I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question which has been pressing on my mind during the developments of the last few days, when we have heard charges of Parliamentary corruption bandied about, and which is of some importance. The question I wish to ask arises out of the reply you, Sir, kindly gave to me on Tuesday in reference to the general doctrine of what effects are produced upon a vote by a Member who has a direct personal pecuniary interest, and what you said then was:—

"The general view is that a Member is not entitled to vote who has a direct personal pecuniary interest in the subject under discussion."

There was a rule on the point decided by the House itself in 1906, but. an expression of opinion from you now, Sir, would, I think, be of great value in matters which may become actionable. I wish to know, Sir, whether the general view set forth by you, Sir, applies to Cabinet Ministers or Ministers of the Crown voting for their own salaries or any matter in which their personal conduct, as distinguished from the policy of the Government, is impugned. Then I wish to ask more particularly whether it applies to exceptional cases in which Ministers of the Crown not only voted for their own salaries but voted for fees in connection with their offices. I may say that neither of those events has happened since 1906, but I have a perfect recollection—I have the cases here—of a Minister of the Crown whose vote was impugned for voting for his salary. It arose out of the Pigott case. I personally have a strong recollection of the debate in Parliament when Votes on the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown at that time were impugned. Not only were their salaries impugned, but their fees, but both Law Officers voted for their fees. I would be very glad to have an expression of opinion that as far as possible no Gentleman should vote in a manner in which he has even an indirect pecuniary interest.

It is a little inconvenient to ask a general question upon hypothetical possibilities. It is far better to treat each case as it comes up. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember the Latin maxim, "Dolus latet in generalibus." Be a little careful how you commit yourself generally. I can only say what I said the other day, that a Member ought not to vote in any question in which he is directly and personally pecuniary interested. There are cases, of course, in which questions of general policy are also involved, and even though his pecuniary interest may also be involved in that case, I think every Member is entitled according to his own conscience to decide whether he shall vote or not, giving himself not the benefit of the doubt, but the reverse. However, so far as the Chair goes, its only function is to decide in each case whether there is a primâ facie case, but it must rest with the House or Committee itself to decide whether the vote should or should not be disallowed.

I thank you very much.

I desire to ask one or two questions with reference to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the day before yesterday as to medical benefits under the Insurance Act. I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in that speech or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the least realised the gravity of this question of medical benefit and free choice of doctors. To my mind the Chancellor of the Exchequer is treating the doctors as he would treat one of his own office boys. He has browbeaten them on to the panels, and he has certainly got his way to a great extent by methods which I do not think anybody or any public statemen with a sense of public duty would have used. In his speech to the representatives of the British Medical Association on 31st May, 1911, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—

"I recognise that the first condition of its success (that is the National Insurance Act) is that we should get the whole-hearted, cordial, and unreserved support of the medical profession to carry it out."

Can the right hon. Gentleman say that he has got that condition? It is a perfectly well-known fact that owing to the methods which have been used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout a large proportion of the medical profession there is a rankling sense of acute injustice which will fall eventually, I am quite sure, on the shoulders of those very insured persons whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to benefit. But it is not merely the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has treated the medical profession. He has not only humiliated the medical profession, but I submit he has also grossly deceived the insured persons in respect of medical benefit. The right hon. Gentleman the day before yesterday accused hon. Members on this side of the House of trying to make party capital out of this question of medical benefit. I do not think it is in the least true, but anyhow we have had a great deal of provocation, and surely it is extremely exasperating to remember the promises lavishly made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Bill was in danger of not passing at all, and then to contrast them with the performance after the Bill has passed into law. Medical benefit, as everybody knows, was one of the great popular benefits of the Act, and it was one of the benefits on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to float his Bill in the country. Every insured person, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was to have the doctor of his own choice, the doctor whom he liked, the doctor whom he believed in. I do not think one can too often repeat the actual promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Whitefield's Tabernacle. The hon. Member for Colchester quoted it the other day, and I will not requote it except in the case of two sentences. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—

"Under this Bill lie can have the doctor of his own choice. He is not obliged to go to Dr. A. … pots his confidence in B. … so we say to him, 'go to the doctor you believe in.' … What a fine thing it is to get the doctor you want, and to get somebody else to pay him. That is the Government Insurance Bill."

Contrast that for a moment with the answer given to me by the Secretary to the Treasury a few days ago in reply to a question:—

"No insured person is compelled to select a panel doctor, but—"

and here is the mockery of the whole thing—

"payment out of the insurance Fund can only be made for medical attendance under the conditions laid down by this Act and Regulations."

It is not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer who promised insured persons free choice of doctors. It was repeated over and over again by his colleagues in the country. It was repeated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland speaking at Bristol on 16th June, 1911. I will not quote it because I do not want to weary the House but only to bring certain important points before, it. The Lord Advocate also promised at Wigan on 1st December, 1911, although I must confess that it ought to have given us reason to pause and made its suspect something was wrong. The Lord Advocate said:—

"To men and women who were stricken down by sickness, Mr. Lloyd George offered prompt and efficient medical aid at the hands of a doctor chosen by themselves."

At Blackburn, on 8th December, he said:—

"The first thing working folks who were stricken down by sickness required was a good doctor, and Mr. Lloyd George was going to allow them to choose their own doctor."

In view of all those promises, special form Medical 21 was issued by the Insurance Commissioners—a form which the insured person was told on his medical ticket he could get if the applied for it. On that form he was told to put his name and address, and the address of his society, and to send it in when filled up. What has happened and is happening every day since that form was published? Insured persons, relying upon the promises of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other leaders of the Government, and on the notice on their red medical ticket, are sending in applications, and are being put off in two different ways. In some cases they are told that the free choice will not be allowed unless exceptional circumstances are proved.

Outside the panel.

I have here three notices to applicants. The right hon. Gentleman can see the docu- ments if he wishes to do so. One notice is from the Middlesex Insurance Committee, another from the Isle of Ely Insurance Committee, and the third from the Sheffield Insurance Committee. In each case the applicant is told that free choice can be allowed only if exceptional circumstances are proved, that each case will have to be judged on its merits, and a proper reason given for the permission to make the free choice. There is not a single word about exceptional circumstances in the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government, or on the red medical ticket, or on the form "Medical 21." In many cases exceptional circumstances exist without doubt, and yet the insured person is denied permission to make a free choice of doctor outside the panel. I have a case from Merthyr Tydvil, which I received this morning. Dr. Biddle, a non-panel doctor, writes that a number of insured persons who had been his patients for nearly thirty years, in a medical fund of which he is the medical attendant, have been refused permission to choose him as their own doctor. If a period of thirty years' attendance by the same doctor does not constitute sufficiently "exceptional circumstances," I do not know what does. From what the right hon. Gentleman said the day before yesterday, lie seems to think that the doctors who do not go on the panel are inferior second-rate doctors. As a matter of fact, Dr. Biddle is a very distinguished medical man. He is a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, vice-chairman of the local medical committee, although he is not on the panel, surgeon to the General Hospital, medical officer, and public vaccinator.

I have other cases from Huddersfield by telegram this morning. Dr. Knaggs, also a non-panel doctor, in his telegram, says that J. J. Brook, of Tunnicliffe Hill, has been a patient for twenty years, and has been refused permission to select him as his own doctor. Two ladies named Girling, of 38, Stanley Street, Lindley, who have been his patients for twenty years, have also been refused permission to choose him as their doctor. Surely twenty years' attendance by the same doctor constitutes sufficiently "exceptional circumstances." Here is a stronger case. Dr. Knaggs says that Miss Beaumont, of 37, Banfield Road, Mold Green, has been refused permission to choose him as her doctor, although she is now ill and he is actually in attendance upon her. Surely a present state of illness and actual attendance by a doctor constitute sufficiently "exceptional circumstances." All these persons have been refused permission by the insurance committee without any explanation whatsoever. Dr. Knaggs also is a distinguished medical man. He is a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, and a specialist on eyes and ears at the Huddersfield Infirmary; he has been in practise since 1885, and has written several important medical treatises. In the second class of case—and the Huddersfield cases come under this head—applicants are not even given the opportunity of proving exceptional circumstances. They are refused even a form to fill in, and are dismissed without any explanation at all. I have here a printed circular sent round by the Huddersfield Insurance Committee to applicants for permission to make a free choice of doctor:—

"Sir or Madam,—I hereby give notice that the Huddersfield Insurance Committee has declined to allow you to make your own arrangements for obtaining medical attendance and treatment. Your medical ticket is returned herewith."

I find that absolutely no inquiries have been made as to the condition or exceptional circumstances of applicants. The refusal is made point blank, without any explanation or inquiry. I have another circular sent round by the Bradford Insurance Committee. It is dated 14th January, even before the benefits began to flowin:—

"Dear Sir or Madam,—In reply to your communication the Committee have considered the question of allowing insured persons to make their own arrangements for medical benefit, and have decided it is not expedient to allow such a course to be pursued. In these circumstances … yon can either make choice of a doctor from the panel or obtain your treatment—"

And, they might have added, pay for it out of your own pocket—

"through the Bradford Friendly Societies Association."

I received information last night that the Wiltshire Insurance Committee is doing exactly the same thing. I cannot believe that these insurance committees are doing this merely on their own initiative. There is such a curious correspondence in the action of these committees that some intimation must have been given to them by the right hon. Gentleman or by the Insurance Commissioners from headquarters in London. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered the day before yes- terday strengthens that belief, because it directly encouraged the insurance committee to refuse permission for free choice of doctor. Whosesoever fault primarily it is, it is certain that insured persons have been grossly deceived by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the free choice of doctor. The bait was held out to them; it was paraded on many platforms in the country, and many a man who would have done his utmost to resist the Act coming into operation at all held his hand on the strength of that promise. As I have shown, the insured persons, in spite of the promise, cannot get permission to choose their own doctor, unless they can prove exceptional circumstances. They are bluntly refused permission, and no inquiries are made at all into their conditions and circumstances. It is no use saying that there is free choice of the doctors on the panel! What is the use of that if the doctor people believe in and like and want is not on the panel? The Government, I say, is in honour bound to see that the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is properly carried out. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot carry out his pledge then the taxpayers of this country ought not to have to pay for the medical benefit promised to the insured persons. It is not merely a question of medical benefit in the ordinary sense of the word. Insurance committees are now actually writing and telling people that they cannot receive the certificates for sick pay unless they get it from the doctor on the panel, and the insurance committees are doing that absolutely without any authority at, all. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that, too, is being done with connivance and instigation from headquarters in London?

Will the hon. Gentleman give me an example?

I am going to give you an example. Again, I say, that the Secretary to the Treasury deliberately went out of his way the day before yesterday to encourage the insurance committees to take that course. He said:—

"I cannot recommend without any hesitation members of approved societies all over the country promiscuously to accept the certificates of non-panel doctors."

Yet it is perfectly well known that doctors outside the panel are just as distinguished as a body as the doctors on the panel. [An HON. MEMBER: "More."] I come to my instance. I have here a postcard, that I can show to the right hon. Gentleman, written by the clerk to the Leicestershire Insurance Committee to an insured person. He writes on 7th February, a few days ago:—

"As regards the sickness benefit under State insurance, you must get a medical certificate from a doctor on the panel. Dr. Cullen—"

that is to say, the doctor who has been sent down to work in the district because they cannot get doctors on the panel—

"will now practice in your village from to-day, and you should see him at once. For the present his rooms will he, care or Mr. Squires."

I have another letter here showing that the Isle of Ely committee is doing exactly the same thing. What right have insurance committees to do this thing? They have absolutely no right at all. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well they have nothing whatever to do with the certificates for sick pay. It is sheer intimidation, and I say that that is a matter of public interest, and it should be stopped. Finally, I say that the whole action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of medical benefit has been signalised by a mixture of tyranny and cunning. He has stifled discussion in the House of Commons. He has brow-beaten the medical profession. He has hood-winked the friendly societies. Last, but not least, he has deceived the insured persons. Before we vote upon this Bill we ought to have some security from the right hon. Gentleman that that medical benefit that we are asked to pay for is really going to be given to the insured persons.

I want to put a couple of questions in the interests of what I believe we all have at heart—at least the insurance committees of the county of London—peace. I want to question the Secretary to the Treasury on points that are particularly agitating the doctors of London. The first question is: May a doctor—and this request seems reasonable—be put on a panel for a limited number of patients, when, in view of his private practice, he is unable to deal with an unlimited number, or any very large number of insured persons? Doctors may feel that they can deal adequately with a limited, but not with an unlimited, number. Secondly, is there going. to be what I may call a clinical inspection on behalf of the Insurance Commissioners as between the doctors and the patients? That is a point upon which there is great doubt. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a memorandum has expressed an opinion on that point. If the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be good enough to make these points clear it may help to provide less acrimonious discussion, and more harmony amongst the doctors.

I wish to question the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I may betray a good deal of ignorance of the National Insurance Act, though that ignorance is shared by a large number of hon. Members in this House, and nearly everybody outside. The point I want cleared up is this: The exact position of persons over sixty-five in respect of medical benefit. As I understand it, a man that was over sixty-five at the date of the passing of the Act and belonging to a friendly society, cannot become an insured person, though his employer has to pay his contribution of 3d., and the State has to pay its 2d. Section 15, Sub-section (2), paragraph (e) of the Act says:—

"(e) The provision of medical attendance and treatment on the same terms as to remuneration as those arranged with respect to insured persons, to members of any friendly society which, or a separate section of which, becomes a society, who were such approved members at the date of the passing of this Act, and who are not entitled to medical benefit under this part of the Act—by reason either that they are of the age of sixty-five or upwards at the date of the commencement of the Act. …"

That seems to me to make it obligatory upon the Insurance Commissioners to see that such methods are adopted that the people who are over sixty-five, and for whom their employers and the State pay, shall receive medical benefit in exactly the same way as other people insured under the Act. It now appears that they are being told—I have had complaints from several quarters—that they are not going to get this medical benefit. What I want to ask is: Who has the right to deprive. them of it? Is it done by the Section of the Act which allows the Commissioners to alter the Act in any way they like? Is it, done by the Committee through a misunderstanding? Is it some fault of the societies These people over sixty-five are deserving of consideration almost more than anybody else. They are probably not able to work so hard or earn so much as they used to do. Yet they are not old enough to get their old age pensions. Now they are told they are not to get medical benefit, although they have been subscribing to their societies and clubs for forty or fifty years, have paid much money into the funds, and looked forward to benefit. What happens, I want to know, to the threepence that the employer pays and the twopence the State pays? How is it going to be used for their benefit? Are they still entitled to sanatorium benefit? And are they entitled to maternity benefit? It is not likely people over sixty-five will require sanatorium benefit, and they will hardly consider it worth while paying into their societies in order to get maternity benefit. What is to happen to the money, and how is it to be used for the benefit of those people. Many of those people have got into a state of confusion and very likely have not complied technically with seine of the regulations. I have seen quite different views taken by two different secretaries of friendly societies. I think it would be very hard on these old men if having through a misapprehension discontinued to make their payments they are to be deprived of all benefits for which they have been subscribing. I think their case a particularly hard one, and as far as I can elicit the Government do not seem to have dealt with it in a satisfactory way.

There is one question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman in the interest of the medical profession in the border county I have the honour to represent, and which also affects other counties on the borders of England and Scotland. My county is one of steep hills and distances are long. There are about 200 houses that are ten miles away from any doctor. The doctors there are anxious to know what arrangements are made for giving them rather preferential treatment as regards mileage. On certain occasions in the middle of the night they have to charter an additional motor to get away to the house of some shepherd among the hills or to some farm far away. In those counties the doctors would be glad to know what the arrangements sanctioned are for giving them a fair return for the money they may have to disburse in going these long distances to look after these most industrious people who deserve the best possible consideration.

There is one constant action with regard to the medical profession and the treatment of the medical profession which has characterised the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and has been imitated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and that has been an alternation between cajolery and bullying. In the course of the earlier discussions on the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly referred to some of my hon. Friends and myself who represent the medical profession as having been fair in our applications, as having dealt fairly in the various negotiations that were carried on, and as having put forward in a spirit of compromise the rights and considerations in favour of the medical profession. Now an entirely different tone has been assumed. All that we have been urging now we are told is done solely with the object of destroying the Bill. That is a libel upon the medical profession and upon those who represent the medical profession in this House. I could refer to repeated statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer absolutely in the teeth of those he now makes. We are all accustomed to the banter of the right hon. Gentleman. I myself, as much as anyone else. I treat his criticisms no more seriously than the banter of anyone who uses banter instead of argument. The other night he singled me out as one who put the claims of the profession forward as being guilty of gross inconsistency. Why? Because I had urged, on the one hand, that it. was better medical relief should be in the hands of public Boards rather than friendly societies, and because, on the other hand, I had on behalf of the medical profession objected in principle to contract practice as being degrading to the medical profession and dangerous and harmful for the insured persons. What inconsistency was there between the two?

The Secretary to the Treasury only a night or two ago accused all of us who brought forward questions as to the working of the Act as being actuated by the worst of motives, namely, party motives. That is a libel by the right hon. Gentleman upon his fellow Members. He knows perfectly well that I have repeatedly brought before him, privately, questions urged in all sincerity by those persons who are interested in the insured persons, and who speak in their interest. In some cases I put questions on behalf of the medical profession. These have been honestly put by me as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman that this Act should work in a way that would be to the advantage of the public, but who have a right to look for some consideration for their own profession. Is it fair for the right hon. Gentleman in his position as a Member of the Government to accuse hon. Members in this House who place questions before him as to the working of the Act of being actuated by the worst of motives, and being anxious solely to promote the interests of their own party. That is a libel which will react upon the right hon. Gentleman sooner or later. The questions I have put have been raised by persons practising in the East End of London or various provincial towns where the members of my Constituency are scattered in all directions all over England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by deceiving insured persons and doctors by holding out false and elusive hopes that there would be a free choice of doctors. No one spoke more eloquently upon the free choice of doctors and how there ought to be the fullest confidence between doctor and patient than the right hon. Gentleman. He deluded both the medical profession and the insured persons, and having done that he proceeded when the medical profession had been isolated, after having calmed the fears of the insured persons, to bully them into accepting his terms.

There is no such thing as the free choice of doctors under this Act. Not only is free choice denied and arrangements for your own medical treatment are impossible, but a worse feature than that has been brought in, because it now appears that if you do not go to the doctor assigned to you, you run the danger of being cheated of all the advantages under the Act for which you have paid. I know from my own experience and from the facts laid before us that many insurance committees are refusing to consider even the assignment of the ordinary sickness benefit and other benefits to those who are not able to produce a certificate from a medical man on the panel. This is coercion of the worst sort which will react upon the administration of the Act, and until it is amended so that the free choice of doctors delusively held out to insured persons, and by that means spread through the great body of the medical profession, until you give that free choice and the other benefits under the Act to those who have certificates assigned by non-panel doctors, the Act will be nothing but a failure in many respects. You have not engaged in the administration of the Insurance Act the full energy and enthusiasm of the most enthusiastic profession in the whole community, namely, the medical profession, because they are working under a sense of oppression, and they feel that they have been partly deluded and partly cajoled, and their complaint will not be answered merely by the banter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by speeches such as have been made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, imputing to all who find fault with the administration of the Act the basest motives.

I rise to make a personal explanation. I have said all I wish to say on this subject on the Second Reading of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think I was ungracious in my withdrawal of a charge which he supposed I made against him. I did not intend to be ungracious, and, if I had thought that I was, I should have risen at the time in Debate, and I would have done more graciously what it is thought I failed to do. The charge which the right hon. Gentleman thought I made against him was that of having improperly seen the records which are returned under the Insurance Act for the purpose of dealing with them in this House. That charge really was put upon me without my having made it, and if I said anything which conveyed that impression I express regret for it, and withdraw it in absolutely unqualified terms. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think I have succeeded in doing this graciously on this occasion. So far as this question of secrecy is concerned, I raised it because I thought it was of great import ante that the records should be kept in such a way that it would be absolutely impossible to identify the persons or see what persons were suffering from particular diseases. Those records might have to be produced in Court, and I understand now that there is going to be a change in the method by which those records are to be kept. I understand that no numbers are to be used, and I am glad that such a method will be adopted as will make it absolutely impossible to identify the record, and I am sure that will set at rest the minds of a good many people.

Reference has been made this morning to two or three cases of the failure to extend medical benefit to certain insured persons in Huddersfield. I wish to say that the delay which has arisen has been due to the failure of the Insurance Commissioners to issue the proposed Form 21, under which it would be open to insured persons to apply to the Insurance Commission for exemption. One of the cases mentioned I have some knowledge of, and it is a case where the insured person has stated her determination to receive no benefit from a medical man on the panel, and she has also stated that, assuming her own medical attendant were to apply to be placed on the panel, she would not accept the benefits of the Act in that form. I understand that, as a private patient, arrangements may be made that at the end of the year she can receive the amount which is due to her for medical benefit. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the Insurance Commissioners authorise the local insurance committees to deal with exceptional cases on their merits so as to reduce friction to the minimum.

Before the Financial Secretary replies, I should like, on behalf of the County Councils' Association and on behalf of the Gloucestershire Insurance Committee, to draw his attention to the financial difficulties of county insurance committees in regard to this question. Under Memorandum 134, which was issued by the Commissioners in December, 1912, and was followed by a circular letter to the authorities on the 31st January, the Commissioners will only allow payment of expenses which are actually incurred before the 13th January, and are actually paid before the 15th February this year. The county authorities are being allowed a sum of £4 5s. for every thousand population in order to meet the expenses in connection with sanatorium benefit. The county of Gloucester has the handling of some £1,400 as a result of this arrangement, and any balance that is not expended by to-morrow has to be handed back to the Insurance Commissioners.

I have no wish to avoid answering questions, but I do not think questions of sanatoria benefit are relevant to the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

It is not only sanatorium benefit, but the whole of the expenses of the insurance committees. I do not know to what extent they come under the Appropriation Bill, but I fancy there is a special Grant, at any rate, in connec- tion with the administration which comes within the Supplementary Estimates, and, if that is so, I will confine my remarks to that matter.

Would it not, be better to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, when I can give a reply on the whole question?

I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

I think the question has been raised once or twice with regard to insured persons having a free choice of doctor. I do not think the blame is altogether upon one side, because it has been brought to my notice that doctors in some cases have absolutely refused to sign any more forms in consequence of having so many people already on their books. Some doctors in the Division I represent have at least 4,000 insured persons on their books, and when people have applied to them to have their cards signed they have refused, and those people have been compelled in some cases to go a mile or a mile and a half before they could obtain a doctor to whom they could apply when sick. I should like to know whether there is any intention of limiting the number of insured persons to each doctor. It is only natural where there is a well-qualified doctor in a district that insured persons should apply to him, and the result is that he gets his books overcrowded, and other doctors get no chance at all. In these cases during surgery hours you can see 200 or 300 people waiting in a file in the road, just the same as if they were going to the Empire or to a theatre. It seems to me there ought to be some limit as to the number of insured persons on the books of any particular doctor. I saw a few days ago a letter in. the "Essex Times" that an insured person who fell sick went to the doctor before eight o'clock at night, and got a prescription, but when he got to the nearest chemist, which happened to be three miles away, the shop was closed. In cases of that kind, where a chemist is so far away, would it not be possible for the doctor to give the medicine? I hope, at any rate, we shall have some assurance that there will be some limit placed upon the doctors as to the number of persons on their books. Unless that is done, doctors in some cases will be overloaded with work, and we-shall be told this Act is killing the doctors, when, as a matter of fact, they will be killing themselves.

I was informed yesterday that a most unfortunate arrangement had been made in Edinburgh with regard to medical attendance. A great many servants in the West End have been placed under the control of a Portobello doctor, some miles away. There is no complaint made about the qualifications of the medical practitioner; he is in every way satisfactory, but it does seem strange that a doctor at the remotest point, in a seaside place, should have had allocated to him a large number of domestic servants in the West. End. It will be extremely difficult for them and equally inconvenient to him. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiry to see if any better arrangement is possible.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able in his reply to say something about the outworkers.

I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh (Sir J. Jardine) has said with regard to the question of mileage in the county of Roxburgh, and also in the county of Selkirk itself. These, although Lowland counties, have certain areas that are relatively high where the roads are bad, and some of the dwelling-houses a mile or two from any road. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something about this question of mileage. Representations have been made from those counties to the Insurance Commissioners, and we hope something will be done in order to meet these exceptional circumstances. It seems to me this is an appropriate time—and it certainly would be received with satisfaction—for an announcement to be made that the point is recognised and is to be substantially and fairly met.

Perhaps it will be convenient before the House passes to other subjects that I should deal with the group of questions that has been brought before me in connection with insurance. I may perhaps be allowed to congratulate the House on the tone and temper of this particular Debate, and to express my gratitude at being given an opportunity of dealing with some of the questions that have been raised which excite not only interest inside this House, but also considerable interest outside. With the exception of some carefully prepared adjectives by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who, having had them suppressed a few days ago, has found it necessary to bring them out before the Session ended, I think the whole Debate has dealt with real things, and in order that the general friendly temper of the Debate may be continued to the end perhaps, in response to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik), I may be allowed to say that I never meant to associate him with any charge of political controversy in this matter. I have always realised he has had a special position in speaking on this subject as representing probably one of the largest constituencies of medical men. He has spoken foil them and voiced their opinions many times very effectively, and certainly I never remember any intervention of his, either in connection with Questions or Debate, which I would in any way attribute to political motives. I do not want to make any general withdrawal of the statement, but I do want to make a withdrawal, so far as he is concerned, as he seems to think the point was raised against him. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Salisbury, that we are refusing, either through subterranean influences in connection with the insurance committees or by direct prohibition, that which was promised to insured persons when the Act was being passed, namely, a free choice of doctor, I am amazed that anyone who has followed the course of the controversy in connection with the medical benefit, a course which has culminated in the free Grant which we are voting to-day of nearly £2,000,000 a year for the medical profession, should accuse us of bullying the medical profession, of being neglectful of the petitions and amendments suggested by the medical profession, of simply squeezing them into reluctant service, and of refusing free choice to the insured person.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed again and again the object of the Bill, which was to try to give to the insured person, in so far as it could be given, the doctor he liked and the doctor he believed in. In order that that might be given to the insured person under the Bill, the whole of the Bill was transformed when it was passing through the House, and, in spite of the strenuous opposition, and the unpopularity accompanying that opposition, of the great organised friendly societies of the country, the old friendly society system, under which all the members of a society deal with one doctor, was swept aside, and a system, contrived by the House and approved by the House by an overwhelming majority, was set up, allowing every doctor who agreed to work under the Act to have his name put on a list, and all the members of the insured classes to have free permission to choose from that list any doctor they wished to attend to them. It is under that system, and for that system approved by a majority of 400 in this House, that we in the administration of the Act have been fighting. If we had abandoned that system in the administration of the Act, we might rightly have been impeached in this House for refusing to carry out a system of which the House had approved. It is to carry out that system that we have asked this House to vote this enormous sum of two extra millions to help to work the system. In order that the system should not be broken up by what was an avowed conspiracy to break it up, we accepted the decision of the insurance committees to very greatly limit and circumscribe what is called contracting out from that system. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that insured persons have a grievance. I must say that in the administration of the National Insurance Act I have heard very little of that grievance from the insured persons themselves, although I have heard a good deal from Members of Parliament, and I have heard a certain amount from the doctors who are trying to destroy the Act. He seemed to think that insured persons have a grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer because the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot compel doctors to work under the Act if they refuse to work under it. That is the whole subject of the charge.

Although the hon. Gentleman comes here with plausible words about contracting out, it is only fair to say of the doctors who have been fighting for the destruction of the Act, especially of the medical benefits portion of it, that they have made no secret of the matter. They do not say, "You have some persons here who wish to get their own doctor, and a few doctors who wish to attend their own patients and who wish to work under the Act under Section 15, Sub-section (3), and it is monstrous that they should not be allowed to do so." The policy of those who captured the British Medical Association, from some of its wisest and most trusted leaders, who resigned from the association that they themselves have built up by years of work, because they knew that policy was a policy of madness and suicide, was not a policy of using the contracting-out Clause in conjunction with the panel system as laid down in Section 15. It was a deliberately avowed policy to break the panel system, accompanied by every form of friendly or unfriendly intimidation and coercion against the doctors who wished to work under the panel system. We had to defend that system and to fight against the attempt that was made to break up that system. They wished to go back from the request they made to Parliament to have a list system. They wished to go back outside of that, not to make contracts under exceptional cases, but to make them on a wholesale scale with the friendly societies, with whom they had refused to make contracts the year before. There is no doubt about the case upon which they fought. When that policy was discussed, those who were opposed to it. raised the question before the British Medical Association and said, "How can you now break up the panel system and destroy the insurance committees and endeavour to start a separate medical system apart from the Act and in conjunction' with friendly societies, when you have already made one of your chief six points a refusal to have anything to do with the friendly societies?" And this is the answer they received from those who wished to carry out that policy:

"The Committee endorse the reply of the Chairman that the suggestion of dealing with the Friendly Societies was for services outside and not under the Act."

Now you have the doctors definitely saying, "We will not take service under the Insurance Act, but we wish for the money which is allocated to service under the Insurance Act. We also wish for the £2,000,000 more which is being allocated in order that the Insurance Act may go smoothly." Any Government, in my opinion, that gave way to a demand of that kind would not be worthy of the confidence of the House. I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been helping resistance to the insurance committees by this organised conspiracy, that they have been working for a system which, if they had been successful, would have caused untold harm and misery to the great bulk of insured persons, because the sole result would be that there would not be provision, as there was under the friendly societies, for certain selected lives, but under these contracting-out terms the whole mass of insured lives would come in whether they were poor or well-off, whether ill or well. So long as the insurance committees in different parts of the country were faced with the same demand for so long, they were undoubtedly right in opposing a similar policy, and no explanation is needed of any secret circular sent to them from the central authority. No secret circular was sent to them from the central authority. These insurance committees knew that really they were fighting for their lives in this matter, and the friendly societies realised that they were fighting for their lives, and one of the immediate results of the appeal to a certain section only of the doctors, backed up by political influences which ought never have been brought to bear to ally themselves with the friendly societies in order to break up the insurance committee, was that a manifesto was issued by the friendly societies themselves, in the public Press, saying that they would not enter into this conspiracy however speciously the net was spread in the sight of the bird. In spite of the desire of these doctors to go back to the friendly societies, and to adopt a very contrary policy to that which had been adopted by this House for medical benefits, a year ago when the Bill was passed, they had sufficient foresight and patriotism to realise that as a matter of fact it was an attempt which, if it succeeded, would have a most disastrous effect upon the medical benefits and upon their members.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly deal with the cases I have mentioned of exceptional circumstances, and tell us also whether he approves of the action of certain insurance committees in regard to certificates for sick pay?

I will deal fully with that afterwards, but with the indulgence of the House I desire at present to deal with those particular points, because this is the last opportunity in this particular Session, and they are most important to the persons outside. The hon. Gentleman said that a free choice of doctors working on a panel system was a sham, a fraud, and a delusion. Why is it a sham, a fraud, and a delusion? Over the great mass of the country practically all the doctors who are engaged in industrial practice are on the panels. Only in London and the district round London is any organised fight still being maintained to break down the medical benefit under the Insurance Act. I do not think that so long as my hon. Friend the Member for Walworth (Mr. Dawes) is chairman of the London Insurance Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones) is at the head of the Middlesex Insurance Committee, that it is likely to result in any large measure of success. Throughout the greater part of the country, and through almost the whole of Scotland, practically every doctor who is engaged in industrial practice is on the panel, and there is the freest possible choice of those doctors among the insured persons. In some counties all the doctors are on the panel. I think I am correct in saying, although I will not pledge myself absolutely, that in some counties every registered doctor has come on the panel, both in England and in Scotland. The average is certainly well over SO per cent.—I should say it is more than 90 per cent. outside London—of the registered doctors who have come on the panel, and who will work the Act, as I believe, with ever-increasing enthusiasm so long as they are left alone.

Then the hon. Gentleman says, supposing there is a general willingness to the work the panel system as designed by the Act, and supposing that the doctor who really wishes to deal with industrial practice is willing to do it under the Act and does not try to do it outside the Act, what about the exceptional cases where doctors, for some special reasons, do not want to work under the Act, and where the insured persons still wish for those doctors. As I said earlier in the week, so I say again to-day, no kind of obstacle will be put by either the Insurance Commissioners or the Government in the way of insurance committees exercising their discretion in any manner they choose in order to allow exceptional cases to be dealt with by an exceptional Clause under the Act. So long as the insurance committee is realising that it is fulfilling the primary duty for which it was created, that is, to give medical benefit to every insured person within the Act, and so long as it is also assured that the giving of permission under special circumstances to certain persons to receive medical benefit under the conditions of Section 15 (3) is not in any way interfering with the general responsibility to give medical benefit to all the persons under the Act, and is given in conjunction with the panel doctors who are serving, then they are very freely welcome, so far as we are concerned, to deal with the exceptional cases under an exceptional Clause. That leads me on to the question raised by the hon. Member for Walworth, namely, whether exceptional cases should not best be dealt with by not so much encouraging who is called contracting out under Section 15 (3), but by allowing doctors who are willing to go on the panel to take only a limited number of patients, doctors, for instance, who may be getting old, and do not want to take a very large practice, or doctors whose main practice is not what is called industrial, but who are willing to take certain cases including some of their old patients who specially wish for them.

My own desire is to see as many members of the medical profession on the panels as possible, because I believe, and here I am quite sure I am expressing the wish of the great majority of the leaders of the medical profession, that nothing could be worse for the medical profession itself than that there should be a divergence between two classes of doctors, those who are called insurance doctors and other doctors. I am quite sure that even those doctors who have been resisting the Insurance Act system so long as they thought there would be a general resistance, will now he well-advised, so long as it is evident that the great majority of doctors are going to work under the Act, to throw in their lot with those doctors, forget the controversy which tore the profession in two, and make again one unity, which will again make the negotiations with the committees as a unity in order that the best system may be devised under the Act and the Regulations, so that all passing difficulties can be considered and met. Our sole desire now is not in any sense to express any triumph for any victory we have obtained, but, so far as possible, to carry out in the letter and the spirit the promise we always made from the beginning, that our whole object would be to work the Insurance Act with the cordial and unreserved support of the medical profession of this country. While agreeing, as I said a few days ago, with the suggestion of the London Insurance Committee, we think it very desirable that where doctors wish for a limited number of patients, if it is possible, in conformity with the general interests of the insured persons, that they should be permitted to go on the panel for that limited number of patients, that that should be subject to two reservations. First, it would be unfair to doctors on the panel who are willing to receive all the patients, that doctors should be allowed to go on the panel and pick out certain special lives, with less than the average rate of sickness, and known to have less than the average rate of sickness, and yet to receive a remuneration, which we believe to be a liberal remuneration, for lives chosen out of the average, good and bad alike. I think it will be necessary for an insurance committee, in giving permission to doctors to have a limited number of patients, to say that either those doctors are to take an average sample of lives, and not selected lives, owing to their being not liable to illness, or else that the doctors who do take selected lives should be willing to take less remuneration for those selected lives, in order that more remuneration might be given to those who take the lives which no doctor wishes to take, owing to a more or less chronic state of illness.

The second condition must be this, that an insurance committee can only give its consent to doctors taking this limited number of lives in conjunction with, and with the free approval of, those doctors who have taken the general risk in that respect. What is the condition at present? I will not take a large area. Let me take, for example, quite a small area. Suppose ten or twelve doctors are taking work in a small county town. Those doctors have undertaken the liability for all the insured persons in that town—a collective liability for which they are receiving all the remuneration which is available for those insured persons. That does not mean that any doctor has definitely to undertake a patient he does not wish to undertake, but it means that the doctors on the panel have to ensure, under a collective responsibility, medical attendance for all persons on the panel. It must be with their agreement and consent that any of these doctors are allowed to say, "No, I will not accept the collective responsibility; I will only accept responsibility for 300, 400, or 500 selected lives." My hon. Friend, who is the chairman of the London Insurance Committee, tells me that he thinks that there will be no difficulty in London, at least, in carrying out such conditions as these, with the approval of the doctors who are on the panel and with an arrangement whereby selected lives shall not be selected on account of their immunity from disease; and it will be possible to give all those who are willing to tome in and work the Act such limited practice as, for example, among domestic servants and others, and by that means we may be able entirely to avoid a system, which would be a disastrous system, of breaking up the medical profession into insurance doctors and other doctors, and also to fully carry out every promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that every patient should have free choice of any doctor, provided that that doctor is willing to work under the National Insurance Act.

I come to the second question asked by the hon. Member (Mr. Dawes): Does the right of inspection which rests in the Regulations for the carrying out of medical benefit imply a clinical inspection of persons or a detailed investigation by an inspector, without complaint, of the relationship between doctor and patient?" I think that is the question. As clearly as possible I would assert that that is not the policy of the Insurance Commissioners or the insurance committees. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the Advisory Committee in the autumn, we have no intention of bringing any inspectors to examine either the method of diagnosis or the treatment of the patient by the doctor on the panel. I wish to make that statement as clearly as it can be made. The only reservation we make is that in case of definite complaint by the insured of the treatment he has received, that complaint is referred to a committee which is established by Regulation. It is a committee on which both the medical profession and insured persons are represented. It is a committee which, under the circumstances, would hear evidence and would report on that definite case. But the idea which some doctors have in their minds, and which they endeavour sedulously to foster in the minds of their brethren, that an inspector is suddenly to descend from the insurance committee upon a so-called panel doctor to investigate his day-book, to ask why he gave medicine in one case and not in another, why he treated one man that way and not in another way, is a thing which is utterly remote from any suggestion under the National Insurance Act, and I hope that particular libel, having been clearly refuted, may no longer be repeated either among the medical profession or among the halfpenny or threepenny newspapers.

I come now to the very important question—I am glad it has been asked—of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman). He asks what is the position of persons over sixty-five. Perhaps I might make an explanation in regard to the various classes of persons over sixty-five. There are, first, the men and women who are employed and were over sixty-five at the commencement of the Act last July. They became insured persons, but they are insured in a separate fund. They are insured persons who can receive 9d. worth of insurance for the 4d. of their contribution. To that 9d. we have now added 2s. 6d. per head for those who select medical benefit, by the Act which is now passing, and they will therefore receive something over 10d. per head of insurance for the 4d. which they have laid down.

Are these the people who were over or under sixty-five when the Act was passed?

They were over sixty-five at the time of the commencement of the Act, and if then employed came into insurance on 15th July in the ordinary fashion by their employers contributing on their employers' card. They therefore received, under a system calculated either by the friendly societies or by tables prepared by the Insurance Commissioners, what insurance can be given to them in proportion to 10d. per week for every 4d. that they contribute, and they can receive any benefit within those limits which their approved society may select for them. During all the early part of the year the approved societies only asked for tables for sick pay. They seemed to think that the best thing for these persons over sixty-five was to receive all that 10d. worth of insurance in the form of sick pay, and the Insurance Commissioners consequently issued tables showing how much sick pay could be given on an actuarial calculation for men of that age in proportion to 10d. per week for every 4d. they contributed. Since, however, medical benefit has been given there has been a strong demand, voiced partly in the House and to a certain extent outside, and I have had a large number of letters given me by Members of Parliament on the subject saying that these persons over sixty-five feel very much the fact that they will not receive medical benefit, and that they would prefer that some portion of the 10d. which will be given should be allocated for medical benefit and less consequently for sick pay. As a result of that request we have issued from the Insurance Commission actuarial tables which would enable any society which pleases to give to these persons medical attendance and treatment and a certain amount of sick pay.

Does that mean altering the rules?

I am not sure. In some cases it may in respect of that particular class of persons. In others it will be left open, and it will not mean an alteration of the rules. In respect of any persons of that age for whom medical benefit is chosen the extra 2s. 6d. which we are voting in general for medical benefit will be paid to the society in respect of that person, so that if medical benefit is given there will actually be paid, in respect of that person, somewhat more than if medical benefit is not given and only sick pay is given.

I understand that where medical benefit is given the sick pay is reduced to 4s. 6d. in the case of a person over sixty-five years of age at the time of the commencement of the Act, and in employment, and a member of a trade union, can the trade union, out of its trade union fund, pay this medical benefit for the insured person, and, if they give him the money benefit, will he receive also the 2s. 6d. grant, because a case happened where a society had only a few of these members over sixty-five, and the trade union wants to give them the full medical benefit at the same rate? Will the doctor attend them at the same rate as other insured persons, and, if the trade union cannot do that, can they pay the full amount out of the trade union fund?

I think it must depend in part upon the particular rule of the particular union. What the union can do is to make up the sick pay of the person over sixty-five to 6s. a week, and then give the medical benefit out of the National Insurance Fund, and then they will undoubtedly receive the extra 2s. 6d. from this particular fund.

They have to pay to their society many years for medical benefit, and they are now losing the medical benefit for which they have paid.

I say nothing as to that. In the second case, the case of persons who were insured in friendly societies before the passing of the Act, there are two cases. They may become insured persons under the Act or they may not. If they are insured in friendly societies which have been doing what the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division (Mr. Bridgeman) says—that is, taking their money for a great time—the societies ought to be able to give them medical benefit from the money now available. Many of them will be able to do it. I have a sort of belief that one of the largest societies has declared that in every case medical benefit will be given although a man is over sixty-five, because there have been accumulated funds for this very purpose, and the reserves are being set free owing to the operation of the National Insurance Act.

I was dealing with the case of persons over sixty-five who do not become insured persons under the Act, and who were insured in friendly societies. It is pointed out very strongly that if those persons who expected medical benefits for their lives are deprived of it now it would be a very hard case. My answer to that is twofold. The position is, if they have been accumulating funds in accumulating societies up to that age, that as the funds are released for those societies by the passing of this Act, I think that those societies ought to make arrangements for the continuance of the medical benefit, and I think that members of societies should be very careful that in the allocation of those funds special attention should be called to the interests of old members. The old members are not in a majority, and there may be a tendency in certain cases to think more of the interests of the great mass under that age than of the few who are above it, but I think that the first charge on any funds which are liberated should be those old persons. The second point is this. The hon. Member for Shropshire called attention to the Clause in the Act, which says that insurance committees must arrange for the attendance of these persons over sixty-five at a rate not less than the general rate for insured persons. That was specially brought in for the protection of persons of that age who might find the doctors charging an extra amount. The difficulty has not arisen in connection with that particular Clause. There is no difficulty, and I think there will be no difficulty; in securing attendance on persons who are over sixty-five, who are not insured, at the rate for which insured persons are attended. But what has happened is that owing to the extra Grant which the Government has given the price for the attendance of insured persons has very much increased. It has increased in country districts from an average of 4s. up to now to an average of 9s., or more than twice as much. I think it is rather unfair if doctors receiving 9s. a year capitation fee for patients for whom they were receiving only 4s. a year before the Act passed—which is more than doubling their income in respect of those insured person—also turn round on persons who are not insured and who are over sixty-five and say, "Because we are receiving 9s. a year—"

I do not think the doctors receive 9s.

Yes, I was taking the case of a doctor in a country district who does his own dispensing and therefore receives his full 9s. just for exactly the same service which he used to give for 4s. In the town districts also there would be a very considerable increase. If doctors are doing this—and I am sorry to say they have been encouraged to do it in certain quarters—it would mean that it in a certain club a doctor had been attending 300 persons, members of the club, at 4s. a head and had been doing it for the last twenty years, he would say, "I am now receiving for 280 of those persons who are insured persons 9s. a head, and therefore I refuse to attend the other twenty for 4s. a head." That is how the whole difficulty has arisen. I very strongly hope that as the Act comes to be understood the doctors will choose the better course, realising that this is a small and rapidly diminishing number of people who cannot live many years, and that they will say, "Because my income has been built up from a friendly society, and has been extended under the Insurance Act, I will at least attend these old people for the same price which they paid before."

What about the extra half-crown?

We could not give the extra half-crown except for those who come under the Insurance Act. I am making inquiries into this matter, and 1 very much hope that the result will show that a majority of doctors working under the Act are willing to accept the old figure for these people. A question was raised by two hon. Members for Scotland which is a very big question in the Highland ccunties—that is the question of mileage in some difficult districts, where many insured persons are living many miles from the nearest doctor. We all recognise that we have to meet that question. We promised to meet it and we are meeting it I hope in the Grant which is being voted in the Appropriation Act to-day. It includes a Grant of £40,000 for special mileage in Great Britain outside the Highlands and a separate Grant of £10,000 for dealing with this special problem of the Highlands and Islands. We have described that special Grant of £50,000 mileage as a Grant not for the ordinary population. We think that the 9s. given to the ordinary country doctor should be enough to cover that in the ordinary closely-populated village life of England. We desire that the scheme shall be elaborated in conjunction with the insurance committees, whereby this £50,000 shall be distributed in mileage in just those cases brought up by the two hon. Gentlemen who represent the Lowlands of Scotland. Where there is not a practice that can be taken in the ordinary round, as in closely-populated districts, but where the doctors may have to go four, five or seven miles in order to attend one or two insured persons, we ask the insurance committees to report how far those conditions present themselves within their areas, and from their reports, in conjunction with the Scottish, English, and Welsh Insurance Commissioners we will devise a scheme for the distribution of that £50,000 in a way that will as far as possible meet cases of hardship that may arise in mountainous or moorland, or plain districts, or any district where the population is widely scattered.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if that will take effect from the present time?

When the scheme is completed the money will be paid as from the commencement of the Act.

Is any of the money taken for wider purposes, such as the amalgamation of the various medical services, which is really a bigger and more important question?

All the money taken under this Bill is intended for medical attendance on insured persons, but under circumstances of special difficulty this money is advanced for the commencement of a general scheme, and the Highlands and Islands, with their special difficulties, will be dovetailed into that general scheme. As to the question of certificates, it must not be understood that I have no wish not to deal with that subject, but I can only repeat again what I have again and again repeated in this House. The question of sick pay under the Act is entirely a question for the managing body of the approved society, subject to this one reservation, that if the approved society has refused sick pay to the insured person and that insured person thinks he has the right to sick pay, being ill from a specific disease, he can then appeal to the Insurance Commissioners, who will then judicially adjudicate on the question of fact whether the injured person is suffering from that specific disease, and whether the insured person had a right to sick pay under the rules of the society which he has joined. The Insurance Commissioners have nothing whatever to do with the sick except dealing with that specific point. If the hon. Gentleman would like to see the reason why I said that we considered it unwise for the managing bodies of approved societies promiscuously to announce that they would receive certificates from any doctor, panel or non-panel, he will see it in the report of the debate on the subject a few days ago. I do not wish to repeat the arguments then used; they are fully set out, and the hon. Member can see whether those arguments are valid or not. The last point raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), who made what I can only freely acknowledge was a most handsome withdrawal of the charge that I thought he was bringing against me the other day. I do not wish to raise any personal question, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intended to bring the charge at all, though he perhaps did not quite realise how the effect of his remarks might mean a prac- tical breach of faith in the relationship between the Insurance Commissioners and myself on the one hand and the insured person on the other. If the slightest suggestion is made that I have at the Home Office Insurance Department a full account of all diseases to which insured persons have been subject, and that if a Member asked a question I could turn to a diary of the diseases of unfortunate persons, I cannot imagine anything which would cause greater resentment against the National Insurance Act.

It is because, not only have I no wish to do so, not only I freely refuse to do so, but also even if I could do so, there is no conceivable power under which I could do so, because the record does not exist and never will exist. Perhaps I spoke with some heat in repudiating what I thought was the charge, but I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised the question in order that I might make a full statement, and I think he agrees with me that, under the old system, and even under the new system, in which no numbers are given on the counterfoil, no clerk or Minister could ever find out the name of the insured person or the disease from which he suffered. I am afraid I cannot deal with the question of the outworkers which was raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, because there is no Vote under the Appropriation Act dealing with the subject. We are watching very carefully the operations of the Act in view of the difficulties and conditions in connection with special circumstances of that particular kind. This is the end of a long and exhausting Session in dealing with the Insurance Act, and I should like to express my gratitude to those Members who all through the year's violent controversies have given every possible assistance in the difficult work of administering and carrying out the operations of an Act so gigantic and so novel in many respects as this Insurance Act, and may I congratulate all of them on finding, as they are finding to-day, that they are working on the winning side.

I desire to raise one or two questions with reference to the Allies and the Turks, and also to refer to China and Persia. I have abstained right through the Session from making a single remark referring to the subject of the Allies and Turkey, and desire only to refer for a moment to the effect produced upon the Mahomedans of India by the manner in which this question has been treated in England. I have no complaint to make against the Foreign Secretary, whom I regard as the Foreign Secretary of this side—as well as of the other—but it is the case that colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman have made most unfortunate statements clearly pointing to extreme sympathy with the Allies against the Turks. I refer more particularly of course to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also the First Lord of the Admiralty. I should be wanting in the performance of my duty if I did not point out the extremely serious effect on the Mahomedans of India of speeches made, exhibiting the clearest possible partiality with the Allies and the utmost indifference towards the suffering of the Turks, on the part of two of the most highly placed Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Walter Guinness) has brought before the House, and I also brought before the House, that atrocities are committed by the Balkan Allies or their troops. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to say anything about them. I believe that to be a wise reticence on that subject while the war is going on, but I am bound to wish, whenever it is referred to, that he would bestow on the Turks some of the sympathy which has been bestowed in such abundant measure, without any proof whatsoever of the truth of the atrocities, whenever they have been alleged to have been committed by the Turks instead of by the Christians in the Balkans. I do not wish to say any more now on the subject.

Another subject to which I must refer, and to which I was permitted to refer on the last Adjournment, since when there has been an extremely disquieting feature, is the opium question. The main facts are well known. It is well known that the Chinese, while refusing to carry out their portion of the agreement with England in not preventing the wholesale cultivation of the poppy, have not allowed the sale in China of the opium of India which they were under engagement to take, and under engagement not in any way to prevent the sale of. The Secretary of State has given me very fair answers. I realise the extreme difficulty of the position in which he is placed, and do not wish to press him too hard. At the same time it has now become almost certain, and I doubt if the hen. Gentleman will deny it, that the central Government in China is acting together with the Yangtse Provinces in preventing the disposal of this opium, which has been sent by agreement and under permit to Shanghai, and upon which British banks have lent large sums of money, millions of money, as it has invariably been a security on which large sums are lent. The holding up of this opium is an exceedingly great loss to British merchants, and that, as I believe is now shown, is not being done by the recalcitrancy of the Southern Provinces against the central Government, but, as I suspected all along, in collusion with the central Government, which it is very hard to believe, is really much concerned with the suppression of the opium habit in China. I had occasion to mention the fact that innocent peasants were executed in China to show a keen desire to stop the use of opium, men who were no more guilty of any offence than Driver Knox for taking a glass, who received the abject apologies of the House of Commons. Men in China, not criminals, have been put to death for the use of opium, which in moderation is harmless, and very often as a medicine is exceedingly beneficial. They have been put to death under certain circumstances, but I do not want to refer to the methods of other governments, and the Foreign Secretary properly objected to doing so. Nor do I think that we ought to interfere in such cases or that the British Government are responsible for atrocities elsewhere. Heaven forbid that I should think so. It is not I who think that; it is Gentlemen sitting opposite who continually put forward that contention. At the same time this dreadful position does arise from the fact that the Government have not been firm in insisting upon the rights of British trade and of the Indian taxpayer under an agreement which I think it is their obvious duty to carry out to the letter. I thoroughly appreciate the extreme difficulties of the position, but I think some firmness is required. I do not agree with the Foreign Secretary that it is premature to discuss whether the arrangements made in 1911 should not be reconsidered. When there is this injustice to British nationals and this great loss to British traders, the time has come to reconsider this engagement. The disquieting fact now is that it is freely alleged, and inquiry in the Yangtse provinces would prove, that the central Government, instead of urging those provinces to carry out the terms of their agreement with Great Britian, are practically in collusion with them in preventing the carrying out of those provisions.

I wish also to refer, in the interests of British trade, to the position in Tibet. Under the agreement made with Tibet we threw away the whole of the advantages of a difficult, expensive, and successful expedition. I am not charging that against hon. Gentlemen opposite; I am afraid it was done when a Conservative Government was in power. Both sides are equally to blame for having thrown away completely the advantages which might have been secured. This is a matter of very great importance at the present moment. Twenty millions pounds of tea are imported every year into Tibet. At present it is China tea—the worst of China tea, stuff pounded together into a brick, mixed up with various coloured substances, which when prepared for drinking makes a concoction like beetroot stew or something of that kind. I want to see Indian tea sent to Tibet. It is a far better quality tea, it is grown nearer to Tibet, it is cheaper in price than China tea, and it would go into the country if the Government would put their backs into carrying out the agreement, which, heaven knows, contains little enough in favour of Great Britain, but the little which is in our favour the Government abstain from carrying out. In consequence of the action of the British Government in regard to the Young husband Expedition, China, which previously was merely a suzerain, became almost sovereign of Tibet. Since China has become a republic, Tibet has again become almost a loose annex of the Chinese Empire, and an opportunity offers of strictly enforcing the trade provisions of our treaty with Tibet, and of seeing that there are no transit duties, no unauthorised interference, no stoppage at posts in the way of giving to British trade, and more particularly to Indian tea, that opportunity which is its due.

I do not wish to go into the terms of the treaty, because no doubt the Under-Secretary will admit that it provides for the free entry of British Trade—Free Trade it is called. Of course there is in Tibet no such thing, but let us have it as near as we can. I would urge that the Anglo-Russian Convention needs amendment in this respect. We require some representative at Lhassa—not necessarily a European to arouse the anti-European feelings of the population of Llamas and 13huddists, but a native agent, such as we long had at the Court of Afghanistan, who was well suited for the duties he had to perform. Article 3 of the Convention of 1907 should be amended in this behalf. Great Britain has declined so far to recognise the existence of the new China Republic. In many parts of the world people are getting on pretty well without the recognition of Great Britain. That is happening in the Congo and in the Chinese Republic. I am afraid that a declaration of that sort does not carry the great weight now that it might have done in the past. However that may be, I submit that if the Foreign Office is not prepared to take what I consider strong and adequate action, it should at least consider the amendment of the Anglo-Russian Convention in the direction I have suggested. While on the subject of Tibet, I would like to ask whether it is a fact that Tibet and Mongolia have executed a treaty, and whether Tibet has the right to initiate treaties with Mongolia under the Treaty of Lhassa? I should think it extremely doubtful. At any rate, the subject is worth a word or two from the hon. Gentleman opposite. Why should the British Government be in a hurry to lend money to China as one of the six nations which are to put the Chinese Republic on its feet, while China is not meeting its wishes in Tibet and in regard to opium, but is openly flouting the agreement made with British India? After the Young husband Expedition the advantages of that expedition were thrown away with both hands in such a way as to convince the Chinese that they can do anything they like with the British, and that therefore it is not necessary to consider their feelings or rights in any matter whatsoever.

I will say no more on that subject, but come to the present condition of affairs in Persia. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Morrell) has often addressed the House on this subject, and I believe he will to-day. He is one of those Gentlemen who has that faith that will remove mountains. He still believes in Parliamentary Government; he is really under the impression that it has done good for Persia, and that some hope remains of the regeneration of that unfortunate Empire under the worst system of government that it has ever experienced since the time of Darius and Cyrus and other legendary kings—I will not go back to the time of Jamshid. The present condition of Southern Persia is one of absolute anarchy. Everyone knows it. It is not disputed. We have a small detachment of the Central India Horse at Shiraz. The Foreign Secretary has been extremely careful to point out on many occasions that that force is there, not for the purpose of keeping order, but as a Consular guard. I do not know why we should have been so shy about allowing British troops to keep order in Persia. There would be no order kept in Southern Persia if they had not kept it. Why this shyness when the British Government had landed bluejackets at Lingah and Bushire, on the shores of the Gulf, and when it is perfectly well known that the whole of Southern Persia—very unlike the days when I knew it—is armed to the teeth. Gun-running obtains in the Persian Gulf, and all the freebooters, robbers, and looters who live in Southern Persia are supplied with arms of precision. The whole place is an armed camp.

The Foreign Secretary has been perfectly unable to avenge the death of Captain Eckford, that fine soldier, who was shot down. I will not call it murder, because, of course, it is not murder in that part of the country. They do not think anything of the value of an individual life. All through the East they attach quite a different. value—it may be that they are more right than we are—I cannot say—to the individual life. But it is absolutely necessary, when it is the case of one of our soldiers in uniform on duty in the country who is shot down, that his death should be avenged, and that the population of Southern Persia should know that a British soldier cannot be killed with impunity. I should like to know what the position is as regards putting an end to this state of chaos in Southern Persia. At present £200,000 I believe of our money has been sent into Persia, upon what security I do not know. The "Old Man of the Sea" came from the Persian Gulf. It was there he got upon the neck of Sinbad. In this country the taxpayer has upon his neck the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I confess at a time like this, when in this country our funds are being spent with both hands, when any expenditure is welcome that appears to be popular, without the smallest regard to where it weighs upon the taxpayer, when Votes are brought, as is admitted, illegally into this House so they may be rushed through—if nobody's Parliamentary acumen detects the illegality—in the face of a position like this, anxious as I am to see order in Southern Persia, I would hesitate to spend British money there unless I knew that some proper security for the British taxpayer was being exacted. I would like the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary to tell us what is the security for the British money already spent—not in keeping order, I am sorry to say, in Southern Persia—if it had kept order there would have been a. return to the British taxpayer. Trade would have been flourishing. Imports would have gone in, exports would have come out. There would have been some return to the British taxpayer.

The whole place is a "no-man's-land," a country where your throat can be cut for 6d., where no caravan is safe. What then is the use of sending British money there? Why are they now going to get another loan, unless indeed the Foreign Office has at last hardened its heart and made up its mind that it will take some effectual steps to keep order in Southern Persia. There are hon. Members in this House, my hon. Friend (Mr. Morrell) is one of them, who complain that Russia keeps troops in Northern Persia. There are people who tell him that that is disagreeable to the Persians. I know the kind of correspondent hon. Members get who take an interest in Persia. They meet a Bakhtiyari chief from Paris on the terrace of the House of Commons. He talks like a Parliamentarian. He is not representative of Persia. The more Parliamentarian he is the less Persian he is. These gentlemen do not represent Persian feeling. The whole Parliamentary revolution, improperly so called, in Persia, has merely been to substitute Bakhtiyari tribal influence for Kajar tribal influence. The Kajar are better than the Bakhtiyari, because they have the glamour of royalty about them, They have sat upon the throne for some generations; they did meet with more obedience, and were able to keep order in Persia in which the Bakhtiyari, since they have been in power, have most signally failed. If we have no order for British trade and no means of carrying it on in Southern Persia for the money we have spent, what is the use of spending more money until the Foreign Office formulates some policy and until we know that the British taxpayer, that patient ass, is going to get something back for the money he has spent in Persia? I do not want to see any expedition go to Southern Persia. I am absolutely certain that must come if the Government do not stop at once the present welter of anarchy. These things will reach such a pass that they will have to send an expedition, and then they will have to occupy Southern Persia in the same way as Russia, more wise than we, and less hampered by their Parliamentary system, have already occupied Northern Persia. I am not anxious to see that done, but I protest it will happen, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will deny it.

I urged that the Anglo-Russian Convention needs amendment in respect of Tibet. I wish to make the same submission to the House in regard to Persia. The spheres of influence were drawn for reasons into which I need not go now. The whole British sphere of influence of any value was declared to be neutral. The portion which was of no value, except from a strategical point of view, was allotted to us. The whole area which we have on the shores of the Gulf, we have policed, we have introduced trade and abolished slavery, our ships have been the sole means of communication with the outer world. The captain of a British steamer was greater than the greatest sheikh or shah anywhere about. All that region is called neutral! Unless the Foreign Office promptly occupies that so-called neutral ground with roads and railways or what not, there is the fact that when the Russians have got down to Ispahan, which is the southern point of their sphere of influence, they will never tolerate this anarchy close to their door. They will overflow into the so-called neutral sphere, which is indeed the British sphere by every claim in the world, and that will force either the Russians to take Southern Persia as well as Northern Persia, or we shall be driven as a last resort to do what we now may possibly evade doing, if we adopt something like a firm, consistent policy in regard to Persia. In 1908 I was allowed by the Foreign Secretary to submit to him certain proposals which I drew up in connection with firms most interested in trade on the shores of the Persian Gulf, as to the steps which should be taken to peg out claims and to prevent the admission of others into this sphere. If the hon. Gentleman will some time look into the archives of his office and see if anything was done in regard to that matter, I shall be very grateful to him, and, what is of more importance, so will those great firms interested in Persia who view with a great deal of apprehension the present state of affairs. The only other word I wish to say is this: I would like to know whether it is really the case that at the present moment it is proposed to give £125,000, and, if so, is the British taxpayer to provide the money, and on what security, for the purpose of helping the Swedish gendarmerie, or rather the Swedish officers who work the Persian gendarmerie, in the South? On what terms is this money to be spent? Is the contribution to be made to go into the pockets of the khans and local chiefs, because once the money gets into their pockets it is never likely to get out again, or to be wasted on the preservation of order, which is the last thing that the khans and chiefs of Southern Persia want to see established.

Another question also concerning trade is this: There was a tariff negotiated between Russia and Persia in 1903 which hits British trade rather hard. It was entered into between those two countries without any reference to us. We know that under the Anglo-Russian Convention, which I myself supported, we can go to Russia and say, "We are not fairly treated. Our trade is not fairly treated under that Convention. Give us better terms." Why the Foreign Office does not do that I confess I cannot understand. I think that is another point on which firm action should be taken by the Foreign Office in the interests of British trade. Persian Parliamentary government is absolutely hopeless. If anybody wants to convince himself of this he could not do better than read a book which was written for the purpose of proving it was a success. I mean the book by Mr. Shuster, who if ever a man showed he was unsuited for the position he was placed in, and that the system he tried to work was impossible, has succeeded in doing so in this book, which is a violent philippic against Russia, which displayed so much more concern for their nationals and so much more care for their own trade, and afforded so much greater protection for the Persians in Persia than the British Government. They have had advantages which we lack, but we ought, so far as we can, to try to imitate their handling of a difficult problem rather than to oppose it, as some hon. Members of this House do. The present. position is most dangerous to British prestige. Not only are our own officers and soldiers shot at and insulted with impunity in Persia, but even in Baluchistan and India everyone hears talk about the twisting of the British lion's tail, and it does us no good at all in our Indian Empire.

The Anglo-Russian Convention is out of date; it served a most useful purpose, but it requires amendment both as regards the sphere of influence in Persia and in the other respects which I mentioned as regards Tibet, and I hope the Foreign Secretary, when freed from his more pressing duties, which he is performing to universal satisfaction, will address himself to this matter, which is so important to British prestige. In Persia if we do not move somebody else inevitably will, and then we shall be involved in actual warlike operations in order to maintain the position we now have and which is fast slipping away from us. The Foreign Secretary informed us that a concession had been granted to a Russian syndicate for a railway from Julfa to Tabriz with a conditional option for an extension from Tabriz to Kazvin That I was quite prepared for, as was everybody in the least acquainted with Persian politics, but I confess I should like to have it stated that, at the same time, a concession was arranged for a British railway extension as well. I do not attach so much importance as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton does to the fact that each concession, British and Russian, should be of the same number of miles, but I attach great importance to the fact that when the Persians carry out their engagements with Russia, they should in like manner carry out their arrangements with us. So completely have they carried out their arrangements in Northern Persia that they decided to have the railway made on the Russian gauge. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what is the position as regards the Mohammerah-Khurramabad line, and will the Foreign Office press for that, seeing that we have had nothing else from Persia except chaos, disorder and plunder of our caravans? Will they at least try to get this concession, and will the hon. Gentleman also inform the House what is the present position of the trans-Persian line? Is that still merely in the hands of the Société d'Etudes in Paris, and does that mean nothing more than that the survey is conducted, and if the survey is conducted, can he say how far the survey has proceeded? I do not find in ordinary sources that information, and I find nothing upon those points as to which considerable public interest is felt.

Whether this line is ever made, whether we shall ever be politically so foolish as to run a wedge into our frontiers and destroy the desert which by the common consent of all soldiers is the best frontier in the world, and substitute for it a railway which is the best possible means of attack in the world, I cannot say. But it is a matter of so much stragetic importance and concern to the British Empire that I think the House should be informed. I should like to know what is the latest. stage of the question. At the present moment we are not. exposed to any attack upon our Indian Frontier. If this railway is made we shall open a way to the introduction of Russian troops and goods into British-Indian markets. I have some excuse for addressing the House on this subject. For at least twenty-five years I had close connection with Persia, and if anyone loves the Persian language I do. I have a great and enduring love of that language and of the people. I deeply deplore the present conditions. I am well aware the Foreign Office is not responsible for them, but I see things going from bad to worse, and I do not see any hope for the real independence of the country, and I hope, at any rate, that some concerted policy, some fairer and firmer treatment will be resorted to before the state of affairs inevitably leads to armed intervention and probably to the permanent occupation of the Southern Province of Persia.

The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), among his proposals to set the world straight, said that only by a policy of firmness could we hope to extend our trade. That is rather an antiquated policy if firmness means making war on people to make them take our goods. There are places in China where they snake brick tea, but surely they have a perfect right to make their tea in their own way, but the hon. Member objects to that because Assam is very near to Tibet, and the hon. Member wants to force our tea upon Tibet.

:I did not say so.

The hon. Member said firmness if not force.

Certainly not.

I am glad to hear that the hon. Member does not believe in methods of force, and I assume that he is prepared to apply this principle to the opium trade, and he would not exercise any force to make China take opium. He did suggest that the Grand Llama of Tibet ought to have a representative combining firmness and force, and I think that with the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of languages His Majesty's Government could not really find a better representative than the hon. Gentleman himself. Although this House would be very sorry to lose him, the Grand Llama would derive great benefit from the hon. Gentleman's advice and presence in Tibet. I wish to correct some glaring inaccuracies in the hon. Member's remarks. Just before Christmas he told us that China was doing nothing to put down the opium scourge, and in the same speech he also complained that the Chinese Government are doing too much. May I point out that in China they are cutting off the heads of their own people for consuming and producing something which this country is selling them under the policy of firmness which be advocates. We ought not to force upon another country even a useful article of commerce, let alone an article like opium, which is the ruin of China. The hon. Member told us that China is not in earnest in this matter, and he has thrown doubts upon the bona fides of the Chinese Government in the heroic and unexampled task they have taken in hand of trying to extirpate the consumption and production of opium, which is the curse of their country. I am in constant communication with people of all kinds in China, and there is ample evidence that the Chinese are endeavouring to put down this traffic in the reports of our own Consuls, which, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman opposite has read. During the time of the revolution, and since the revolution, opium production has been put down almost everywhere throughout China in the most drastic manner.

I do not know of it.

The hon. Gentleman ought to have known the facts before he slandered the Chinese Government in this House.

I do not believe it.

Within the last six weeks I have met travellers from China, and I met one who has spent ten years out of the last twenty years in China. He spent the whole of the year 1912 going over ten out of the eighteen provinces of China, and he declares, without any doubt, that in regard to opium production in China t here has been a great decrease. This fact is confirmed by the reports of the Chinese Maritime Customs, the secretary of whom has lately stated that there is hardly any opium being grown in many of the provinces of China. Therefore when we are told that the Chinese Government are doing nothing in this matter and are not in earnest, it is a little too much for us to believe. Let me give a recent instance from the China Press of 18th January from Reuter's Pacific Service:—

"Wenchow, 18th January.

"The Juian plains and both banks of the river for a distance of forty miles were planted with poppy four weeks ago. Several hundred soldiers, accompanied by the Mayor of Juian and the chief military officer, have traversed the poppy districts and have ordered all the poppy to be destroyed. Last week several houses were burned and others damaged by the military in cases where this order was disobeyed."

There is overwhelming evidence from correspondents of English newspapers of all parties in Pekin and Shanghai to show that the Chinese Government is doing its duty in this matter. There is one matter I wish to call the Under-Secretary's attention to. Shanghai mainly consists of an international settlement largely dominated by the British Government, and there is a native settlement. Here the opium policy has been rigidly carried out, and the opium sots are coming from the native city of Shanghai into the international settlement to buy their opium. I ask the Government to put before the municipal council of Shanghai, which is the real governing body, our desire in this matter, so as to assist the native governors and officials who are so loyally attempting to stamp out this traffic. I thank the Government from the bottom of my heart far not carrying out the treaty with China, and for not enforcing by a threat of war, which this House and no British Government ever would resort to, upon the wholesale dealers and provincial officials the free admission of our Indian opium. I want the Government to announce that there will be no more Government opium grown in India and that China shall be released from this terrible bondage on the earliest possible occasion. Until we do that, and tell China that she need take no more opium, we have not done all we can to wipe away from our escutcheon the blackest blot that I believe has ever stained it.

The hon. Member who has just sat down has made a fairly vigorous attack on the system of Parliamentary Government which he says exists in Persia. Of course, he is aware that as a matter of fact at the present time Parliament is suspended, and there is no Parliamentary government. I am inclined to think it is not merely in Persia that the hon. Member objects to Parliamentary government. From the reference he made to Russia and the admirable way in which Russia is able to conduct her affairs, internal and external, I am inclined to suggest that he has a fairly universal objection to Parliamentary institutions. Everyone must admit that the present situation in Persia is extremely unsatisfactory, although during the last few weeks I think there have been signs of some improvement. I only part company with the hon. Member opposite as to the steps we ought to take to remedy matters. The hon. Member, as I understand, asks that we should at once send a British Expedition to occupy Southern Persia and keep order there.

I did not say so; I deprecated it.

I took down the hon. Member's words. He said, "I do not know why the British Government should be so shy of keeping order in Southern Persia. We have, in fact, undertaken to keep order in Southern Persia, and I suppose in order to do this a considerable British force would be necessary."

What I said was I thought some steps should be taken in order to prevent the deplorable necessity of an expedition.

The hon. Member does not tell us what steps. If he means that we should do what we can to assist the existing Persian Government in keeping order, then he and I are at one, but I gathered he had some other steps in view, though he did not exactly explain what he meant. I believe there is nothing that would be more fatal to the security of our Empire and our own good name than that we should now be seen to occupy Southern Persia, which certainly a good many of the hon. Member's friends have asked us to do, in the way Russia is occupying Northern Persia. Not only would that be a breach of faith, but it would be a reversal of the policy which generations of British statesmen have tried to carry out, namely, the keeping in existence of an independent Persian kingdom as a buffer state between our Indian Empire and Russia. The hon. Member suggested it was time the Foreign Office should formulate some policy. He does not seem to be aware that the Secretary of State on 14th December, 1911, fourteen months ago, in this House formulated a very definite policy with regard to Persia. It was immediately after Mr. Shuster had been expelled that the Secretary of State came to this House and laid down the lines of a policy which had been agreed upon between this Government and the Russian Government—he called it a constructive policy—for putting the Persian Government on its feet and keeping it there. The main lines of that policy were: In the first place, the Persian Government should recognise the Anglo-Russian Convention, which they have done; in the second place, that the ex-Shah should not be allowed to return or should not be recognised if he attempted to return, and that again has been carried; in the third place, that an adequate loan should be given to the Persian Government to enable it to restore order; and, in the fourth place, that the Russian Expeditionery Force should, as soon as possible, be withdrawn. The words used were to this effect: "It is understood the military measures and the occupation of Northern Persia by Russia now in progress are provisional and not permanent, and will cease when the Russian demands have been complied with, and when order in Northern Persia has been re-established."

There you have the main lines of the policy, which I understood was accepted by both sides of the House as a reasonable policy for the British Government to adopt with regard to Persian affairs. I quite agree that it is not being carried out as fully as we could wish, not entirely owing to the fault of the British Government. With regard to finance, nothing has yet been done to give the Persian Government the adequate loan necessary in order to enable it to restore order. Hon. Members speak as if the present Persians Government and the Persian people had not shown themselves fit for independence. I should like the House to remember how the Persian Government has been treated by Russia and to some extent by thin country. They had in Mr. Shuster, whatever his faults were, a servant whom they entirely trusted, and who was, amid great difficulties, actually getting the Persian finances into a solvent condition. He may have made mistakes, but at any rate he had the full confidence of the Persian Government and the Persian people. Mr. Shuster, for reasons which may have been sufficient to the Russian and British Governments, was expelled at practically twenty-four hours' notice, and since then the Persian finances, as everyone knows, have been to a large extent in confusion. I say it is unfair to lay all the blame upon the Persian Government for the state of chaos and disorder-which has undoubtedly existed, and which to some extent does exist, in some parts of Persia after it has been treated like that, and when no new loan has been given and no satisfactory financial adviser has been appointed to take the place of Mr. Shuster.

I respectfully suggest we should do our best to give the Persian Government a fair chance. We should, in the first place, carry out the pledge which has been given that an adequate loan will be given to enable them to restore order and to keep a sufficient armed force to keep order in Persia. In the second place, if Mr. Monard is not able to give sufficient security for a loan of that sort, a new financial adviser should be appointed who will be-able to restore Persian finances, and thus allow the loan to be carried through. In the third place, it is obvious if the Persian Government is to be put on its feet and maintained there, steps must be taken as soon as possible to withdraw some of the troops which have so long occupied parts of Persia. At the present time there are in Persia 13,000 Russian troops and 1,300 English troops. It is impossible for a Government to have the prestige or authority it ought to have so long as the country it is supposed to govern is occupied, as Persia now is, by foreign troops. I trust His Majesty's Government will continue, as order is restored, to press the Russian Government to carry out their clear undertaking that their troops shall be gradually withdrawn. That seems to me a most important point. It also seems to me clear that if the Persian Government is to have a really firm basis you must have the restoration of the Medjliss. The hon. Member opposite seemed to think that the Persian Parliament was the author of all the evils. My own view is that there has been a good deal more chaos and disturbance since the Nationalist Parliament, the Medjliss was forcibly dissolved than when it was in being eighteen months ago. I believe that as order is restored, one of the first steps should be that the Medjliss should be again summoned. I think it was a very efficient check upon corruption by officials and elsewhere. The Persian Government should not be, as it is now, the mere nominee of the British and Russian Governments. It is true that it has a constitutional basis, but we all know that the constitution has been forcibly suspended by Great Britain and Russia. There may have been reasons for that, but I am quite clear in my own mind, and I hope the Foreign Office will agree with me, that our aim ought to be to see that once again the Constitution in Persia is restored; that as soon as order can be restored the Constitution is restored; that the integrity of Persia shall be absolutely maintained and an independent Government as soon as possible be established in the country.

No one can he more sorry than I am that I have to answer for the Foreign Office this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has a conference with the Ambassadors of the great Powers at the Foreign Office this afternoon, and he very much regrets that this engagement compels him to be elsewhere. He was in the House until a short time ago hoping that this Debate would come on rather earlier, but I think hon. Members who have spoken will see that he could not alter the time of the conference with the Ambassadors, and I hope for the indugence of the House, in taking his place. The hon. Member opposite (Sir J. D. Rees) said at the outset of his speech in dealing with the affair of the Balkans that he thought it would be a good thing that I should say as little about it as possible, and therefore I do not intend to say anything at all; but he did not give me the same advice on the question of opium on which he raised several points as did my hon. Friend behind (Mr. T C. Taylor). I am bound to say that I agree more with regard to the cultivation of opium with my hon. Friend on this side than with the hon. Member who spoke first. There can be very little doubt, both with regard to the suppression of opium smoking and of opium cultivation in China, that a great improvement has taken place since the time when the revolution was going on and when the country was in a state more or less of chaos. I should also like to make this point, which I made on the Christmas Adjournment, that this country really is under no obligation whatever to force any definite or indefinite amount of Indian opium into China. Those who are engaged in the trade must have well known that it could be struck off at any time by a declaration under the treaty by provinces who were free from growing opium and were free from having to import opium, that they were engaged in a highly speculative business of that kind, and that they could not expect that this or any other Government should secure for them good and comfortable bargains for their goods. The question that was raised with regard to Shanghai shall have careful and sympathetic consideration. It is a new point to me, and I cannot make any answer at present beyond that.

With regard to the further point made by my hon. Friend on this side, that we should now at once formulate a proposal to release China from the treaty and that it would be the best thing to do in order to secure the entire suppression of opium growing in China and of the importation of opium from India, I can, of course, make no sort of promise. It is a very serious matter to release a nation which has willingly entered into a treaty obligation from that obligation, and I can only say that. representations have recently been made and have had the careful consideration of the Government, but I cannot state the decision they may come to on that point. With regard to Tibet, I am afraid I shall have to admit it to the House that I am not fully informed on all the points that the hon. Member raised. I did not know the question would be raised have not fully followed all the recent negotiation. I do know that there was a good deal of disturbance and difficulty in one way and another on the frontiers of Tibet and India and Tibet and China. I know also that our Ambassador at Pekin has been firmly impressing upon China that that country ought to carry out strictly all its treaty obligations with regard to Tibet. That matter has not been in any way neglected. It has been fully considered, and I can tell the hon. Member that we are firmly determined to establish our position under our treaty so far as Tibet is concerned. I am not aware of any treaty between Tibet and Mongolia, of any sort of binding character. We never recognised any existing treaty there, and I should be surprised if there was any intention of doing so.

On the subject of Persia, I should like to take this, my first opportunity in the course of debate, of expressing my very great regret, and the regret of the Government, at the loss of Captain Eckford, who was a most gallant, talented and useful officer, and who had before him a career of really great distinction if he had not met with the disastrous end which unfortunately overtook him. That matter is a most serious one. It is essential that there shall be punishment meted out to the bandits who were guilty of the attack on the caravan, of which they mistook Captain Eckford and his men for the escort; but, of course, we have to recognise, in the first place, that winter is not the best time of year in which punitive measures can be most successfully undertaken. We have come to the conclusion that it would be right for us to give the Persian Government a proper opportunity of carrying out themselves the necessary measures of punishment. We do not intend, as at present advised, to send a punitive expedition from England or from India; we do not intend to police the roads ourselves; we do not intend to restore order with our own forces, because we very well know, although you may send a force with only one object, believing you can withdraw it within a few weeks or months, that a process of that kind is almost certain to develop against one's will into a permanent occupation of the country, which is a thing we do not in any way desire. I cannot say that that in all circumstances and in all cases will be the permanent policy of the Government. We do rely on the present Government themselves to carry through the necessary measures to show these bandit tribes that British officers cannot be shot with impunity, and we shall very anxiously await the results of their action in the spring.

That brings me at once to the question of the gendarmerie, which is being commanded by Swedish officers. I should like, if I may, to take this opportunity of saying how very much we recognise the extremely good work these officers have done under very great difficulties. It must be extremely difficult for good European officers, trained under European systems, at once to make a success of training or commanding Persian soldiers in the most difficult task of securing order on the roads, but they have worked most assiduously and earnestly to overcome the great difficulties in their way under Colonel Hjalmarsen, who is responsible, and of Major Siefvert, who is in command on the spot. We are so much impressed with what they have already done that we feel considerable hope that they will be successful, and that under this force order will really be established as soon as it has had a little more time to develop and to acquire the necessary training, cohesion, and trust of itself which the Swedish officers are working very hard to obtain. It is one hopeful thing that the gendarmerie under the Swedish officers is shaping well, and it may, I think, give us some hope of effecting its object. The second hopeful thing with regard to the present condition of Persia is that there has been recently a change of Government, and that a new Cabinet has been established which is far and away more public-spirited and able than any Cabinet which has been seen there for some time. It consists of a selection of men who are devoting their abilities to their task with a single eye to the good of their country. It contains such men as Ala-es-Sultaneh as Prime Minister, Vossuk-ed-Dowleh, Mustanfi-ul-Mamulek, and Motamin-ul-Mulk, and others who have not hitherto taken a prominent part in the affairs they have now consented to undertake. His Majesty's Government, and I think the Government of Russia is in entire agreement with them in the matter, have very considerable hopes of the administration rapidly getting into far better order under this Cabinet than has been possible of late years.

Therefore taking the two things together, the real hopefulness of the development of the gendarmerie on the Southern roads, and the real hopefulness of the new Cabinet which has tackled its work in a way Persia has not experienced for some years past, His Majesty's Government have decided to do two things. First, to advance, the Government undertaking one part, and the Government of India undertaking the other part, a special sum which shall be absolutely ear-marked for the administration of the province of Fars; and, secondly, to join with the Government of Russia in making a separate advance for the general purposes of the Persian Government, the amount which will come before this House in the Estimates for next year being £50,000.

That is the smaller loan.

Yes. The advance with regard to Fars will be paid to the Governor-General, to be expended under careful control, the portion for the gendarmerie being paid out by the Swedish commander. There will be no risk in the direction the hon. Member foresaw there might be if limits of that kind were not made. The larger advance, with an equal amount to be provided by the Russian Government, will be for general purposes. We hope, of course, that the advance for general purposes will be covered by a larger loan, which Persia, we hope, will be able to raise, and we think should be able to raise as soon as order and firm government have been restored. That is, as everyone, whatever views they take, will recognise, the really essential thing in Persia. Once there is order the Government can secure money, or, to put it the other way, if the Government secure money they are likely to secure order, and once they can secure order they will be able to offer proper security for a larger loan, which they can use for the development of the country. The hon. Member opposite said he would like us to revise the Anglo-Russian agreement and to take into it a great space of territory which at present is regarded as a neutral sphere, and to occupy the ground of the neutral sphere on the Persian Gulf. I think he said it should be occupied by concessions, rather than with troops. In that connection I can only say that we have secured an option for a railway from Mohammerah to Khorramabad, and that other matters in connection with the Gulf are now under consideration, while there is no question whatever of any revision of the Anglo-Russian agreement, and I have no hope that we shall do what the hon. Gentleman desires in that direction, he need not be afraid that our predominating interests in the Persian Gulf are being affected or being allowed to fall into the hands of other persons.

He asked a question as to the exact state of the recent railway concessions. On that matter I think I can give him fairly definite information. The Persian Gov- ernment were most willing and anxious to grant a concession to the British company at the same time as the Russian concession for a railway to Tabriz. There was no unwillingness at all on their part, and the delay that occurred, our concession being granted a few days after the Russian concession, was only due to the fact that the application of our company was not in a sufficiently advanced stage to permit of a formal contract being made straight off. The syndicate were not able to give the details of which the Persian Government, quite rightly, wished to be in possession before they issued a definite concession, and therefore ours is only an option. One thing or another will be done. Either the concession will be made or the contract will be given to the company, but whichever it is, it must follow on the survey, which is to be begun at once by the Persian Government in co-operation with the syndicate, and the fact that the representatives of the syndicate in England have made no complaint at all as to what has been done shows, I think, that there has been no backwardness in securing whatever it was right and reasonable to secure practically at the same time as the concession was given for the Russian railway. I have no news at all that M. Monard desires or is likely to retire from his appointment, and in general already, under this new Cabinet, the position seems more established and brighter for the future than it did even under the regime of Mr. Shuster, even in the position which that regime takes in the mind of my hon. Friend. I do not think things were quite as favourable to them or the prospects quite as good as he does, but however great his virtues may have been, I think, even now, although the new Government has only been in office for some weeks, the state of things seems a good deal more promising than it did then.

With regard to the Medjliss, the simplest way to express it is this. It is, of course, quite reasonable and right to say that without a Parliament the Persian Constitution is not properly established. It is right to say there is a connection between the restoration of order and the summoning of a Medjliss, but that connection is not one of cause and effect. We cannot say that summoning the Medjliss would at this stage increase the likelihood of firmer Government being established, but we can say that if firm Government is established that ought to lead to the summoning of a Medjliss, and that under these conditions, when once the Cabinet is really established, the summoning of a Medjliss certainly ought not to be delayed. We hope it will not be, and it ought to be useful under these conditions, but, while the Cabinet is weak, the Medjliss could only do harm. It then presents itself to the tribes in the outlying districts in Persia simply as constituting a divided authority at the centre. Unless and until there is perfect government no good prospect can be held out of assembling a Medjliss. But as soon as there is firm government one hopes that a Medjliss will again be summoned, and that under the Constitution in its complete form Persia will develop as a constitutional country. There is a further question with regard to the withdrawal of the Russian troops. There, again, I can only say what I have already indicated, that the Russian Government agree with us that the present Cabinet gives a greater offer and hope of firm, continuous, good administration than anything that there has recently been in Persia. They are not willing yet to withdraw their troops, but we hope, of course, that when the new Government has shown that the prospects which are entertained are realised, they will be able gradually to withdraw the troops. Nothing that the Russian Government has said to us leads us to any other conclusion. We believe that they are genuinely anxious to lessen the number of troops they have in Persia as soon as the circumstances of the country render it possible. But they must he allowed a little time to judge whether the new Government is sufficiently established to be able to secure order for themselves before the reduction of their troops begins. I think I shall best suit the convenience of the House by not attempting any peroration, but by sitting down.

A terrible disaster occurred at the Rufford Colliery on Saturday last, resulting in the loss of fourteen lives, and the bodies of the men were recovered yesterday. It would not be in order, as the Home Secretary has very properly decided to hold a special inquiry into the case of this calamity, to say anything as to what occasioned the accident, but I should be in order, and I think it would be my duty, in view of the wide powers the Home Secretary possesses, to say what, in toy opinion, would be a means of preventing accidents of this kind in the future. On this occasion a hoppet broke through the headgear of the colliery, and a barrel containing some tons of water was precipitated down the shaft on to some men who were working at the bottom. The weight of the barrel falling a distance of 180 yards, there was no escape for the men. When the barrel came down it naturally carried in front of it the scaffold, and all the men working on the scaffold were precipitated down into the water, there being at the time 208 gallons a minute running into the shaft. When a diver recovered the bodies, not a single man was found to have been killed by having been struck by the hoppet in its descent. Every life which was lost was due to drowning only. I do not think in the whole history of mining a similar case has occurred in which inspection by mining people has ever led to a suggestion which would have saved the lives of these men. When the hoppet came down, all the lights in the shaft were put out. In the first place, if electric lamps had been used, the men would have had light to enable them to make some struggle in the water to escape the inevitable death waiting for them. In my experience, and having on one occasion had something to do with the sinking of a shaft from which no less than 7,000 gallons a minute were being taken, the thought struck me that, in the event of anything happening to the working gear, if there were rope ladders down to the bottom of the sump the men might escape by these ladders. If, therefore, in a case of this colliery, where the accident happened on Saturday night, and of which I believe the management is second to no colliery in the country—I lay no blame on any person or persons—electric lamps had been provided, I feel certain that a majority, if not all, of the men would have been rescued alive. If the Home Secretary, in the exercise of the powers vested in him, after due consideration, and after receiving the advice of his experts, will take the course of issuing a memorandum to all the colliery proprietors in the country, calling attention to the method I have suggested, I am certain that would have beneficial results. The suggestion I have made now was never present to the minds of the Royal Commissioners, nor was it present to my mind during the passing of the Coal Mines Act. Although the Committee accepted many amendments, neither I nor anyone else made that suggestion. I would respectfully urge my right hon. Friend to take the advice of his experts on the matter, believing that if the suggestion were carried out it would be the means of saving life.

I am sure my hon. Friend has rendered a public service in calling attention, however briefly, to this most disastrous accident. I think the circumstances are as he has stated. He has also mentioned that I have promised that an inquiry shall be held into the whole of the case. It is obvious, therefore, that it would not be suitable for me now to enter into a discussion on the technical merits of the very valuable suggestion my hon. Friend has made. I am sure the House will be glad to know that we shall give the fullest consideration to what has been said.

I desire to bring before the House a subject of much moment, namely, the shortage of cottages and small houses in this country, and the causes of such shortage. The housing problem is an urgent one. Both political parties are anxious to find a solution for it. In seeking for a remedy I think the first step is to ascertain the cause of the disease. I have put a number of questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the last few weeks on this subject, and I have had a similar number of very unsatisfactory replies. The position appears b be this: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue issue annually Returns showing the number of houses in Great Britain. These Returns are prepared for the purposes of Inhabited House Duty. The houses are divided into two classes, those above £20 a year, which are assessable for Inhabited House Duty, and those under that figure which are not liable for the duty. On examining those Returns I find that while under the Unionist Government in the last few years of their administration the number of cottages and small houses increased on the average annually by about 107,000, the average annual increase for the first four years of the present Government fell to 80,000, or rather over. In 1910–11, immediately after the passing of the famous Finance Act, commonly known as the People's Budget, the increase in the number of cottages and small houses fell from 107,000, as it was when the Unionist Government was in power, to 10,650—a drop of nearly 100,000 is one year. There is no question whatever about these figures, for they are taken from the Returns of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I have quoted them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House and he has admitted that they are correct.

On 1st January I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. I asked whether, in view of the Fact that in 1905–6 the number of small dwelling houses and cottages increased by 112,838, and that the average annual increase in the next four years was rather over 80,000, he would explain why the increase in 1910–11 was only 10,631, and whether, having regard to the urgency of the housing problem, he would cause immediate inquiry to be made into the subject. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, answering for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, the figures I had given were in accordance with the Returns of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and he added that the fall in the rate of increase was largely due to the fact that the year 1910–11 was a year of new valuation—the first revaluation since 1903–4. He added that similar falls had invariably followed the periodical revision of the assessments. I was not satisfied with that answer, and put a supplementary question asking if he would not consider the matter further in view of the urgency of the Housing problem and the startling figures I had quoted. He asked me to repeat the question. I repeated it in the following week and was told that the subject was still being inquired into. On 15th January I repeated it again, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that, as a result of further inquiry, he was satisfied that the fall in the rate of increase in the number of small houses in 1910–11 was due to the fact that it was the year of the revision of the assessments. I was not satisfied with that answer, and on 22nd January I drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the figures for 1903–4, which was the last year of revaluation under the Unionist Government. The Chancellor's explanation having been that the shortage in 1910 was due to it being a year of revaluation similar to 1903–4, I find that in 1903–4, 91,899 more houses were built than in the year 1910–11, so that the Chancellor's explanation was completely cut from under his feet. On 22nd January he stated that I must know that the increases in 1903–4 were the largest on record, and that it was not fair to cite them for the purpose of comparison. I only cited them for the purpose of com- parison, because the right hon. Gentleman himself had referred me to that year, and because he said the figures for that year bore out his statement that the fall in 1910–11 was due to the fact of revaluation.

Then I put one more question to the right honk Gentleman. I asked him whether the figures for 1910–11 were the lowest on record for fifteen years. His answer was they were; but he added they are not the lowest on record because a year of new assessment prior to the period of fifteen years showed a, still greater decrease. I asked him what that year was, and he replied 1893–94. There were 10,650 cottages and small houses only built in 1910–11. In order to find a year in which the same circumstances occurred, he referred back to 1893–94, and he referred me to that year because it was a year of revaluation like 1910–11. When he gave me the figures for 1893–94 I found that there were about 3,000 fewer houses, great and small, built in that year than in the year 1910–11. I knew that the decrease had nothing whatever to do with revaluation, and so I made inquiries, and found that in the year 1893–94 the shortage was caused solely by reason of the crash of the great Liberator Building Society at the end of the year 1892. The Liberator Society financed a number of subsidiary companies. They all came to grief. Money was withdrawn. There was complete stagnation in the building trade, for builders, not only in London, but throughout the country. Depositors withdrew their money, and building was absolutely at a standstill. That is the year which the Chancellor of the Exchequer selects to compare with the effect of his People's Budget in the year 1910–11. I am perfectly satisfied to accept the comparison. I believe the effect of the Liberator smash was precisely the same on the building trade as the passing of the People's Budget. Both resulted in capital being withdrawn from the building trade or being withheld, and in complete stagnation of the trade.

4.0 P.M.

Housing is a problem which must be taken up at an early date by one party or the other. The explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the shortage of houses is that 1910–11 was a year of revaluation. I have shown that that is not the true explanation, that in no previous year of revaluation has such a state of circumstances occurred. There has never been a drop in the year of revaluation in the number of houses built, though there has been a transfer from houses under £20 a year to the class over £20 a year; but in the aggregate, taking the two classes together, there has been no drop. There is no reason whatever why builders should stop building because of revaluation. It is a paltry excuse of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be much more honest of him and his advisers to admit that the disastrous effect on the building trade is caused by the passing of the Finance Bill of 1910. If he makes inquiries of those engaged in the building trade he will have the unanimous answer of every builder in England that it was that Act and that Act only which accounts for the shortage of cottages and small houses, and for the deficiency of 100,000 cottages and small houses at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that I could not be correct in my surmise that the Finance Act was responsible for the state of the building trade, because the unemployment statistics showed that there was less unemployment in the building trade at present than at any other period. The figures front which the right hon. Gentleman got his information are the unemployment returns of the Board of Trade. They only relate to 72,000 men employed in the building trade, whereas in the last Census Returns there are 1,250,000 men employed in the building trade.

If you want to get reliable information in that respect you must find out not how many men are unemployed, but how many men are now employed in the trade, as compared with previous years, because for the past two or three years there has been an immense emigration of builders, carpenters, and joiners, and others engaged in the building trade, more from that trade than from any other, and those statistics quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no bearing whatever on the subject. His other line of argument was that so far as he had information and returns—I do not know where he got his information from—they pointed to the fact that the building trade was, during the present year, proceeding at a normal rate. I can only say that, having endeavoured to get all the information I can as to the number of plans approved by the various local bodies, I am informed that building is not proceeding at a normal rate, but that on the contrary no man builds a house now as a speculation, and houses are only built when a man has to build them and when they are actually required by somebody to occupy them. But suppose that building was proceeding at a normal rate and 80,000 houses were being built, we should still be 100,000 cottages behind hand owing to the operation of the Finance Act of 1910. I hope that when this housing problem is dealt with it will be dealt with through the avenue of restoration of credit to land and house property. Land and house property are our greatest national assets, and what we are suffering from now is that capital has not easy and ready access to them, that it has been driven away. I am not at liberty, I believe, on this occasion to suggest that the Finance Act, so far as its valuation and taxation Clauses are concerned, should be repealed. I merely content myself with repeating the fact that the remarkable shortage, the phenomenal drop, in the provision of cottages and small houses is undoubtedly due to the effect of the. Finance Act, and has nothing whatever to do with the explanation offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The subject which the hon. Member has raised in connection with the supply of small houses is an interesting one, but it is a sort of economic problem which cannot be bandied between one political party and another in this House, and it involves, I am quite sure, far larger economic questions than any narrow issue which in his philosophy the hon. Member thinks is responsible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly correct in his answer he gave to the hon. Member that it was quite misleading to try and estimate the rise and fall in small house property, and to take as conclusive the rate of increase for the preceding year or in any particular year, because that is not a test of the number of houses built, or even of the number of houses of a certain rateable value built. If the House looks back twenty or forty years, it will find that every automatic increase is either checked or becomes decreased, so far as a lower rateable value of the house is concerned, by the valuations in the last twenty years. In. 1887 the increase was £66,000; in 1888 it decreased to £61,000—a comparatively small decrease of £5,000. The next time there was a valuation, in 1892, the increase was £50,000; in 1893 it was minus £7,000; in 1897 it rose to £81,000; and in 1898 it was £32,000—an enormous diminution.

I called attention to the fact that we were dealing only with houses under £20 a year, and the figure of £32,000, is met by the fact that 85,000 larger houses, were built, and thus the diminution was. no diminution whatever.

I was challenged to deal specifically with the question of houses under £20 a year, and the mere fact that there has been the decrease to which the hon. Member referred is not of itself a conclusive argument to demonstrate that it is due to any single cause beyond that of the reassessment. I should like to see an impartial Committee going fully into the question of the increase or decrease of houses, because I find there is a large number of economic factors in the matter, quite apart from legislation. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, who says that the statistics of unemployment are misleading, for during the last thirty years the statistics of unemployment in certain trades have been accepted as representing the unemployment in those-trades. The statistics published in the "Labour Leader" are referred to by all parties in our discussion, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite quote figures from it in support of their arguments they invariably maintain how impartial those figures are. It is not true to say that the statistics deal with a decrease in the number of those employed in the building trade. The statistics of the Board of Trade show an increase in the number of those employed in the building trade. Despite that continually increasing number there has been, as you might naturally expect, because of the increased prosperity of the country, a continual decrease. in the number of the unemployed since the coming of the Budget. A month from the introduction of the Budget the statistics disclosed 8 per cent., and last autumn that had been reduced to 2 per cent., the lowest they have ever been in the modern history of this country. It is idle to tell me these statistics mean, in spite of this enormous increase, that building in this country has steadily gone down as the result of the Budget.

Another item to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which is altogether independent of the Budget, is the item which is, very manifest to these who, like some of us, are hoping to build a house, and that is the enormous increase in the price of building materials. There is also the diminution in the number of houses which has always taken place a few years after trade depression and before the trade boom has been completed. First of all, you can always assume that the result of a trade boom is felt in ordinary trade immediately, but it is only two or three years after you find it in the building trade, when the prosperity represented by the trade boom has been garnered, and when men begin to build bigger houses. You will find the building trade is not particularly flourishing in the years of the trade boom, and begins to flourish after the prosperity of the trade boom has been garnered. That is an interesting fact. Then the hon. Gentleman says those statistics show that the diminution in the number of houses is due to the Budget, and the diminution is permanent. He is wrong in both those statements, and I think I can prove from statistics that he is wrong. If the diminution in the number of houses built was due entirely to the fear of the builders of the effects of the Budget, that would be accompanied by a diminution in the number of empty houses which had been built, and which were standing empty; but if the number of empty houses has increased at the same time that shows that the causes of any diminution must be looked for outside the question of the number of new houses built. As a matter of fact during all those years there has been a persistent increase not only in the number of new houses built, but in the number of houses concerning which duty is discharged in England and Wales in respect of empty property, which would lead to exactly the reverse deduction from that which the hon. Gentleman wishes the House to believe. In 1902–3 that percentage represented 4.8. In 1909–10 it represented 6.3, and in 1910–11 it represented 5.9. That shows that either through overbuilding, or, as I think, as a certain factor owing to the decrease in the birth-rate in this country; a fact which has got to be recognised, and is often lost sight of, not only the demand for new houses was less, but the demand for old houses was less too. Not only were less new houses being built but more old houses were standing empty. That cannot be ascribed to anything in connection with taxation.

I am very glad to tell the hon. Gentleman as he is concerned, and rightly concerned, in the provision of houses at low rents, that there has been a very large increase, as far as we can estimate, this year to make up for the decrease of last year. The increase in 1911–12, so far as the estimate is made, is something like 83,000 on the number of those small houses. That seems also to show that the building trade, through the economic operation, passes through periods of great deficiency, overbuilding and surplus and check in the building trade now that the surplus has been absorbed; and then again a rush of capital into that trade. It is quite possible, and I certainly have no figures to disprove it, that one of the factors influencing the building trade in the year in which the Budget was passed was a temporary withdrawal of capital from the trade during that Budget year, and a temporary withdrawal which appears, now that people are beginning to understand what the Budget is, to be arrested. I can show without a shadow of doubt that if that temporary with drawal of capital took place it was not due to the Budget, but to the agitation concerning the Budget. So long as one great political party in this country is carrying on a furious agitation explaining that, as the result of taxation not yet passed and consequently imperfectly apprehended, absolute ruin is corning to their trade and probably to the whole country, the capital of the old women of the country will not be put into the building trade. I have no doubt at all that the agitation did harm not only to the building trade, but to other trades. If that harm was done it was due to the desperate attempt of hon. Gentlemen opposite to excite political feeling against the proposals of the Government. People are new realising that the Budget was not the end of all things; they are realising that so far from the Budget being the end of all things, it has given what the hon. Gentleman might more correctely have said was a greater national asset to this country than even the houses which are built on the land, and that is confidence in a just system of taxation. That confidence being restored, we have this most desirable boom both in the oversea and in the home trade of this country, a boom which, as I have shown from the statistics of the increase of 85,000 houses and the statistics of unemployment, is now being reflected in the building trade, which is realising what nonsense was talked three years ago.

Whenever charges are made against the legislation of the Government the right hon. Gentleman invariably passes it off by saying that it is entirely owing to the fight that was made against the Budget and things of that kind that the difficulties have arisen. The right hon. Gentleman lives in an atmosphere of a very rarified kind, and does not come much in contact with actual experience in these matters. He is entirely a theorist, and speaks from a very exalted position, and, I am bound to say, with very great knowledge of his subject and extreme ability. But some of us who have come up hard against the facts in these matters know that, although there may be a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman has said on some other questions in connection with this subject, there is undoubtedly at the present the greatest possible difficulty in inducing any speculation to be carried on in the building trade. I can speak, at all events, from knowledge of my own Constituency in Scotland, where at the present minute there is very great difficulty in getting houses for workpeople, a demand which formerly was rather anticipated than otherwise by the speculative builder. Houses cannot now be got; nobody will build, although land is very cheap. None of the speculative builders who used to build these houses in large numbers will now build a single cottage; they all say that they do not see why they should build when any profit they are likely to make is sure to go into the pocket of Lloyd George. The result is that at present many of the owners of these smaller houses, usually let at £13 or £14 a year, are putting up the rents by two or three pounds. That is a practical result, at all events. Builders may be quite wrong in thinking that the profit is going into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pocket, but the fact remains that they do think so, and a recent judge has rather confirmed them in the belief, with which I agree, that it is very likely going into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pocket in a way which this House never intended. But that is another matter which, perhaps, had better be dealt with at another time when there is a larger attendance of Members. The right hon. Gentleman must not really believe that the effect of the Budget is as he has tried to make out to the House. It has had a very bad effect on the building trade, as builders will tell him if he asks them. When he talks of agitation on this side of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman forget the agitation on his own side? Does he forget the deputations that went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what they pointed out to him? Does he forget what my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) pointed out in respect to housing in Aberdeenshire? All these things seem to have been forgotten! But the burden rests, not upon us on this side of the House, but upon your shoulders on that side! It is your legislation; your responsibility. It is our criticism. We only showed the people what the result would be, and we were right in almost every respect. We know how little you have got out of the Land Taxes. We foretold that it would stop building, speculative building, and we have proved that to be true in some cases, if not in all. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that it was a new valuation in that particular year 1910–11 which accounts for the falling off in the number of these houses, may I ask him how far that valuation covers the country? We have no quinquennial valuation in Scotland, and no effect of that kind is produced in Scotland by that valuation. We have a valuation every year. Why should the valuation affect the building of houses? The thing does not apply to Scotland, and so far as I remember, it does not apply to the country districts in England. It only applies to London where there is a quinquennial valuation. I do not know whether I am quite correct when I say that the quinquennial valuation only applies to London, and that in all the other parts of England there is an annual valuation such as we have in Scotland, where rents are adjusted year after year. At all events if there is a Periodical valuation of that kind in England it is certainly not in the same manner as in London. For these reasons I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has been quite successful in his defence. He has been extremely clever, as he always is. He has given us some interesting facts. But I do seriously think it is very desirable that there should be some Commission or Committee to inquire into this matter, because I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman, whether he likes it said or not, will find that most people blame the Budget for the difficult position they are placed in, and I can speak of my own knowledge and so can others.

The House yesterday was dealing with the question of railways and the question of legislation with regard to railways. To-day I desire to call attention not to a matter of legislation, but to a matter of administration. I desire to ask the Board of Trade, and I will give them I think a primâ facie case, to order an inquiry of some kind similar to the inquiry which has been held recently at Sheffield, into the question of the victimisation which I allege has been going on at Swindon on the Great Western Railway system. Some six or seven years ago the directors of the Great Western Railway, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to work the boilermakers' shop night and day shift. The consequence has been that there is now an overstock of some 200 or more boilers, and therefore it has become necessary to reduce their staff in the shop. I am not complaining of that, nor about the directors having to take into consideration the conditions of labour and other matters. But in the dismissals and reduction of their staff which they have been forced to make, they have adopted a policy. If they had carried out that policy I should not have had a word to say in blame. They have stated that in dismissing their employés they first of all have regard to the bad workmen and to the men who are bad time-keepers. When these are dismissed they then get rid of the younger men who have no responsibility, and they keep their tried servants and married men to the last. I have a letter from the manager of the company, with whom I have been in correspondence, which bears this out. He says:—

"In conformity with practice, the selection of men to be dismissed is carefully carried out On a common guiding principle which, in our view, is the right one, namely, the relative degree of efficiency of the men concerned."

I have a case of a man, Mr. C. E. Smith, thirty-nine years of age, who had been for twenty-five years in the service of the Great Western. He was a good timekeeper, and did not lose a quarter-day in the whole of his years' service. He was an efficient workman, and was put to special work for the last eleven years, and never received a single complaint in his life from his foreman or charge-hand. In September of last year he completed his term as vice-president of the society in one of the Swindon branches. On 16th November he was elected second on the list of the Court of Referees under the National Insurance Act, and the result of the ballot was declared somewhere about the 19th or 20th. On the 29th, nine days afterwards, he was discharged, although many men junior to him were kept on. With him another married man, whom I will call "B"— because, although I know his name, I do not wish to say a word in public to his detriment—was discharged with him. He was twenty-seven years of age, and had fourteen years' service since his apprenticeship to the company. He was a man who was a bad time-keeper, and was in the habit of losing one or two quarter-days a week regularly and occasionally taking a day off. This man was reinstated before his notice expired, but Mr. Smith on application was refused. I have ascertained. that this man "B" was a strong Conservative. Now I have been in communication with the Great Western Railway about this case, and I have asked for au impartial inquiry.

I have all the facts as they were revealed before the company, and I have been down myself to Swindon and interviewed several of the men on the subject. The company will not grant an impartial inquiry with both sides represented, and I have therefore to appeal to the Board of Trade to come forward and do what the company will not do. That is not the only case. I have the case of a man named J. W. Stevenson, a National Reservist, who served in the South African war and came back ten years ago and took service with the Great Western. He is a married man with nine children, and there has never been a complaint against him as regards time-keeping or work. He was in charge of a saw. He was discharged on the 29th. He went to see the head of the works and asked for reinstatement, owing to long service and his position as a married man, and that several junior to him were not discharged at the same time, but he was refused. Another foreman of the works department, which is now working overtime out of compassion for this man's nine children, offered him work in that department, provided he passed the doctor. He did pass the doctor, but on going to present himself for work, he was told that it might, cause difficulty with other men and he was refused.

He was discharged and a Conservative was put upon his machine. If it was necessary to run that machine at all surely the man who had been accustomed to it and in charge of it for some years was the proper man to run it unless there was some ulterior motive. There is the case of F. J. Dyer, a driller in the service of the company for twelve years, married, with five children, good time-keeper, no complaints, and he was also discharged on 29th November although many junior to him were kept on and a Conservative was put on his machine. Francis James Lewis, a boilermaker's help with twenty and a half years' service, a married man, with five children, has not lost a quarter of a day during the whole of his service except once when he was away through sickness for ten days, no complaints against him; he was such a good workman that he was chosen for new work for the last two years. In his gang of something like thirty there were at least eight or nine who were junior to him who were kept on. He was discharged on 29th November. Another case is that of John Ernest Hogan, aged thirty-three, with seventeen years' service, married, with four children, good time-keeper, only eight weeks' sickness during seventeen years' employment, no complaints as to his timekeeping or work, especially chosen fifteen months ago for special work. In his gang of thirty-five there were at least seven junior to him, and one had only been in the employment of the company for eighteen months. It is true that since then this man has been discharged, but why was this new and junior man preferred to Hogan? I will give one more case, that of a man named Wolff, aged thirty-three, married, one child, who has seen many years' service; he was discharged on 3rd January, very good time-keeper and an efficient workman, and in his case several junior men were kept on. Every one of those men are Liberals, and in nearly every case the men kept on belonged to the other party.

I want to know whether the Board of Trade is going to allow this kind of thing to continue in the Great Western Railway work. We are giving great and increasing privileges to the railway companies, and the reason why we are doing this is because we are told that the conditions of employment of the men are going to be improved. There is something, however, besides mere pay when we have to consider the conditions of employment, and so long as a monstrous state of things like this goes on, no wonder this House is chary and 10th to give further facilities to the railway companies. I ask the Board of Trade to look into this matter and order an inquiry, and to see that the men are represented. It is difficult to get information, because many of these men have been scattered about—to Cardiff, Swansea, Portsmouth, and other places. I have been down myself to Swindon and interviewed these men and cross-examined them severely to know whether there was anything behind it all which would account for their discharge, and I have come to the conclusion, which I am certain any hon. Member of this House who went down, as I did, and interviewed these mtn, would have been bound to come to, that political spite and political influence is at the bottom of the whole thing. Therefore I ask the Board of Trade, at all events, to see that this matter is thoroughly looked into, and if these complaints are found to be justified, then the Board of Trade should give us such relief as will ensure that such a, state of things shall be stopped at once, and for ever.

The hon. Member was good enough to send me notice last night that he would raise this question, and so enabled me to make inquiry in the Department as to whether any information had reached it concerning the cases he has described. No information whatever has reached the Department on the subject and even a search in the files of the Railway Press discloses only one case which does not seem to be one of those the hon. Member mentioned.

I only knew on Saturday myself.

I am not complaining; I only say the Board of Trade has no information on the subject, and none seems to have been published in the Railway Press as regards this particular set of cases. The hon. Member asked that in view of the statement he had made the Board of Trade should order an inquiry to be made as had recently been done in the case of similar allegations against the Midland Railway Company. May I explain that in that case an inquiry was ordered by the Board of Trade only after a request had been put forward by both parties that the Board of Trade should express an opinion on the subject. The Board of Trade is not in a position on an ex parte statement to order such an inquiry as then took place. it made that inquiry as having been invited by both parties to make an investigation; no such request is, of course, before us in this case. What the Board can do upon the information, which I hope the hon. Member will supply us in documentary form, is to make inquiries of the company in the ordinary way, and we may possibly make suggestions or representations to the company afterwards. That is, however, the limit of our powers unless we are in this case as in the other case requested by both parties to pronounce an opinion. I trust my hon. Friend will at present be satisfied with that assurance.

There are one or two small matters to which I would like to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The first is the question of a Public Trustee in Ireland. The Public Trustee in England has been a very great success. Of course, no one imagines for a moment that the business of a Public Trustee in Ireland would ever attain anything like the proportions which the business of the Public Trustee in England has attained. A Public Trustee is very much wanted in Ireland. He would do a small business, but it would be a very important business, because he would deal with small estates belonging to poor people who at present feel very much the want of an efficient public custodian of their interests. When the Bill to establish a Public Trustee in England was introduced some years ago, I and a number of my Friends desired that it should be extended to Ireland, but we were told if we persevered in our endeavour to get a Public Trustee for Ireland we should wreck the Bill and damnify the position of the English people who wished this office to be instituted. On those grounds, instead of opposing the Bill, we supported it; and we understood at the time that, in view of the fact that we did support it, our case would be considered at the first available opportunity. Our case has never been considered since in a legislative fashion. We have, of course, a Public Trustee in Ireland; but his operations are restricted to the operations of the Land Purchase Acts. He is not able to deal with the general question of small trusteeships. Everybody admits a Public Trustee is a desirable institution. We find in Ireland the greatest possible difficulty in getting a trustee at all for small societies. Constantly there were cases where people suffered great loss through the dishonesty of trustees, or incompetent trustees, or from trustees who were not able properly to discharge the business of the people to whom they were responsible. May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? We have a Public Trustee in Ireland for land purchase purposes, and I do not sup- pose it would be a very difficult matter to extend the scope of the operations of this gentleman and allow him to take up the work of ordinary trusteeship. In the next Session there will be an excellent opportunity, because the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with Irish land purchase, and I imagine it would be quite possible in connection with these land purchase proposals to enlarge the scope of the Irish Public Trustee in the way I have suggested. Representations have been made to the right hon. Gentleman from many quarters, and, for some time past, like many of my colleagues, I have been deluged with correspondence on the subject, urging us to impress upon the Government the importance of the matter. I do not suppose that there would be any serious opposition to the establishment of a Public Trustee in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman appears to doubt that, but so far as I know the only serious opposition to this appointment comes from certain professional gentlemen who imagine that their interests would be injuriously affected thereby. I do not know that there will be that affect, but I am aware that many professional gentlemen consider they will not be injured. I do suggest that the fact that certain individuals are personally interested in opposing a proposal of this kind is no reason why the great majority of the people of the country, who desire it and think their interests would be served by such an appointment, should be denied the justice which they legitimately ask for. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would be possible in connection with the scheme of land purchase legislation next Session to extend the operations of the Public Trustee in Ireland?

Another matter I wish to raise concerns facilities for the construction of technical schools in Ireland. I have received letters, and so have other Irish Members, containing very urgent representations to press upon the Government the necessity for making provision in the next Budget for a Grant for the erection of technical schools in Ireland. I think it is only my duty, having received these, to lay the matter before the Government. A good deal has been done for technical education in Ireland. It is an old question. We fought it for many years, and I was one of those who took a great interest in the matter when I was a very young Member, and I believe before the Chief Secretary was a Member of the House. We succeeded in getting something done, but at the present moment this question is rather at a standstill. What we want now is sonic kind of impetus to encourage the work and widen the scope of the operations. We all know that the local authorities can raise money for the purpose of building technical schools. Irish local authorities can raise money for almost everything, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that they have very freely availed themselves of the opportunity of increasing local taxation to further desirable objects. Irish taxpayers, like all other taxpayers, do not care to see their rates and taxes mounting up year after year, as they are doing and probably will continue to do. What I suggest is that the right hon. Gentleman might offer the local authorities an inducement to increase the rates for the purpose of building technical schools. He might say, "If you will tax yourselves to put up these buildings, we will come to your assistance to the extent of 50 per cent. If you put your hands in your pockets for half the money to build schools, we will see that you get the other half." That would give a fillip to building such schools.

I wish to say a word about the case of the Irish national school teachers, a most deserving class. Doctors and teachers are the most deserving of all public servants in Ireland. Their case excites universal sympathy. I have observed of late years a great deal of dissatisfaction in the yanks of national school teachers, which is not good for the teachers or for the education of the country. There is one thing they reel intensely, that is the system which has been in operation in comparatively recent years of compulsorily retiring teachers before their proper period for pension has arrived, as a result of the investigations of travelling inspectors. It is a monstrous thing that teachers who have given long service in a most difficult and thankless profession should be compulsorily retired before the ordinary period for their retirement arrives. They lose a very substantial part of the pension to which they are legitimately entitled. The Chief Secretary will recognise that this is a most important matter for these men, in view of their long service, the age at which they retire, the very small payment they get, and the comparatively small pension they receive on retirement. I make this suggestion. We are having an inquiry into this question of the retirement of teachers and other matters in connection with Irish national education. We might very fairly ask that none of these teachers should be compulsorily retired on the reports of their inspectors until this Commission has issued its report. After all, that is a very fair request to make. It is extremely hard on these men that they should be retired before their time, and inasmuch as the whole question is being investigated, the least we can ask is that they should not be retired before the Commission has produced its report.

Very many of us think the proceedings of the Commission ought to be public. I am told it has decided that its proceedings should be conducted in camera, a decision which has given very great dissatisfaction, and it appears to me as an outsider, and one who is absolutely unconcerned in the matter except from a Sympathetic point of view, that the object of the Commission will be largely defeated if its proceedings are not conducted in public. It is dealing with matters of very great importance, matters. which not only affect the teachers, but also the parents -and the public of the country generally. The findings of the Commission, whatever they may be, will have very much greater weight if the proceedings have been conducted in public I do not know if I am making an undue demand, but in their own interest, and certainly in the interests of public education in Ireland, they would be wise to conduct their proceedings in public, because after all it is no use saying this Commission will be conducted in private because its proceedings are bound to come out in the end, but the getting of them out will cause a good deal of trouble and take a great deal of time, and people will lose their tempers over it, and it is very much better if we start by making the thing absolutely public so that everyone would know what was going on and no one would have any reason to complain.

Then there is another matter. If the Commission is conducted in camera I chi. not know what evidence we shall get for the teachers. It has been suggested to me that they should get a bill of indemnity. If they are to give evidence which is to be of any value they ought to be assured beforehand that whatever they say will not militate against them in their relations With their superiors after this Corn-mission is over. If they have not been given this bill of indemnity I imagine it is simply an oversight. The matter seems to me to be so perfectly obvious that I imagine it is quite sufficient for me to call attention to the point that it may be conceded. In connection with this inquiry we are all reminded of the historic case of Mr. Mansfield, which brought this inquiry about. I have always been anxious to see Mr. Mansfield reinstated, at all events pending the decision of this Committee. I know this request has often been made and refused, but at the same time I should like to make it again. If Mr. Mansfield could be reinstated pending the publication of the Report of the Committee it would have a most excellent effect all round. It would snake for good feeling and satisfaction among the teachers, and it would help the public mind towards a better perception of whatever the result of the Commission may be. These three points have been urged upon me by Constituents of mine, many of them old friends, and therefore I take the liberty of submitting them to the notice of the Chief Secretary.

5.0 P.M.

I wish to refer to the question of Irish tobacco. I am sure I shall have the sympathy of the Chief Secretary on that question. Tobacco is a most important element in politics. In my part of the world we wish to grow tobacco. We find that most excellent institution the Department of Agriculture is not very solicitous to assist us in that matter. Tobacco has been grown in Ireland for a considerable time past, and tobacco is sold in Ireland with a large subsidy from the State under the name of Irish tobacco. As a matter of fact, we are at the present moment subsiding American tobacco under the plea of subsiding Irish tobacco on account of a most extraordinary regulation of the Department of Agriculture, which says:—

"Tobacco grown in Ireland may be mixed with 75 per cent. of tobacco grown in America. and then it shall be called Irish tobacco."

That is an arrangement which could only be made in a country presided over by such a witty gentleman as the present Chief Secretary. In my part of the world we want to obtain the grant of £25 per acre, or whatever it may be—I am not sure of the exact figure. We want to participate in the Grant for growing tobacco given by the Development Commissioners. We propose to grow tobacco which shall be sold as all Irish, and not containing 75 per cent. of American tobacco. We propose to grow tobacco which could be smoked. The tobacco grown hitherto is absolutely unsmokable unless mixed with 75 per cent. of American tobacco. We have put a proposition before the Department of Agriculture. It has been before the Department for many months, and in the meantime the period for sowing tobacco seed is approaching, and it will soon be past. We want to get the acreage Grant for this year. My experience of the Department is that it assumes more red-tape than two or three other Departments put together. We propose to follow out the lines contained in the agreement between the Department and Sir Nugent Everard with one or two modifications. I wish, in the first place, to refer to Clause 4 of the agreement. We propose to change Clause 4. It states:—

"Tobacco planted under this agreement shall be such as will produce a heavy pipe tobacco."

A heavy pipe tobacco is unsmokable, and what we propose is to substitute for the word "heavy" the word "smokable." We propose to do away with the arrangement of mixing 75 per cent. of American tobacco with the Irish tobacco. Clause 21 reads:—

About 25 per cent. of the tobacco sold as Irish shall be grown in Ireland."

We propose, instead of 25 per cent. to say 99 per cent. If we are to subsidise tobacco to the exent of £25 an acre we should not give the money to the Americans, who have enough money. We want to keep the money at home. The final arrangement is this: Clause 12 requires that a certain machine, called a Proctor machine, capable of dealing with 150,000 lbs. of tobacco in thirty working days, shall be put up. We have no objection to providing the 150,000 lbs. of tobacco What we object to is this Proctor machine. It is a machine used for the purpose of blending American tobacco with Irish tobacco; but, as we propose to grow all Irish tobacco, we do not see the necessity for employing a Proctor machine, and therefore we propose to leave that out. I would ask the Chief Secretary to use his influence with the Department of Agriculture to enable the tobacco growers of Wexford to obtain the advantages of the Grants which are now given to Sir Nugent Everard. The result of using too much American seed has been to produce a tobacco that is much too strong for smoking purposes. The Belgians are great tobacco growers. We have smoked Belgian tobacco. Some of us have liked it, and some of us have not. We propose to get our seeds from Belgium, and to cure our tobacco according to the Belgian idea. And, inasmuch as we are all experimenting and the object is to discover the best tobacco to grow in these Islands, it is obviously to the public advantage to encourage as many different experiments as possible. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give a sympathetic ear to my request, so that we shall be able to carry out our proposals.

I had intended to make a rather long reference to the state of things in regard to purchase in Connemara but for the reply made to a question of mine by the Chief Secretary yesterday, to the effect that negotiations were proceeding for the purchase of three or four estates, including the Berridge estate, which is one of the largest estates in the whole of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was most anxious at the earliest possible moment to buy estates in Connemara, and I am sure that his reply will be received with the greatest possible pleasure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will expedite, as far as possible, the procedure of the Congested Districts Board in the matter of land purchase. I am quite aware of the difficulties which that body has to encounter, and that the problem with which they have to deal is well nigh insoluble; still, I am convinced that they could proceed very much more rapidly than they have done. It is now four years since the Land Act associated with the name of the Chief Secretary was passed, yet in the district of Connemara only three or four estates have been purchased. I know that negotiations are absolutely essential in that part of the country, but I do submit to the right hon. Gentleman that those negotiations could be much more rapidly carried on than they have been. I pointed out last year that the Land Act of 1903 failed to do anything for the West of Ireland; and the Land Act of 1909 was passed especially to deal with the Western problem. The people of Connemara have been patient for years, and it will be gratifying to them to know that the Board will at length proceed more rapidly than in the past few years in the purchase of estates there. Some years ago negotiations for the purchase of an estate were begun, and week after week, month after month, and year after year the people have been waiting to know what has been done. "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick," and the people of Connemara are not satisfied with the progress that has been made. I hope, after the Chief Secretary's reply yesterday, that we shall now see rapid progress made with the purchase of estates.

I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the Chief Secretary to the necessity of the Estates Commissioners dealing with several evicted tenants in my Constituency who have not been fully reinstated. During this and last year I have asked several questions as to why they were not reinstated, yet nothing has been done. There is one case of a man who has been evicted for twenty years and who for a considerable period lived in an evicted tenant's timber hut built for him in the locality. The Estates Commissioners recognised the justice of his claim and still they have not done anything to reinstate him. There is also another case of people who were large farmers at one time and who were evicted for one year's rent. That is a case also which the Estates Commissioners recognised as genuine, but still they have not made any provision for that family. There is then the case of the evicted tenants on the Aughanish estate, who have, been out of their holdings for many years, and who are not yet reinstated. In that case I blame the Estates Commission, because the landlord agreed to sell to the seven or eight tenants on the estate. The evicted tenants agreed to the price fixed by the inspector of the Estates Commissioners, and the only question remaining was as to the provision of embankments. The estate is on the river Shannon, and a large embankment has to be kept up. The landlord agreed to pay £200 for the upkeep of the embankments, the tenants to make up a balance of £300. The evicted tenants, the landlord, and I myself met in a town in my Constituency, and we agreed to accept the price offered by the Commissioners' inspector, and also to pay the £300, so that the tenants might be reinstated at once. I put that agreement before the Estates Commissioners, but I am sorry to say they refused to carry it out. They persisted in their refusal, and in order that the evicted tenants might be kept no longer waiting the tenants agreed to get the money in a bank so that the sale might be carried through. We have put that before the Commissioners, and I hope this time they will sanction that agreement. I may add that owing to the delay bf the Estates Commissioners one of those evicted tenants has since died. There are several other cases, and I trust the Chief Secretary will impress on the Estates Commissioners the necessity for dealing with those cases which are recognised as genuine, because if they delay much longer those evicted tenants will be dead. There is one other matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Chief Secretary, and that is the Mahony estate at Mount Collins. This matter has been under the notice of the Estates Commissioners for a considerable time, and I receive letters every day from representative men complaining of the delay. The latest information I have is that unless the Commissioners act at once the tenants will lose the turbary of that estate this year. Furthermore, the tenants are not able to work their little holdings because they do not know in what way the Commissioners are going to deal with them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will impress upon the Estates Commissioners the necessity of dealing with these various matters.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary one or two questions. The first is whether he can give me any information with regard to the Commission on National Education. According to a communication that I have received, some of the most important witnesses are unwilling to give evidence before the Commission. The proceedings of the Commission are not published, and I should like to know why the usual course in that respect has been departed from in this case. My next question is in reference to the Public Trustee Act. I have had several communications from members of chambers of commerce asking why the Act has not been extended to Ireland, and why the same opportunity is not given to the people of Ireland in this matter as to the people of Great Britain. "A fellow feeling makes one wondrous kind." I happen to be a trustee and I want to be relieved of the responsibility as soon as possible. While we are under a Union Government. I cannot understand why in such a matter we have not equal laws. I wish to refer to a question on which the right hon. Gentleman is not competent to answer. We are not satisfied with the way things are going with regard to the twelve hours' detention. It is not the right hon. Gentleman's Department, so I do not expect an official reply. But I do take this, the latest oppor- tunity, of protesting against the twelve hours' detention of Irish live stock—

The hon. Gentleman is not now entitled to go into that question. Discussion is prevented by a blocking Motion.

I shall endeavour to deal shortly with the points that have been raised. In respect to the Public Trustee, I myself am quite in favour of the extension of the Public Trustee Act to Ireland. We have a very competent trustee in Ireland, who has a good deal to do with the beneficent provisions of the recent Land Purchase Act, which enables landlords who have land purchase moneys to invest, to invest them in excellent securities, which get them rather a higher rate of interest than otherwise they would obtain. When my small estate comes to be administered it will be found that I have expressed my confidence in the Public Trustee in a most satisfactory way—although he will not have much to do. The Public Trustee Act cannot be extended to Ireland without legislation. The hon. Baronet insisted that I should not find very much opposition, but I shall find some amongst those sons of Zeruiah who had sufficient strength to prevent Oliver Cromwell forming a Chancery Court during the Protectorate. I therefore cannot altogether agree with the hon. Baronet that the request is one that would not give rise to a good deal of opposition.

Why, it was asked, cannot we have this matter on the same lines in Ireland as in England? We have a tender feeling for Ireland, and we do not wish to impose laws upon her without general assent. Consequently the difficulty arises in Ireland itself. If Ireland had demanded a Public Trustee Act they would have got it. It does not do to be frightened by mere threats of opposition, and I am inclined to agree that an Act of this sort will really meet with the general wishes of the more intelligent portion of the Irish community. Then with respect to the second question, no one is more in favour than I am of these admirable institutions, because they afford an opportunity, much needed in Ireland, to Catholics and Protestants to work together for the general educational advancement. I know nothing more generally beneficial of that character than these technical schools and the kind of work that is carried on by means of these Committees. But, of course, as the hon. Baronet says it is a question of cash. The Department of Agriculture and technical instruction have no fund from which they might be expected to make Grants for this purpose, and the only provision at present is if the local authorities can secure funds raised on the security of the rates. The hon. Baronet says, truly enough, people do not like rates, but there is no objection to taxes: that is having a share in the taxes of others as well as your own, of course. Then there is the pound to pound theory. Well, I have argued that theory with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer as hard as any man could, and I am not sure I have not got to the end, but I am quite willing to try again; but you must recognise when you say that the rates will not do it, because the locality has already sufficient burdens to bear for other works, that if they do not wish to put their hands in their pockets in future they are quite willing to come to the general taxpayer for whom they have no consideration, and dip into his pocket. I quite recognise this is one of the most important things you can do now, and I think the hon. Baronet is in favour of the pound to pound proposal; so am I, if I could get the pound from the locality and the pound from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The next point the hon. Baronet raised is about the national school teachers. He raised the question about the compulsory retirement of teachers. It is as plain as a pikestaff that there must be some power to remove incompetent teachers. But the question arises who are the incompetent teachers? Is that to be determined by the inspectors? Then the interesting point arises about the competency of the inspector to inspect the teacher and so you come on from one point to another until you might come to the Chief Secretary and have a question raised as to his competency. It is no use saying it is hard on teachers to lose their increments, and increased pension. If they are incompetent they must go. Who is to say whether the inspectors are competent? So far our only means of discovering that is through the Board of National Education, who control their inspectors. Of course, I quite agree with the hon. Baronet it is a cruel thing to remove a teacher who is not incompetent, but it is absolutely necessary to remove a teacher who is incompetent, and therefore the whole question is who is to say whether the inspectors themselves are competent to discharge this onerous and invidious task. That is a matter the Board of Education are bound to look into constantly, and to see that their inspectors do not exercise the power vested in them in an arbitrary or cruel manner.

A Commission has been appointed—and a nice job it was to appoint it—to consider amongst other questions, this question of the inspection of teachers. I hope they will discharge their duties to the satisfaction of all parties. It is a vexed and a difficult question. This Commission has been called into question because it has decided to begin, at all events, by sitting in private. A full verbatim note of everything that passes will be taken, and everything that passes will be printed and published in due course; but as to whether they were wise to sit in private to begin with, that is a matter over which I have no control. It is a Vice-regal Commission, not set up by Act of Parliament, and represents a very considerable number of persons of different interests and points of view, and they have decided to sit in private. If I were a member of that Commission I could only come to a decision after listening to the various views put forward by the members of that Commission. For myself, perhaps I would prefer to have publicity, but, when you arc dealing with teachers and with persons interested, I cannot say that, if I had the advantage of hearing all these matters, I should not prefer to have a quiet, domestic form of inquiry, rather than the more excitable public form. That is not the way to carry on an educational inquiry. I do not express any opinion, but meantime they have come to the decision to which reference has already been made.

Another important question which has been raised is in regard to indemnity to the employés of the National Board. The same question arises in the case of railway servants who feel if they give a particular kind of evidence they may be registering a black mark against themselves. I should be sorry to think that the Board of National Education, over whom I have no control, and who are trustees of one of the most sacred purposes in Ireland, would allow themselves to be animated by petty spite or hostility towards individuals. I cannot, however, give an indemnity, because that can only be done by an Act of Parliament, and we should have to set up a Royal Commission and hear witnesses and take evidence. The Commission are making a full inquiry into the subject, and they are inviting people to come forward and give their evidence truthfully and fearlessly, and I do not think any evil results will follow. Parliament will see that nothing of that kind happens. In justice to the Board of National Education I do not think there is any reason to believe that anything of the kind which has been mentioned by the hon. Member opposite is likely to happen. On these matters people sometimes get excited and use rather stronger language than the necessities of the case merit. If these people appear before the Commission and make a representation of their views, I feel certain that they will not in any way suffer. With regard to the question of tobacco growing, which has been raised by the hon. Member for North Wexford (Sir T. Esmonde), it is true that a scheme has been placed before the Vice-President suggesting that he should encourage the growing of tobacco from Belgian seed in-stead of American seed, and he expresses the hope that Wexford tobacco will be all Irish tobacco. All I can say is that up to the present the suggestion which the hon. Baronet has made has not been considered to be an experiment for which a Grant could properly be allowed. This is really more a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Excise regulations than a question for the Department of Agriculture.

The Excise are satisfied with it.

If they are satisfied and agree with what the hon. Baronet says, that is all right, but on my own authority I will promise to see that the subject matter is again brought before the Department of Agriculture. I think those are all the points raised by the hon. Baronet, and I am very much indebted to him for the temperate manner in which he has placed before me matters of considerable importance. I think the hon. Member for Connemara (Mr. O'Malley) would have made a big speech if I had not spiked his guns by an answer which I gave yesterday. That answer was not given to avoid a discussion, because what I stated only represents what is the settled practice of the Congested Districts Board. I am glad to find he does acknowledge—he could not but do so—that the Congested Districts Board has done an immense deal for the district he represents, but he must really bear in mind Connemara is not the whole of Ireland. The Congested Districts Board has to exercise authority over one-third of Ireland, and there are other parts of Ireland where the interests are at least as great and in some respects greater. The difficulty about Connemara is that though it is most desirable the land should pass into the hands of the tenants, it does not altogeher repay for the attention and the expenditure of the money necessary to make the holdings economic, which is the real object of the Congested Districts Board. It must be borne in mind that the Board does not exist as a, mere agent for the transfer of land from landlord to tenant; it exists and gets its Grant of public money in order that the persons who have the holdings should be in possession of economic holdings on which they can live and thrive. There is a difficulty in that way. We have, as the lawyers say, to marshal our assets and to spend the money over Ireland as a whole. We cannot concentrate on Connemara, even although it has the advantage of being represented by the hon. Member. I assure him we are doing all we can, and it is really idle to say we can go a great deal faster. We have done an enormous quantity. The Congested Districts Board is at the present time the largest landowner in the world. We have bought between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 worth of estates, and I am sometimes alarmed at the rapidity with which we have proceeded. I, therefore, beseech hon. Members to be reasonable in this matter, and to remember we can only wait our time and that our income is limited. The obligation imposed upon us is not merely to turn tenants into smallholders, but to spend our money and exercise all the care we can in improving the holdings, and creating not a beggarly race of half-starved peasant proprietors, but a strong, independent peasantry. The hon. Member said a good deal about evicted tenants not being dealt with by the Estates Commissioners as he thinks they ought to be, and he mentioned an estate where there is great difficulty in getting the money absolutely necessary to prevent it being flooded. I really have no authority over these Commissioners, but they have one of the most difficult tasks ever imposed upon any body of men, and I think they do it exceedingly well. I will, however, see their attention is called to the various cases the hon. Member has mentioned, and I can assure him they will be rejoiced to know they have got rid of the evicted tenants for ever, because a more difficult and distasteful task has never been imposed upon any body of men. They are very sorry for the troubles of these evicted tenants, but many of them have long since lost the capacity for farming their ancestors possessed, and they are not always proper persons to introduce into a locality. The task of putting people on the land requires great care and discrimination and courage, and I think, on the whole, the Commissioners have discharged their duty particularly well, although it is not surprising that some holes should be found in their armour, and that some points should have been made against them. With regard to another point, there has been some feeling about the delay that has taken place in putting into force the compulsory powers of the Act against Lord Clanricarde. We have all heard of "the law's delay" and we arc being fought with all the skill in delay of a Noble Lord who has wealth and considerable astuteness. I am able to state that we are pushing the matter on in the Courts, and I hone before this Law Term is over we may be able to make a great step towards the acquisition of the estate. It is only a matter of a few days before that will be settled one way or the other.

I once heard Mr. Gladstone say that Ireland was always with us and that is so to-day. I want a few minutes to discuss Scottish affairs, and particularly the Interdepartmental Committee on Fisheries. I gave notice to the Chancellor of the Duch of Lancaster. I do not see him in his place. I hope the suffragettes have not got hold of him on his way clown to the House. The matters referred to the Committee were herring trawling, the destruction of immature fish, the territorial limit, and the close time. The question of the territorial limit must wait a considerable time before it is settled, and I am not raising, that at present, but we have by letters and otherwise urged upon the Departmental Committee the necessity of coming to some conclusion with regard to the destruction of immature fish and trawling for herrings. That is an urgent matter, and something should be done. We have a letter from them saying they will consider the matter, but we are in this difficulty, that we have failed to get the Government to put upon this Committee any Scottish Member who has any knowledge of the fishery ports in the North of Scotland, and we know nothing of what is going on excepting what we get from time to time from the man in the street. We would like some information or some assurance that this matter is going to be considered shortly and reported upon. What we have asked for is an interim Report upon that particular question, with a view to getting something done. It is an unfortunate fact with regard to these Committees and Commissions that they take such a long time in considering these questions. We recently had an excellent example to these people given by the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Sir J. A. Dewar), who visited the North of Scotland, and within two or three months reported the results of their investigations. I should like to say to this Interdepartmental Committee, "Go thou and do likewise." Instead of doing like that, they adjourned, we were told, from last December until early in February. Why they wanted all that long time for adjournment when it was admitted that the particular question I have mentioned was urgent I cannot say. I hope somebody on the Front Bench will convey to the Chancellor of the Duchy, who is Chairman of the Committee, what our wishes are in the matter. This is a very important question in Scotland, and we are not raising it upon our own account, but trying to represent the wishes of our constituents, who have a very strong feeling in the matter.

I desire to ask the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any settlement has been come to between the Office of Works and the Edinburgh Corporation with regard to the Inverleith Row property? Unfortunately, the, erection of the building was carried out without the knowledge of the Office of Works, and trouble occurred locally. A misunderstanding has arisen, and it would be of great importance if the hon. Gentleman would say whether any settlement has been made and what its terms are, so that we may have a record upon the Journals of the House in case any dispute should arise in future.

I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that the matter has been settled. I do not think that any statement of mine in this House would take the place of any proper agreement or correspondence which may pass between the Office of Works and the Edinburgh Town Council. The First Commissioner, however, is quite as eager to preserve the beauties of Edinburgh as is the Edinburgh Town Council. The hon. Member will concede that the First Commissioner cannot be and is not to blame for anything that has occurred in this matter. The Office of Works four years ago spontaneously, without any demand from the town council, submitted their plans to the Dean of Guild Court, and no objection whatever was raised to the plans. The twenty-five feet line was agreed upon between the engineer of the town council, and the corporation themselves admitted in a Court of Law that they had not sought representation at the Dean of Guild Court when the plans were put forward. In these circumstances the building was put up, and I think the hon. Member will agree that the First Commissioner was in no way to blame for the building protruding.

Is it not a fact that the plans which were submitted to the Dean of Guild Court had a docket on them saying that they were passed subject to the building being put back?

No, Sir. The docket was not placed on them, and the Office of Works had no knowledge of what position the town council took in the matter. There was no letter recording such a position at the time the building was erected. The building is there. The question is how to get it back. The arrangement which has been made is as follows: that the cost of demolishing the building and setting it back five feet shall be borne by the Edinburgh Town Council, and the First Commissioner, on his side, shall concede the land that is necessary, namely, a strip of nine feet both along the existing block and in front of the block which is to be erected, and also shall lose a certain amount of space in the building itself, and submit to the inconvenience of the alteration. On the other hand, the Edinburgh Town Council is to have the cost of the demolition and re-erection of the building which, I understand, is to amount to a sum of £1,500. I may add that the Office of Works is fortunate in having found so courteous an intermediary as the hon. Member, and Central Edinburgh in having a Member so capable and so persistent.