers as the English Act contains, and the Scottish Act of 1915 gives no such delegated powers to Scottish county councils; and, if I remember aright, no such demand was made on behalf of Scottish county councils and no remonstrance was made by any representative of these councils because of the omitted power. The Irish and Scottish county councils, deriving their views from the experience of English county councils, see no reason to desire this power and the power was not granted. Therefore, primâ facie, there seems to be very good reason why the existing power might be withdrawn.
    There is, however, one point of view on which I may find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. If I am rightly informed, every county council which delegated powers to district councils has thought it right to delegate all the powers under the Act of 1902. Those powers vary in degree and in kind. There are a power of general supervision, a power of investigating malpractices, and a power of suspending midwives from practice, and then there is the necessary power of reporting to the Board the name of any midwife convicted of any offence, etc. The Committee will see, therefore, that the duties under the powers delegated to the district councils, under the existing law, differ very greatly. I do see that there is something to be said from the point of view that, while it is very undesirable to give district councils the whole responsibility for the conduct of operations of the Midwives Act within
    530
    their area, with regard to supervision and inspection, there might be certain minor powers which might be delegated usefully to district councils if the county council desire to apply to the Local Government Board for permission to delegate some of the inferior powers. On the whole, looking at it as well as I can with experience as a county councillor for many years, during at least ten of which I was chairman of a committee which dealt with this subject from the point of view of administration, I think that the Bill had better stand as it was drawn and as it comes down to the Committee, but that if the President of the Local Government Board feels himself bound by the weight of argument to meet in some way the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, he might do so by permitting county councils to delegate minor powers while reserving to themselves all power of supervision and inspection of midwives within the area, unless that power is kept in the hands of the county council I fear greatly that the class of women now becoming midwives, instead of rising, as it has risen in social and educational status for the last thirty years, will tend to go down very much to the class from which it has risen, and that local jealousies and prejudices will affect the conduct and attitude of the rural district councils towards that class. For these reasons I hope that, on the whole, the President of the Local Government Board will adhere to the Bill as it is at present before us.
    Major COURTHOPE: I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to any Amendment to this Clause. I may call attention to a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred already, and to which I think it worth referring again. It states on the Memorandum to this Bill:
    "Since the enactment of the Midwives Act, 1902, Acts have been passed for Scotland (1915) and Ireland (1918) wherein are incorporated certain amendments and additions which experience has suggested, most of them having been included in the recommendations of the Midwives Act Committee of 1909.
    It is now proposed to bring the English Act into line with those in the other parts of the United Kingdom, and the present Bill is confined to that purpose, all contentious matter being thereby avoided."
    That Memorandum shows quite clearly that the principle of the Bill is to secure uniformity between the three Kingdoms, and it would be the; height of folly to upset the whole scheme to amend the Bill,

    531
    whether in favour of London or of municipal corporations or of any other local bodies. To introduce delegation would be to upset the whole purpose for which this Bill has been brought in. I would like also to draw the attention of the Committee very briefly to one or two passages in the Report of the Midwives Act Committee of 1909 to which the memorandum refers. That Committee expressed themselves far more strongly than Departmental Committees are accustomed to express themselves against delegation. They state in Clause 17 of their Report:
    "Delegation has not hitherto been generally exercised and in most cases county councils have wisely revoked the powers which they delegated, but in a few cases where the practice still obtains it has been found to operate detrimentally to the purposes of the Act and to introduce an element of confusion and uncertainty into its administration. The evidence given on behalf of the Central Midwives Board was conclusive on that point."
    It goes on to give evidence of confusion that occurred in the county of Kent where the Board were confronted with sixty-five local supervising authorities in one county. It refers to the evidence of other witnesses who express similar views. It continues,
    "It is obvious that under conditions of extensive delegation uniformity of aim and practice is unrealiseable, while the difficulties of supply, distribution, and training are enormously augmented. It is the emphatical opinion of the Committee that this power should be withdrawn and that in cases where it is still exercised the delegation should be revoked."
    And again I find at the conclusion they reiterate that the power of delegation to district councils under Section 9 of the Act of 1902 should be withdrawn and that in cases where it is still exercised delegation should be revoked.
    That is the very strongly expressed opinion of the Committee, whose authority I believe is undisputed, which reported in 1909. I believe that in the early days of the Act of 1902 ten county councils delegated their powers. Every single one of those original ten has found delegation a failure and revoked it, the last I believe as long as five years ago. They tried it and found it was a failure. Now there are six areas only in which more recently they have adopted delegation and I am informed by the Society for the Training and Supply of Midwives that it is not working well in these six areas. But the strong point I think is that the ten counties which tried it from the beginning found it a failure and revoked it. There
    532
    were various obvious reasons against delegation. One is that inspection by district inspectors must result in a varying standard of efficiency. Then there is the risk arising from the fact that mid-wives may he subject to local influence which may operate against their efficient work, and generally there is a tendency to take an inferior class of women for midwives, which is a very undesirable thing. I would point out that in addition to the opposition of the Committee in 1909 to delegation the proposal to alter the Bill, and introduce delegation has been opposed strongly by the county council association within the last few days. It is also strongly opposed by the Association for Promoting the Training and Supply of Midwives. That association, I believe, has made a very close study of the question, and is doing most useful public work. Therefore, on all these grounds, namely, that the Departmental Committee, the County Councils Association, and the Association for the Supply and Training of Midwives, are all opposed to this proposal—that the purpose of the Act is also opposed to any such change—its object being to ensure uniformity—and the delegation has been tried and signally failed, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will insist that the Bill should go forward as now drafted.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, Sir. I wish to ask you whether you include in the wider discussion the Clause which I have on the Paper, and which, correctly speaking, is not a delegation Clause? I am prepared to make my points if you should prefer that it should be taken here.
    The CHAIRMAN: I saw that the Clause on the Paper in the hon. Member's name is on a different point entirely, and it will be taken when we come to it.
    Mr. COTTON: The Committee has listened to two speeches from London Members, and I should like to put before it the standpoint of the London County Council on this matter of delegation. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras must, I am afraid, be looked upon as a hopeless case, for he seems to think that the only form of patriotism of which London is capable is borough patriotism. But the hon. Member for East Marylebone, who was at one time an ornament of the London County Council, could have drawn sufficiently on his recollection of the way in which the work

    533
    has been done by the London County Council to have made rather a different speech from the one he made to-night. Anyone who listened to the speeches of these two hon. Members would have imagined that the London County Council had actually delegated those powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1902. As a matter of fact they have done nothing of the kind, but during the last fifteen years they have been exercising all the powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1902. On 20th March, 1917, the London County Council resolved unanimously, as the result of experience they had acquired during fifteen years, that it would be prejudical to the public health of London if delegation to the Metropolitan borough councils of powers at present exercised by the London County Council under the Midwives Act of 1902 were contemplated. They went further, and they urged the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to endorse that view, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to the specious arguments put forward by the hon. Member for St. Pancras and the hon. Member for East Marylebone. This question has nothing whatever to do with maternity and child welfare, as the Committee has been led to believe by the two hon. Members. Let the borough councils continue the beneficent work of maternity and child welfare, which does not come within the scope of the work done by the County Council Committee under the Midwives Act. Anyone who has watched the work of that committee, which is under the chairmanship of a very accomplished lady, would at once acknowledge that the work has been most admirably and most efficiently done. What is it proposed to substitute in its place? It is proposed to throw open the door to the setting up of twenty-eight Midwives Act committees in each of the London boroughs boroughs with all kinds of different standpoints, with all kinds of different opinions on the particular work to be done. What confusion would at once take place! I was very glad that the hon. Member who spoke last quoted from the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1909. There were two or three lines which he might have added and they are very well worth quoting. Sir Shirley Murphy, who was then medical officer for the County of London, was strongly of opinion that in London administration of the Act should
    534
    be in the hands of the county council. On page 20 the Report says:
    "It is the emphatic opinion of the committee that these powers should be withdrawn, and that in cases where it is still exercised the delegation should be revoked "
    What has happened between 1909 and 1918 to make that strong expression of opinion no value? Nothing whatever that I know of. We are told that Metropolitan borough councils must be encouraged. They have got plenty to do at the present moment if they only choose to do it. To suggest that there should be taken from the great central authority in London, work which it has discharged with marked success, and that it should be frittered about among over twenty different boroughs, seems to me one of the most extraordinary proposals I ever heard of. I sincerely hope that the Committee and the President of the Local Government Board will not have anything whatever to say to the proposal that has been made by the hon. Member for East Marylebone. I purposely confine my remarks on the question to London, because I do not presume to speak on any question arising in connection with the Act outside London. I am bound to say that during the nine years I have been a member of the county council I have had an opportunity of seeing how the work of this committee is being done, and I cannot imagine work more efficiently and better done. I would consider it a public calamity if the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Marylebone were adopted.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bristol (Sir Charles Hobhouse) with great satisfaction. He suggests that the President of the Local Government Board should retain the Bill in its present form, and he pointed to a slight modification which the right hon. Gentleman might make if he felt pressed by the weight of argument in the course of the Debate. After the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend, I think the President of the Local Government Board will not feel himself in that predicament. I think the weight of argument is entirely in support of the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. I am certainly entirely of the same opinion. The right hon. Member for Bristol speaks with experience as chairman of a county council in a rural district. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down speaks for the London County Council. There we have evidence

    535
    from a great urban population on the one hand, and a rural district on the other, and the experience of the two speakers goes to show that delegation from a central to local authority is very much to be deprecated. I cannot understand the force of the argument which appeared to appeal to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He spoke as if the proposal under the Clause was to take away powers from the local authorities—to deprive them of powers which they already possessed. There is no question of taking away authority from the local body. It is only a question as to which of various efficient bodies should exercise these particular! functions. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite has shown very conclusively that in so far as delegation has been practised up to the present it has been recognised by those most competent to judge as a failure. It has been pointed out that in no less than ten counties delegation originally granted has been revoked, and we must suppose that the revocation took place at the hands of persons competent to judge by the light of experience, having found that administration by delegation was not all that could be desired. An hon. Member opposite quoted strong passages from the Report of the Departmental Committed, and we must surely assume that a Committee of that kind went very fully into the experience which had been already gained, that it took the evidence of those who came before it as being the evidence of those most competent to judge, and who expressed their views against delegation on very good ground. There was one other passage in the Report which my hon. and gallant Friend might have quoted, and it was in the evidence of the secretary of the Central Midwives Board. He said, speaking on this subject
    "Delegation has proved an unmitigated evil."
    In face of such evidence as that, surely it would be an extraordinary proceeding for this Committee now, which has not had the advantage of making a close study of the subject, to call upon the Government, or to press my right hon. Friend in anyway, to alter the drafting of the Bill, which the Government must have presented in its present form after mature consideration of the whole subject! My Tight hon. Friend shakes his head.
    Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend has forgotten the history of the Bill in another place. It was not presented in the form in
    536
    which it appears now, because an Amendment was carried against it, and the form in which the Bill appears is the one which I thought it right to take charge of in this House. It is presented in the form in which it left the other House.
    Mr. McNEILL: I had not in point of fact forgotten the history of the Bill, but I did not understand it in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman presents it. I certainly take it for granted that my right hon. Friend made himself responsible for the Bill in this House, and brought it into this House in a form of which he approved. At all events, whatever view my right hon. Friend may have taken when drafting the Bill, I hope he will retain the Bill as it is, if by mistake or by accident he has hit upon the best form. Apart altogether from the authority cited, I should have thought really commonsense administration of an Act of this sort should be more or less central. The object, or one of the great objects, of the administration of an Act of this sort is uniformity of administration. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite quoted a case where there was a great multiplicity of inspectors and administering authorities in a very small area. Surely the area administered by the county council was quite the smallest to accept for the efficient administration of an Act of this sort.
    Mr. BOOTH: Does the hon. Member apply that to his own county of Kent?
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. McNEILL: Certainly. I say that where possible—it is a matter of degree—you ought to have a very considerable area under one administration. I do not wish to be dogmatic on a matter of this sort, but the fewer authorities you can reasonably have in a given area for the administration of an Act of this sort, the better it is, I think. Take for instance the question of inspection. Surely it stands to reason that if you want to get a uniform standard of work the area should be large. If you have a number of comparatively small areas each with its own inspector, you are bound to get different standards, and you are also bound, I think, to get a lower class of man for the work. There is less work to be done in the small area, less responsibility and, presumably, also less salary. Therefore, I think, you are likely to get more efficient work and better class work if you have the inspection extended over the area of the county.

    537
    What is still more important, in fact the chief importance, is the class of woman you are going to get to carry on the profession. The thing which is most desirable to get is high-class educated women. Those who are qualified to speak for the women in this profession will tell hon. Members that you cannot get and will not get the high-class educated woman to undertake this work if she is to be under an inspector of small experience and small authority administering a small area. You are more likely to get the class of woman desirable for the profession of midwife if the question of delegation is left in the position in which it is in the Bill, as introduced by the Government. I most earnestly hope in the interests of efficient administration and of the making of this Act what it ought to be, namely, the greatest possible blessing to the whole population on a vitally important matter, that my right hon. Friend the President will not give way to any pressure, but will maintain the Bill in its present form.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I also hope that the President will maintain the Bill as it stands. It is certainly an extraordinary position that we should have a Bill presented by a Minister, who proves to be rather lukewarm in his support of this particular Clause. Here we have got a case where the people involved are all against delegation. The county councils who are the people to whom it is proposed to give the power of delegation, are against the exercise of that right, and do not wish to have it. We come to the opinions of those who are experts in this matter. We had the Departmental Committee which investigated the working of the Midwives Act and a Committee, as has been rightly said, of very great power and prestige, and I suppose a prestige far beyond anything that we in this Chamber at the present moment possess in connection with this subject. The view of that Committee was unanimously against giving the right to delegate these powers to small authorities. The midwives themselves, as far as we know, with one voice oppose this proposal to delegate these powers. The Midwives Institute, an association for promoting the training and supply of midwives, and the Queen Victoria Jubilee Institute for Nurses, very closely associated with the execution of this work are all strongly opposed to this power of delegation.
    The Queen's Institute, of which I happen to be a member, carries out a very
    538
    large amount of district nursing work throughout the country. Many of those district nurses are also midwives. They are all inspected under the Institute by a body of inspectors, and we have had in that Institute years of experience of how inspection can best be done, and what are the best areas for inspection. We have found that the county is the best area of inspection. In most of the counties there is a district nursing association with a local inspector belonging to the county, who inspects the work of all the nurses in the county. By that system you get uniformity of standard and interchange of information. Where an outbreak occurs in any one part of a county the inspector is able to deal with it in a way in which it could not be dealt with if there were eight or ten inspectors out of touch with one on other. It seems to me that there is really no necessity to labour this point much more, because we have got all the people whose authority is really worth considering of one opinion. There is only on the other side one voice, and that is the voice of those who want to create a further number of officials and inspectors connected with the local districts. I view that desire with a great deal of suspicion. We have had far too many appointments of officials. If in this case we believe, as I think all of us, or almost all of us, do, that we are better with one large area and one official supervising that area, then I say let us be very chary indeed of taking any course which is against the experience of those who really ought to know, and of admitting an Amendment for the purpose of creating a larger number of officials.
    Mr. BOOTH: It is somewhat refreshing to hear a representative from the extreme Highlands giving us a lecture on the duties of representing small local authorities, and it requires a little courage for any hon. Member to take up that position. The hon. Member seemed to think that there was only one voice raised against the large area and that that voice was in favour of multiplying the number of officials. Has my hon. Friend supported me on the occasions when I denounced the appointment of officials, and I challenge him to name any hon. Member who for years past has striven harder to prevent the appointment of officials and officers than I have. I think that some of the arguments used by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. McNeill) tell in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for

    539
    Wolverhampton. Take the case of that hon. Member's county of Kent. All his pleading for a large authority falls to the ground when you instance the case of Canterbury, a borough with a population of 30,000, and contrast that with Willesden and other districts with populations of 160,000 and 140,000, which are to be totally neglected while the small borough is to be an authority. The argument about large and small districts does not fit this position at all. In the Clause I put down I limited it to places with a population equal to a county borough, and I considered I was quite right in so doing. I should have preferred the direct appointment of the small authority and I am not ashamed to make that statement. An hon. Member pointed out that we had speeches as to urban and rural areas from county councillors, as if they were speaking for different interests. But may I remind him that they were both speaking for the county councils? My hon. Friend (Mr. Cotton), whom we are all glad to see here, and who is an acquisition to the House, was speaking as a London County Councillor.
    Mr. COTTON: Why shouldn't he?
    Mr. BOOTH: Quite; but do not let it be represented as two different voices. It is the voice of the county councils. We are now on the point of the apportionment of the respective duties of the county councils and the urban districts. My hon. Friend had great courage in quoting Sir Shirley Murphy with regard to the position in London. He is the medical officer for London, and was he likely to say that this work ought to be taken away from his department? Was it not more likely that he should say that it ought to remain in his department? I do not know of any case of any official coming forward and Asking that work should be taken away from his department and thus lead to a reduction in salary. I wish to ask hon. Members whether they desire to encourage local government or not? The urban district councils of this country have not the glamour of the mayoralty, and there is no chain to hang about their hecks. They have hard, solid work, very little of which is reported. It is different in the county councils, which they join in order to get into the limelight, and which are used as a stepping-stone to this House. In London that is why they join, and in many cases they are very soon
    540
    made welcome to this House. The urban district councils of the smaller boroughs grind away at what is an arduous and humdrum task. I would appeal to the President, while he has regard to authorities who are vocal in this House, to have also regard for those authorities who are not so vocal. It is difficult to get the best men to go on these local authorities, and what is the reason? Hon. Members must be aware that in one sphere very often prominent men refuse to act, and the reason they give is because some bodies are too much under the orders of Whitehall. On the borough councils the position is different, because members can see changes brought about in the community in which they live, as a result of their labours.
    There is no more democratic body than the urban district council. A certain number retire each year, and the election takes place on a democratic suffrage. These bodies cause no trouble and have never gone on strike. I submit, if you go on taking powers from them and pass Acts of Parliament which discountenance and discourage them, you will not get the best type of men to serve on them. The Amendment does not go far enough to please me, and I would have very much preferred the Clause on the Paper, but of course I can quite see that if we cannot carry the very modest Amendment proposed, then there is no chance for my Clause. I do say that what is asked would be a very small crumb for those who represent the districts concerned. I cannot conceive that the President will refuse that crumb, if we are not to get the Clause on the Paper. Why should you say to the big urban district of Willesden, if it will convert itself into a borough then it hall have these powers? Its population may fall, and yet it may be converted into a borough—or the Rhondda Valley. They will have these powers and many others. Why should it not go by population? Why have not hon. Members in this House, why has not the hon. Member for St. Augustine's answered the point I put, whether he would take away those powers from Canterbury? If there is anything in the argument that councils should be the area and not small areas with small-minded people liable to influence, he should take it away from Canterbury with 30,000 population before he refuses it to places with 160,000. What does this Clause suggest? To enable the county council, as I understand it in its

    541
    altered form, to delegate its authority to an urban district which is bigger than a county borough which is about 50,000. I venture to say if you are going to disregard urban districts which are bigger than county boroughs, and at the same time keep small county boroughs, you are placing an unfair stigma on some distinguished authorities whose members are doing continuous and humdrum public service.
    Major HILLS: I submit to the Committee that the question is not one between the county council and the district council in the way that the last speaker has put it. District councils are patriotic and democratic bodies, but the question that this Committee has to decide is how best we can get a supply of midwives for the country. No one wishes to cast a stigma on the district council, but we do think that inspection should be carried on over a larger area, and by a more highly-skilled inspectorate than the district councils usually employ. All these arguments have been given at great length, and I do not want to repeat any of them, but I do want to emphasise one or two points on the general case for a larger inspectorate, and for this reason. The question is one of very great importance. Of every ten babies that are born in this world about seven or eight are brought into the world by midwives. The enormous majority of those who are born are born under the care of midwives, and therefore it is of urgent importance that we should see that those midwives are as efficient as possible. If you have a large area, a large area can afford to pay a high salary and therefore attract a better class of inspector. Then there are these three points. First of all, the status of the inspector is raised, secondly, the nurses know that they have an efficient lady inspector over them and, therefore, their own status is thereby improved, and lastly, the public know that the babies are being born under better conditions. It has been pointed out that if you have some areas large and some small that you get a difference of standard and want of uniformity. That is quite true. An inspector knows that she must keep herself in constant practice. Unless she is inspecting constantly she will lose touch just as a musician will lose touch. It is important that she should have a wide area where she is inspecting midwives daily. The right hon. Gentleman would go back on authority, authority which origi-
    542
    nated from his own plan and which was reinforced by the speech of his representatives in the House of Lords only a few months ago. Lord Crawford, in introducing the Bill, said that inspection had done all that was expected of it. Surely all the argument is on one side unless my hon. Friend has some evidence which we do not know. He tells us that he does not approve of his own Bill. I am sure he has good reason for saying so, but the House ought to know it. All the evidence we have is that of a strong Committee appointed nine years ago, of the bodies engaged in the training, supply and inspection of mid-wives, and lastly I believe the quite unanimous medical opinion of this country. I hope that the Committee will pass the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. GILBERT: I rise as a London Member in order to support what has been said by the hon. Member for East Finsbury. When the hon. Members for Marylebone and St. Pancras were asking that London should have power to delegate powers under this Act, I thought that they would have put forward some very strong complaint against the administration of this Act by the London County Council. I have not heard from either of them or any subsequent speakers that they had any complaint to make against the way this Act has been administered by the London County Council. I think anyone who has inquired or looked into the matter will find that the London County Council's administration has been very satisfactory, that everybody connected with it is very pleased and that the Midwives' Society and the Nurses' Society thoroughly approve of the way in which this Act has been administered by the central authority in London. What would delegation mean in London if it is carried out on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Marylebone? You have in London twenty-eight borough councils. He said that he was moving this Amendment at the instance of the Standing Joint Committee of the London County Council. So far as I know, the Standing Joint Committee is not a public representative body, and there is no particularly strong feeling on the part of the borough councils to take over the powers under this particular Act. In fact, it would have been very interesting if the Members who moved this Amendment had told the Committee how many borough councils in London were keen to administer the Act. So far as I know, there is only one borough council

    543
    that has applied to the county council to have powers delegated to it. The views of the London councils are quite unanimous on this matter. We had the Resolution passed last year
    "That the Council is of opinion that delegation to the Metropolitan borough councils of the powers at present exercised by the Council under the Midwives Act, 1902, would be prejudicial to the health of London and that the Local Government Board be asked to endorse this view and explain its view to the local sanitary authorities in London."
    What I want to put to the Committee is, What is going to be the effect if you give delegation in London? You will have twenty-eight authorities, each with its own standard of inspection and requirements. A midwife who has to work under these conditions, even if she lives in one locality in London, not knowing the geography of the boundaries of London, would not know which authority she was working under when she went to a particular case. I suggest to the Committee that these are powers which can best be administered by a central authority. You get better inspection, and I believe you get a better type of midwife, and, speaking as a London Member, as a member of the London County Council, and on behalf of the London County Council, I strongly urge the President of the Local Government Board, who was himself a distinguished member of the London County Council, not to agree to delegation on this point as far as London is concerned.
    Sir H. NIELD: I am in the embarrassing position that was occupied by the celebrated Pooh Bah in the "Mikado." My interests are so diversified that I can speak with a purely impartial voice in this Debate, because I am a vice-president of the Urban Councils Association, of which the hon. Member for Pontefract is also a vice-president. I happen to represent a borough and three urban districts, and in addition to that I am an alderman of the county council, so that I can take an absolutely impartial view. I am driven to the conclusion that the proper area for an inspection is the county. The hon. Member for Pontefract referred to Willesden, which is the largest urban district in my county, and I am in close touch with it, and I have never heard on the part of Willesden, which was represented on the General Purposes Committee of my county council who considered this matter twice with great deliberation, any
    544
    wish to have these powers. When Tottenham asked the county to delegate powers the greatest possible care was taken by the committee to investigate whether they would be justified in extending further the powers which had already been delegated at that time to one or two districts, I believe, and after a very long discussion they came to the conclusion that it was undesirable. Subsequently, a year or two after, the matter was reopened by a letter of the Local Government Board, and again the matter was gone into with great particularity, and again the committee and the council endorsed it unanimously, and came to the conclusion that the unit should be preserved as the county unit. Willesden was powerfully represented on the county council by some of the most able men we have amongst us, and not a voice has been raised on the part of Willesden against the county continuing to exercise the power.
    Mr. BOOTH: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Willesden Urban District Council is not in favour of the Amendment?
    Sir H. NIELD: I say the Willesden District Council has never made itself heard. It is impossible to ignore the professional opinion on this question. As late as last Session a letter appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" over the most distinguished names identified with this work—the honorary secretary of the Queen Victoria Institute for Nurses, the president of the Incorporated Midwives' Institute, and the chairman of the Association for Promoting the Training and Supply of Midwives—and they all unanimously agreed in saying that the county unit is the one thing that must be retained. [Major HILLS: "Hear, hear!"] I never know where the hon. Member for Durham, when he says, "Hear, hear!" is going to take me, because he does hold some very advanced views on kindred matters; but I am satisfied in thinking, at any rate, that the House would be unwise to alter the terms in which the Bill is now drawn.
    Mr. FISHER: One or two of my hon. Friends appear to think that I ought to be able to work myself into a white heat of passion in support of this Bill; but let me say, first of all, that this is not a Bill of the Local Government Board, but of the Privy Council, and in the form in which it was introduced by the Privy Council there was a very considerable discretion left to

    545
    county councils on their own initiative to delegate these powers of supervision over midwives with the consent of the Local Government Board, and the member of the Government who was in charge of the Bill did not retire from that position with any grace or good will. He only retired from it because he was beaten in a Division by 33 votes, I think, to 23, and when the Bill came down to the House of Commons it very naturally came down in the form in which it left the other House. I have been asked to take charge of it on behalf of the Privy Council, and I thought it only right to reintroduce the Bill in the form in which it left the House of Lords. I cannot excite myself over this great question, and I am afraid I shall be unable to excite anyone else. The choice we have to make is this: those Members—and they have been exceedingly eloquent in their expression of opinion—who appear to represent the counties seem to think that under no circumstances whatever ought the county councils to be allowed to delegate the powers of supervision and inspection of midwives, not even with the consent of the Local Government Board, not even if they do it by an unanimous vote on their own initiative, and not even if there were all kinds of safeguards put forward by the Local Government Board under regulations under which those powers would in future have to be exercised by the district council or metropolitan borough council to which they were delegated. That is a very strong position to take up—that perfectly free bodies by a unanimous vote should not be able to part with their powers in the matter, well knowing what they were doing, to very large district councils with populations of possibly 200,000, who had large and complete maternity and infant welfare schemes and whole-time medical officers of their own, and who were quite prepared to carry out the inspection and supervision of midwives in the most approved most efficient manner. When hon. Friends of mine say that, after all, the County Councils Association is of the opinion that they should not have power to delegate under any circumstances, let me remind them that two county councils quite recently, since the passage of this Bill through the House of Lords, and well knowing what took place in the House of Lords, have delegated those powers—the county council of Glamorganshire to the district council of Rhondda and the county council of Cambridgeshire to the
    546
    borough of Cambridge. I think the Glamorganshire County Council was very much influenced by an argument which influences me when I have a slight predilection for the discretion being left to the county council, with the Local Government Board itself to control that discretion. Glamorganshire found itself in this position. It had 650 midwives in its employ, and it had only one inspector, and the great district of Rhondda very seldom saw this inspector, and Rhondda said, "As we have a large maternity and child welfare scheme of our own we could do it much better than it can be done with your one single inspector." That, I am bound to say, was a very solid argument, and the County Council of Glamorganshire wished to part with those powers to this great district council of Rhondda.
    Let me take the case of Lewisham. Lewisham is a very large metropolitan borough, with a population of 165,000. It has a very complete maternity and child welfare scheme, and I have recently personally visited and inspected it. It has a complete scheme, and it has a whole-time medical officer. That metropolitan borough said to the London County Council, "Will you not delegate your powers under the Midwives Act? We have a whole-time officer and a complete system of our own." The London County Council, I understand, on the whole thought they had better maintain the principle that they should, as a rule, be the body that supervises and inspects the midwives of London, but it did open up this question: Was the London County Council at that time in an efficient condition to inspect all these great metropolitan boroughs? and the London County Council, in consequence of this request on the part of Lewisham that it should have these powers delegated to it, found that if it wanted efficiently to inspect these great metropolitan boroughs it must appoint at least two more members to its inspectorate. I think this question when opened up was very useful in leading the county council to survey its own resources, and to strengthen those resources if it did not desire to part with these powers to a metropolitan borough council which was in possession of a very complete system of maternity and child welfare. That question of maternity and child welfare really had a very great deal to do with this question of inspection and supervision of mid-wives.

    547
    Some hon. Friends of mine say that these powers of delegation existed in the county councils before and they were a failure. Yes, they were a failure long before these complete systems of maternity and child welfare were adopted by these large district councils. They were a failure when the county councils themselves had not necessarily any medical officers of health. We owe the fact that the county councils were obliged to have medical officers of health to my right hon. Friend, who occupied my place at the Local Government Board. But before those days they were in the habit of delegating these powers to almost any authority. I do not think that can be adduced anyway as an argument to show that the delegation of powers, at the discretion of the Local Government Board, to the very large areas where there were whole-time medical officers would necessarily be a failure. There was one other argument adduced. Some hon. Friends of mine dwelt very much on the necessity of setting up a complete uniformity between the English Act and the Scottish Act. I think they have spoken in considerable ignorance of what happens in Scotland, and I am extremely surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Sir A. Williamson).
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I did not say so.
    Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend, I think, laid it down that only very large areas like the county councils were fitted to possess these powers of supervision and inspection of midwives. He must know even better than I do that those powers cannot be delegated in Scotland, because there is nobody to whom they can be delegated. Every borough in Scotland has these powers. I can point out boroughs of not more than four hundred inhabitants who have these powers. They are dotted all over Scotland with a population of only a very few thousands and some only with a very few hundreds with these powers.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is it not the case that these small boroughs which have this right do not exercise it, and that it is done by county inspectors?
    Mr. FISHER: In some small cases that may be so, but in cases where the population amounts to a very few thousands it is not always so, and Scottish local authorities are not very apt to part with powers given by Act of Parliament. Therefore I
    548
    do not think the argument of uniformity is of any weight, nor the argument that there was a failure when these delegated powers were used. Undoubtedly, up to a certain point, the bigger the area the greater the efficiency, but I would not press that too far. I think if my hon. Friend looks at great counties like Devon and Glamorganshire, that point may be pressed too far. It is only true within certain limits. I come to what the President of the Local Government Board and my Department think. We all want to attract to this great profession—and it is a great profession—a high class of mid-wives, and we are very short of them. We want them more in quantity, and gradually we shall require them greater in quality. And we want to improve them in status. For all these things we want the most efficient supervision we can possibly get. From such learning on these matters as I have been able to possess through administering my Department, I am certainly in favour of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne). I believe that far the best tiling to do would be to make it a rule, if you like, that none of these powers should be delegated to any rural council, that these powers should only be delegated after consultation with the Central Midwives Board, that they should only be delegated at the discretion of the county council and with the sanction of the Local Government Board, and in no case delegated to a place with less than 50,000 population, and then only in cases where they are willing to appoint inspectors and supervisors who are well qualified and who will obtain the respect and sympathy of those whom they nave to inspect.
    I believe that really is better than a cast-iron rule that, under no circumstances whatever, shall a county council, however much it wishes to do so, disburden itself of the great task it has to perform, and if I had to give any guidance to the House it would be to accept the Amendment which has been foreshadowed by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, and to agree, at all events, that there shall be some discretion in the county councils, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, in the case of populations of more than 50,000. I believe that is the best decision to which we could come. At the same time, I think the arguments are very strong undoubtedly on the other side, and, as I said on Second Reacting, after all that

    549
    has happened in another place, and after the Debates that have taken place here, I should certainly not ask that the Whips should be put on in support of any opinion of mine. But I do indicate my support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, who has given great consideration to this subject, and I hope that his Amendment will be agreed to, and that you will not altogether exclude county councils, on their own initiative, under any circumstances, from delegating this power to district councils, however complete a system of maternity and child welfare they possess.
    Mr. COTTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman wish to include the words "after consultation with the Central Midwives Board"?
    Mr. FISHER: I am quite prepared to incorporate those words. The Local Government Board certainly would never favour the delegation of these powers to small populations and small areas, and would only consent to delegation under special circumstances such as I have mentioned.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I have followed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman very
    carefully—as carefully as I could—and I desire to ask whether what he has safe has led him to the conclusion that he will support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone?
    Mr. FISHER: The greater would include the less. It would be open to the Local Government Board, on the initiative of the London County Council, to allow the London County Council to delegate these powers to Lewisham or any other borough they might consider desirable.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: That is what I thought. I only wanted to know where we were as we are likely to have two Divisions.
    Sir J. BOYTON: I think in all the circumstances I should like to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 38.

    Division No. 84.]

    AYES.

    [8.49 p.m.

    Allan, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Gretton, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    O'Malley, William

    Bliss, Joseph

    Hackett, John

    Philipps, Maj.-Gen.Sir Ivor (S'hampton)

    Boland, John Pius

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hazleton, Richard.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hinds, John

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Byrne, Alfred

    Keating, Matthew

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    King, Joseph

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Cotton, H. E. A.

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Williams, Sir R.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Doris, William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Morgan, George A.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Field, William

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Nolan, Joseph

    Hills and Major Courthope.

    NOES.

    Alden, Percy

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East.)

    Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Shortt, Edward

    Barrie, H. T.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Swift, Rigby

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Wardle, George J.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

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

    Rowlands, James

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Thorne and Sir James Boyton.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Clauses 13 (Notification to Local Supervising Authorities of Removal of Names from Roll); 14 (Medical Assistance in Case of Emergency); and 15 (Action by General Medical Council) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Short Title, Construction, Commencement and Repeal.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as, the Midwives Act, 1918, and shall be construed with the principal Act; and that Act and this Act may be cited together as the Midwives Acts, 1902 and 1918.
    (2) This Act shall come into operation on the day of nineteen hundred and
    (3) The provisions of the principal Act specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed.
    Mr. BOOTH: Sub-section (2) of this Clause is not complete, because it says "This Act shall come into operation on the day of nineteen hundred and "
    Mr. FISHER: I will put a date in on Report.
    Mr. BOOTH: I submit that there will not be a Report stage. This Bill has come down from another place, and unless we put some words in here, it will not be much of a credit to this House.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "the" to insert the word "first."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2), after the word "of" insert the word "January."
    At the end of Sub-section (2), insert the word "nineteen."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 3 of Principal Act.)
    The following Sub-section shall be added after Sub-section (3) of Section three of the principal Act:
    (4) Three persons, who shall be certified mid-wives, to be elected for a term of three years by certified midwives practising in England.—[Mr. Watt.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    It provides that three certified midwives should be elected on the Central Midwives Board. When the 1902 Act was passed this Board had power to deprive midwives
    552
    of their livelihood, and I believe this Board still has the same power. It is the opinion of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Chapple), who placed this new Clause on the Paper, that the midwives themselves should be represented on the Central Midwives Board, and that there should be three representatives chosen by themselves.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: I am informed by the Privy Council that this proposal would necessitate setting up very cumbrous and expensive machinery, and I think it would be better to deal with this question of representation of midwives through the first Clause, which provides machinery by which that can be effected. I am told that this proposal would result in a very haphazard and unsatisfactory representation of the midwives, and I see no reason for setting up machinery of this kind which is not in the Scottish or the Irish Acts. I think we should be satisfied with the provision in Clause 1 which enables us to provide for the representation of midwives on the Board.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why on the Irish Board nine-tenths of them are Protestants? What has religion got to do with midwives? That is the result of the operation of the Act in Ireland, in a country where three-fourths of the population are Catholics, and there you have a Board consisting almost all of the non-Catholic religion.
    Mr. WATT: The answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given is most unsatisfactory. There would be no difficulity about the midwives organisation choosing representatives, and if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the idea of my proposal he might easily so arrange the Amendment that the Lord President of the Council could have been instructed to choose midwives practising in the United Kingdom. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Certain Boroughs and Urban Districts may become Supervising Authority.)
    (1) If the council of any borough or urban district having a population of not less than fifty thousand pass a resolution to become the local supervising authority over midwives within the area of their borough or district, then, upon the expiration of one month from the passing of such resolution, the council passing the same shall

    553
    become, and the county council shall cease to be, the local supervising authority in such borough or district.
    (2) Any act done or proceeding taken by the county council prior to the date when such resolution comes into operation shall, after such date, have effect as if done or taken by the council of such borough or district.
    (3) Any expenses under the principal Act or this Act payable by the council of a borough or district so becoming the local authority, including the expenses of any prosecution by such council, shall be defrayed out of the borough fund or borough rate or the district fund or general district rate, as the case may be, and such borough or urban district shall cease to contribute to the county fund in respect of any expenses of the county council under the principal Act or this Act incurred after the council of such borough or district becomes the local supervising authority.—[Mr. Booth.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I want formally to move this Amendment because it is one in which I firmly believe. Judging by the result of the Division on my last proposal I expect the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to go so far as this Clause proposes. At the same time I hope he will be able to offer some word of encouragement to these smaller boroughs and larger urban districts with regard to these matters. I ask him not to be too much guided by the last vote which was taken, because I heard Members calling out, "This way for the Midwives Bill."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): That is not in order.
    Mr. BOOTH: That decision did not at all cover my Clause. It is quite obvious, when that argument was used, that Members had not in mind any such point as that in my Clause. The time has come when this House should make up its mind with regard to the local bodies. I have warned the House again and again against legislating in advance of public opinion, but the House keeps doing it and is doing so now. Previous efforts have failed, because there has been no educative work pari passu with legislative work. Unless the localities can be brought into better line and unless a better spirit can be promoted amongst local people, none of these measures will succeed. The President of the Local Government Board recognises that to a large extent, as was shown by his attitude on the Maternity and Child Welfare Bill. It is a totally fallacious notion which is cherished by people at headquarters, that it is only by central administration in
    554
    London that you can accomplish anything in the country. It may be argued against my Clause that it will not lead to uniformity. I do not want Prussian uniformity throughout the country. I want one district to emulate another. I believe certain districts which are more go ahead and more enlightened than others have their influence upon their neighbours, and that it is in that way that the good cause spreads, and that a great advance is made rather than by passing Acts of Parliament and having them administered entirely from Whitehall. If you get these large urban districts and small boroughs putting these Acts into operation one after another, you will get a large advance, but if you snub them, if you neglect them, if you keep saying in this House that they are not to be trusted, as though they were enemies in some way of the public weal, you will dishearten the best administrators and weaken the prestige of the public authorities and that will not make for public progress. I make that appeal with all earnestness, but after the last Debate I ask the House to excuse me discussing the matter further.
    Mr. FISHER: The House has just come to the conclusion, without the aid of any Government Whips, that under no circumstances should a county council be allowed to delegate its powers of supervising mid-wives to any other body. My hon. Friend now moves an Amendment by which any district council with a population of more than 50,000, simply by passing a resolution, shall be able to take away from the county council the powers which it possesses of supervising mid wives, whether the county council desires to part with those powers or not. That is a proposal to which I could not give the slightest possible adhesion. In all my arguments I have said that the initiative must rest with the county council, and that the county council must itself be the judge whether or not it ought to part with those powers. There would be nothing in a resolution of a district council which desired to have these powers to show that it would be able to carry them out with any degree of excellence. Therefore, there is really no argument for this particular Clause, although there was a very substantial argument for a county council on its own initiative delegating its powers to another body.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Schedule (Provisions of principal Act repealed) agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  SPECIAL COMMISSION (BELFAST PRISON) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a very short Bill, introduced in pursuance of a pledge given by myself in August last, before the Adjournment of the House. The House may recollect that very serious allegations had been made by certain prisoners in Belfast Prison with regard to the treatment of a large number of prisoners in June and July last. One prisoner incorporated in an affidavit statements as to what was alleged against the prison authorities. These statements were of a very grave and serious nature. On inquiry I found that there was a complete difference of testimony with regard to the truth of those statements, and, as they were so serious, I felt—and it was pressed upon me by Members on the benches opposite—that it was absolutely necessary that there should be a complete investigation which would ensure, as far as it was possible, that the truth would be ascertained, and when the truth had been elicited, if anyone had been in fault or if anyone had been guilty of the grave misconduct alleged, that due and proper punishment should follow; and, equally, if there had been any perjury committed of such a grave and serious kind, punishment should likewise follow. The question of the tribunal was one of some little difficulty. Undoubtedly it would have been well, if possible, that the tribunal should have been set up before now, but unfortunately you cannot get a tribunal which has complete power to administer the oath, to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to enforce the production of documents, and indeed to do all the things that are necessary for realising the truth, without an Act of Parliament and, as the question was raised almost at the time of the Adjournment of the House, it was impossible to get an Act of Parliament passed through this House before the Adjournment.
  556
  The Bill provides that a judge of the High Court, of Justice in Ireland shall be appointed a Commissioner. It provides that the Court shall be in all respects as a Court of Law, except in so far as it relates to judgment and execution of costs. The meaning of that is that the learned judge who will preside over the tribunal will be a Commissioner, and will have full control over the proceedings. He will be able to ensure that the complaints and the accusations are properly formulated, that any defence set up is properly formulated, and that the whole issue is thoroughly tried before himself. He can enforce the attendance of any witness, he can administer the oath, and he can call for the production of any document. He can do all those things that are necessary for absolute fairness and absolute thoroughness of investigation. If any witness is asked a question the answer to which might incriminate him, the Bill provides that it shall not excuse him from answering, but it equally provides that the answer shall not be used against him in any other Court. Those are shortly the provisions of the Bill. It is brought in in pursuance of a pledge I gave that a tribunal should be set up which would ensure an absolutely impartial tribunal, as far as it is possible to be impartial, and one which will be thorough in its investigation. I think I have been fortunate enough to obtain the consent of a learned judge of the High Court in Ireland who, I feel satisfied, will have the confidence of everyone concerned in the investigation, and therefore I ask the House to read the Bill a second time, so that the tribunal may be set up as speedily as possible, and that the grave charges which have been made shall be investigated with complete thoroughness.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: This Bill is as great a sham as the promise to call in the Ulster arms. The right hon. Gentleman promised to call in the Ulster arms, and he says he has done it. He has brought in a Bill on the pretence of affording an investigation of allegations made by prisoners in Belfast, and I intend to test his sincerity by the simple expedient of providing that the evidence shall be published. The right hon. Gentleman will refuse that, and I will tell the House why. He is the first Chief Secretary who has personally interfered with the Censor in Ireland, and by his direction the Censor has closured his own letters and letters addressed to him. What is his proposed

  557
  course of action? The gravamen of this matter in Belfast was an insult to the Catholic religion—namely, the compelling of ninety-one men to go handcuffed to confession, so that they were unable to make the sign of the Cross, and the compelling of them the next day and the day after to go to Holy Communion with their hands handcuffed. The right hon. Gentleman on 5th August said:
  "I am told that the suggestions made about the sending of men to Mass still manacled, and without being allowed to relieve the ordinary wants of nature, are absolutely untrue."
  In another part of his speech he said:
  "Whichever side is right and whichever side is wrong, the natural consequences of what is grave perjury on one side or the other must follow "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1918, col. 1024, Vol. 109.]
  This business in Belfast and the course of the right hon. Gentleman prove that the Orange Ascendancy gang are in complete control of him and of the whole Executive Government of Ireland. In the first place, the Bill provides that the complaints which are to be inquired into are as to the treatment of prisoners in Belfast prison in the months of June and July, but before we come to that surely the first necessity of the case is to see how did the prisoners get to Belfast prison and why, from hundreds of miles distant, did you shepherd these men into a place away from all power of getting visits from their friends and where the Orange justices were in control of the prison. You cruelly punished them because you have had to remit the brutal and blackguard sentences inflicted upon these men for breach of discipline by your visiting justices. The first thing to do was to inquire why was Belfast selected as the venue for the torture of these men? The complaint arose because you selected not merely a Belfast prison but a prison from which you had practically shifted the Catholic warders and where the Governor was an English soldier. Therefore it was not enough to say that you would inquire into the case of the torture of the prisoners in June and July last. We must first get to know why you selected the partitioned area, which you say is separate from the rest of Ireland as the place where men professing extreme Nationalist opinions should be incarcerated. That is the first question, and that is entirely impossible under this Bill.
  Next I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he has beforehand made the accusation of perjury—for perjury and
  558
  the threat of punishment is plainly suggested—what chance will the public have of passing judgment on the truth or falsehood of these allegations unless the evidence is published? Observe where the trial for perjury is to take place. The inquiry, I presume, will be in Belfast, the jury will be purely Orange, there will not be a single Catholic upon it. Even if you held it elsewhere, under your Crimes Act, in a recent case in Cork you challenged eighty-eight Catholics off the panel. In other words, you had a larger number of challenges than the whole of an English or Scottish panel would consist of, and every one of them Catholics. This is a Catholic question. It is a question of an outrage upon our religion. To-day we read that you have sent an Embassy to congratulate Cardinal Gibbon on behalf of the British Government on his golden jubilee. What are we to think of this Protestant Government of England, first having sent an envoy to the Pope, and, not content with that, having dispatched to Baltimore or Washington a bishop to offer on behalf of the King's Majesty congratulations to a Republican Catholic cardinal? I wonder what is to be thought of the sincerity of a Government which congratulates a cardinal in Washington and handcuffs Catholics going to confession and communion in Belfast Gaol? That is one of the main questions which is to be tried. I intend in Committee to propose a very simple Amendment which will be a test of the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman. It will provide that it shall not be lawful to employ any of the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act to prohibit the publication of any statements made in evidence before the Court, and that it shall not be competent for the military authorities there to apply that Act. The right hon. Gentleman himself is the king of the censorship, and this precaution is essential for this reason, that in three capital cases recently the Government have interfered with the publication of matters arising in a Court of justice. Even in an ordinary seduction case a lieutenant, whom they afterwards had to dismiss the Service by court-martial, was able, when his case was before the High Court of Justice, to set the censorship in motion in order to prevent the facts alleged against him becoming public. In Kingstown at an inquest last week, where the deaths of 500 unfortunate people were being inquired into, the competent naval

  559
  authority interfered to prevent the exposure of his own incompetence, and that is called "helping to win the War." In a case in Kerry where a constable had been fired at, a certain promise was made to a solicitor to help him professionally if he would betray his client, and when, in open Court, an attempt was made to expose that rascality—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean): I am not able to connect the hon. and learned Member's remarks with the Bill itself.
  Mr. HEALY: I will try to make the connection. I am pointing out what has been the conduct of the Government in regard to public inquiries in censoring evidence given in public Courts, and I am asking if in this case the evidence is going to be allowed to be published—the evidence of the men with the threat of arraignment for perjury hanging over their heads. Will the public have an opportunity of knowing the statements they made? Let me ask this: In India would you appoint a Brahmin to try a question affecting the Mahomedan population where religion is concerned? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, when he stated in the public Press that he was going to appoint The McDermot, a Catholic, to investigate this matter and to hold a public inquiry—why he recedes from that position and proposes to appoint a Presbyterian judge in his place? I said a moment ago, on the last Bill under consideration, that even a Midwives Commission must have a majority of Protestants upon the Midwives Board. In this case you have promised that the question shall be investigated by a Catholic, and having made that promise, and having promised also that the inquiry shall be public, you now bring in a Bill appointing a Presbyterian judge to try a question affecting Catholic rites and Catholic practices. I say that you yourselves, on a matter of this kind, saw proper to say that a Catholic should investigate it, and that a Catholic judge should be appointed to try the matter. We hold you to your promise. Who could judge better in this matter on the outrages which have been committed against propriety than one of your own judges of that religion? After all, three-fourths of the people of the country believe in the tenets of the Catholic faith. It is there outrages upon it which are responsible for much of the
  560
  unrest and discontent which manifests itself so deplorably in instances of which we read day by day. There is no confidence in the administration of justice. There is no confidence in any promise made by Dublin Castle. There is no confidence in the keeping of any pledge made from that bench.
  Here you have political prisoners in Ireland taken into an Orange area and subjected to the special discipline which Orangemen inflict in July, and then when the matter is challenged in this House, a promise is given of a public inquiry by a Catholic Commissioner. But the matter is delayed two or three months, and then we get a Presbyterian judge appointed to try this question as to whether Catholics shall be handcuffed when going to Confession or in approaching the Holy Table. Surely the Government which dispatches an Embassy to Cardinal Gibbon can afford in a matter of this kind to appoint a Catholic judge! Therefore I say, in my opinion, this Bill is an absolute sham. It is not intended to allow a public inquiry. If the Press are admitted the intention of the right hon. Gentleman is to strike out anything which is displeasing to his sensitive character, which I repeat makes this Bill an absolute sham. Everybody in Ireland knows that what Mr. Kenny stated was—I do not say in all respects accurate—I never said or even thought so—but what he stated was in this respect substantially true. You have never allowed his affidavit to be printed in any newspaper. You have never allowed any account of what went on in Belfast to appear in any newspaper. But your denial of what went on is forced down the throats of every newspaper so far as the censorship can secure that. You affect a liberality which is not genuine. You say you are going to give a public inquiry into this matter. I want to know whether that public inquiry will be allowed to proceed normally, and whether the Press will be allowed to give both sides of the case. We know what will happen. There is no newspaper in the country which has not, before it goes to press, every line scissored and censored by officials even on matters which have nothing whatever to do with the War. The course you will take will be this—it is one you have already pursued in the past. Your phalanx of prison officials, the gentlemen who have been guilty of these outrages will make their statement, and those statements will be

  561
  printed in big type. We know how the public get an impression from the Press. It is as simple as lying. But the statements of those who make these charges will not be allowed to appear. Every statement in contradiction of the official statement will be struck out. Is that all? The delay of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter was deliberate. He has apologised for the delay. How has he availed of it? He availed of it in the case of a number of prisoners who have been released to deport them to England. Every man deported is a man of education and weight. Accordingly, at the prison gate, when they had served their time, the right hon. Gentleman met them with the order of deportation. It is curious to see where the powers conferred on Mr. Justice Dodd include powers to bring these prisoners back to give evidence. Thus far they do not, or at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman has not made it plain that they do.
  Mr. SHORTT: It certainly shall if it does not.
  Mr. HEALY: I am satisfied with that assurance. I think if I had not called attention to it the matter would have been left in a somewhat parlous position. When the Government has had three months to draft a Bill, the least one could expect is that the words would be carefully and aptly chosen. Let us see how the Bill is worded. He is to have power if he thinks fit to enforce the attendance of any prisoner who in the opinion of the Commissioners should be examined as a witness. It is news to me that a Court of Record or even a Court of Justice in Dublin has any authority to bring over prisoners from an English goal. It is news to me. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that it can be done, I will accept his statement as a lawyer. All I can say is that I have always understood that from the Courts in this country the Writ was supposed to run to Jersey, but recent facts have been quite the other way. I certainly know of no case in which an Irish judge could by a mere stroke of the pen bring a prisoner from an English gaol. By mere summons it could not be done. It is plain it would have to be by habeas corpus.What judge in Ireland would issue habeas corpus to discharge a prisoner from an English gaol. He would not do it. He would say that "You must apply to the High Court in England and get it done in that way." The right hon. Gentleman says he will confer this power
  562
  upon Mr. Justice Dodd, and as he is about to do that I am satisfied on this point.
  I wish to ask further—where do you propose that this Commission shall sit? By the lapse of their sentences you have discharged a number of persons who have not been deported to England. They have been scattered up and down far and wide all over the country. Are they to be brought at their own expense? One of the beauties of the Act is that you exclude any power to give costs.
  Mr. SHORTT: That does not mean the cost of witnesses. The cost of witnesses can be given by the judge.
  Mr. HEALY: Where is it in the Bill?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is not necessary in the Bill.
  Mr. HEALY: I say it is necessary in the Bill, with great deference and respect to the right hon. Gentleman. Why is it omitted from the Bill? I am entitled to say of this Bill that it only means what it says. This is a special power conferred upon an individual, and it does not confer power to give witnesses expenses. If it does give witnesses expenses, am I to be told that the Treasury would not ask the judge, "Where is your power? Where is the money to come from?" The thing is absurd, and I say that with great deference to the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers. Where is this inquiry to be holden? Is it to be held in Belfast? No doubt that would greatly convenience the local prison warders. It would also greatly convenience the local prison warders to hold it as close to Shankhill Road as possible. All the prisoners are Papists. You have brought them to Belfast, but that does not make Belfast the proper place for the investigation. If witnesses' expenses are to be provided, as you declare they are, for the men who are to be brought up from Cork, Kerry, Wexford or Carlow, let the Government provide the expenses of their witnesses coming from Belfast to some other area for the purposes of holding the inquiry. The Government with great astuteness leave all this matter at large. They fling their Bill upon the Table. While they provide that the Court is to be a Court of Record, they do not provide more than that. Therefore I describe this Bill as in intention a sham.
  Furthermore, I say that the Government, in my opinion, as regards the main purpose which has excited the Catholic

  563
  people of Ireland are well aware that the statements which they have denied are true in substance and in fact. It is the case that ninety-one prisoners were handcuffed from the Thursday to the Sunday afternoon after Mass. It is the case that many were handcuffed with their hands behind their backs. It is the case that they were put down into the basement cells into a place deprived of all furniture and bedding, and compelled with their hands so manacled either to stand or lie with their hands behind their backs for the night. It is the case that when these men were going to Mass to receive our Blessed Lord, the only release you gave many of them, was to unmanacle them from behind and to manacle them in front. All this is true. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman knew that it was true when he denied it, but at all events Major Henry Owen Lewis had made his report at the time of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I presume that report can be called for. I presume that the power will be inserted in Committee providing that no privilege shall be claimed for any documents. The Prisons Board recently claimed to have certain privileges. The right hon. Gentleman promised, or I understood him to promise, that the prison books should be preserved from being tampered with. Is privilege to be claimed for these documents? Is privilege to be claimed for what went on before the visiting justices? Is privilege to be claimed for the facts as to the remission of sentences by the Lord Lieutenant, and whether that was done on petition by the prisoners—which we know it was not—or on the exercise of the Viceregal prerogative? Is privilege to be claimed for the documents in possession of the Prisons Board? Is privilege to be claimed for the report of Major Henry Owen Lewis? These are all matters which to my mind are essential in any discussion in Committee. When ponderous threats of prosecution for perjury are made it is, at least, equally essential upon the other side that the interests of those concerned—and I have some claim in this case, at all events, to speak for one of them—shall be equally safeguarded. Finally, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman, when he threatens these men with prosecutions for perjury, in order to muzzle them and to close their mouths, that his threat will have just as
  564
  much effect upon these prisoners as the sentences of imprisonment and deportation have had in the past.
  Mr. KING: I rather expected that we might have had a reply from the Attorney-General to the statement which has been made to my hon. and learned Friend; but discretion is the better part of valour, and silence is much better than a feeble rejoinder. I believe that I was the first in this. House to call attention to what was one of the most disgraceful episodes in connection with the government of Ireland, and therefore I am glad to remind the Chief Secretary that when I first called attention to the matter at the end of June last he pooh-poohed the whole business. It was not true; there was nothing in it; stories of this kind were easily concocted by conspiracies of prisoners and an ignorant and suspicious people who were ready to accept any allegation made against the Government. At that time, when the facts first came up of this horrible treatment of prisoners, which I believe are now admitted by everybody, even by the Chief Secretary—
  Mr. SHORTT:No!
  Mr. KING: Well, they will be admitted very soon. He does not deny that. He did not choose to give one word of denial or even to suggest a denial, but anyhow at the end of June last there were distributed through the streets of Dublin leaflets, one of which I hold in my hand, headed: "Stop Press. Inhumanity in Belfast Gaol. Since Thursday night the Sinn Fein prisoners in Belfast Gaol have been handcuffed with their hands behind their backs, even at meal time," etc. That is the way Ulster people would treat their political opponents. I hope that they will never be treated that way when their opponents get the upper hand. "Because the prisoners protested against the breaking of the conditions as arranged by the Lord Mayor of Dublin. This is the freedom for small nations! But our day is coming!" A young boy was arrested for distributing these leaflets. He was kept a whole week in solitary confinement. He was brought up in Dublin before Mr. Swifte, the magistrate, and charged with an offence under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Mr. Swifte saw that there was nothing in this leaflet which had anything to do with the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and the young lad was let free after undergoing a week's solitary confinement. That is the sort of

  565
  vindictive illegal way in which the Government has treated this business from beginning to end. I am very glad that it is turning over a new leaf now and is actually appointing a Special Commission to inquire into the matter, but I hope that it will make this Commission a reality. But why is the Government doing this now? Is it because of a love of justice and free inquiry? Nothing of the sort.
  The whole reason is that after denying there was any truth in these allegations, after futile and illegal prosecution of persons who were spreading the news, there was published in Ireland the affidavit of a certain Mr. Charles Kenny, who had been one of the prisoners and was released on the expiry of his sentence, and made a sworn statement before the Lord Mayor of Dublin, on July the 19th, more than a fortnight after the incident to which I have first referred. When I first brought this sworn statement to the notice of the Chief Secretary he declared that it was beneath his notice, and that it was not worth attention. This sworn statement was printed in thousands of copies, where I do not know, but from all parts of Ireland I received copies. Of course there is no printer's name upon it, but it is none the less true for that. If you suppress free speech and censor your own letters, which on mature consideration you see it is rather a mistake ever to have written, naturally people must use such means as this, and I respect them for using them. They may be illegal, but they are the only means open to a free-spirited people. But it was because thousands of these were distributed throughout the land, and the matter was becoming the common talk of everybody, and the Government was getting into contempt for its injustice and cruelty, that at last it decided that there should be a Commission, and so on the final day of our sitting in August, six weeks after these incidents occurred, there was a sudden change of front, and the Chief Secretary promised to have a Royal Commission. A Bill was supposed to be drafted. It was not even printed on Saturday. I could only get if in print this morning, showing that from beginning to end the Irish Government simply drifted and moved in response, not to any conviction, but to mere cowardice and compulsion. Now we have this Commission, and I wish it well. Everybody knows
  566
  the truth, but I hope that now we shall have it stamped and countersigned by a judge of the High Court. I am very sorry for the Chief Secretary. I offer him my sympathy. He is a good man in a bad place. He has a good heart but a weak mind, or, let me say, that he has good intentions but bad advisers and bad men around him.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Come across yourself!
  Mr. KING: I should be very glad to do so if called upon, but, after all, it is an impossible business for an Englishman to govern Ireland. I admire the right hon. Gentleman's courage in attempting such a task as that which he has undertaken in Ireland, but I fear that he will fail as all Chief Secretaries have failed. We have had a very powerful speech from the hon. and learned Member for Cork, and I do not know whether any reply to his observations or to mine will be attempted, but I would only say, in conclusion, that looking at this story of cruelty and inhumanity, now practically admitted, I pity Irish prisoners. Our prisoners in Germany have suffered horribly, but do not Irish prisoners in their own land suffer just as much brutality and cruelty and inhumanity? Yet the Government, with their cant and hypocrisy, make a flare all over the world as to the inhumanity practised by the enemy against an enemy country. All the cant of the Government, their cowardice and hypocrisy, have been shown from the beginning to end over this Belfast case.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Shortt.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
  POST OFFICE PENSIONERS.
  POST OFFICE PENSIONERS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  GRAZING (PHŒNIX PARK).
  GRAZING (PHŒNIX PARK).
  MILK.
  MILK.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ARMS SURRENDERED, ULSTER.
  ARMS SURRENDERED, ULSTER.
DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
  SEARCH (AUTHORITY).
  SEARCH (AUTHORITY).
  PRINTED MATTER (TRANSMISSION ABROAD).
  PRINTED MATTER (TRANSMISSION ABROAD).
  ARMY CLERKS, DUBLIN (WAR BONUS).
  ARMY CLERKS, DUBLIN (WAR BONUS).
GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE.
  HOSPITAL PASSENGER SHIPS (PROTECTION).
  HOSPITAL PASSENGER SHIPS (PROTECTION).
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS (BEACHLEY AND TIDENHAM).
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS (BEACHLEY AND TIDENHAM).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  HOME SERVICE.
  HOME SERVICE.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  MINERS RELEASED.
  MINERS RELEASED.
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES.
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  WAR DECORATIONS.
  MOTOR TRANSPORT REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  MOTOR TRANSPORT REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  ARMY HOUSES.
  ARMY HOUSES.
  CAPTAIN WILSON, M.P. (LOSS OF DISPATCHES).
  CAPTAIN WILSON, M.P. (LOSS OF DISPATCHES).
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE IRELAND).
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE IRELAND).
  WAR-WORN SOLDIERS.
  WAR-WORN SOLDIERS.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  "SEAMEN'S CRUSADE" (GOVERNMENT SERVANT'S APPEAL).
  "SEAMEN'S CRUSADE" (GOVERNMENT SERVANT'S APPEAL).
  FOREIGN PRESS (DAILY REVIEW).
  FOREIGN PRESS (DAILY REVIEW).
  IRISH REBELLION (59TH DIVISION).
  IRISH REBELLION (59TH DIVISION).
  YOUNG SOLDIERS IN FIRING LINE.
  YOUNG SOLDIERS IN FIRING LINE.
  OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  LAND SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  LAND SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS (PENSION CONDITIONS).
  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS (PENSION CONDITIONS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  PARACHUTES.
  PARACHUTES.
  PROBATIONARY OFFICERS (ELTHAM).
  PROBATIONARY OFFICERS (ELTHAM).
  TRADE UNION CONDITIONS (RESTORATION).
  TRADE UNION CONDITIONS (RESTORATION).
MUNITIONS.
  WOMEN WORKERS (TRAIN SERVICE).
  WOMEN WORKERS (TRAIN SERVICE).
  POLICE STRIKE (BURGLARIES).
  POLICE STRIKE (BURGLARIES).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  COAL MINING (PERSONS EMPLOYED).
  COAL MINING (PERSONS EMPLOYED).
  PETROL SUPPLIES (KINGSTON CASE).
  PETROL SUPPLIES (KINGSTON CASE).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS (SERVICE MEN'S DEPENDANTS).
  POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS (SERVICE MEN'S DEPENDANTS).
GENERAL ELECTION.
  REGISTERED ELECTORS.
  REGISTERED ELECTORS.
  POLLING PLACES (BLINDS).
  POLLING PLACES (BLINDS).
  ELECTION ADDRESSES (SERVICE-MEN).
  ELECTION ADDRESSES (SERVICE-MEN).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  MILITARY CANDIDATES.
  MILITARY CANDIDATES.
  COLOURED LABOUR, SALFORD.
  COLOURED LABOUR, SALFORD.
  INSURANCE AGENTS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  INSURANCE AGENTS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  LABOUR AWARDS.
  LABOUR AWARDS.
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (REMUNERATION).
  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (REMUNERATION).
  HOP CULTIVATION.
  HOP CULTIVATION.
  AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
  AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
  MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION (ANNUAL REPORT).
  MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION (ANNUAL REPORT).
  Mombasa (Land Sale).
  Mombasa (Land Sale).
  Garden City Scheme, Gloucestershire.
  Garden City Scheme, Gloucestershire.
  Albert Memorial.
  Albert Memorial.