asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any information as to the Belgian Government's proclaimed intention of laying down 5,000 hectares of State rubber plantations yearly in the Congo territory; whether His Majesty's Consuls may be expected to report upon the methods of securing labour for these plantations; and if he had information to the effect that labour was being forcibly provided for such plantations in the Bongandanga district or A.B.I.R. territory?

I believe that the intention of the Belgian Government is to lay down, not 5,000 hectares, but 2,000 hectares of rubber plantations yearly. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the third part is in the negative.

asked if His Majesty's Minister at Brussels was instructed to use the language he did use in transmitting Consul Thesiger's report on the Kasai district of the Congo to the Belgian Government on 7th January last year; and if any steps were taken by His Majesty's Government to protest against the reflections upon His Majesty's Consular staff on the Congo contained in the letter from the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs to His Majesty's Minister at Brussels on that occasion?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There is no reflection upon the British Consular staff in the Congo in saying that they exceed the functions usually exercised by Consuls in other countries. The statement is true, and it is their duty, owing to the special Treaty rights and obligations existing in connection with the Congo State, to exceed those functions. This duty will continue until the condition of affairs in the Congo is brought into accord with the original Treaty obligations of the Congo State, and the annexation by Belgium has been formally recognised.

asked if the right lion. Gentleman's attention had been drawn to the intention of the Belgian Government to draft 3,000 native soldiers into the Katanga region of the Congo, in addition to the 700 native soldiers now stationed in that region; if he was aware that the military forces maintained by the Belgian Government in the Congo greatly exceeded, having regard both to area and population, the military forces maintained by England, France, and Germany in their respective tropical African dependencies; and, if "so, whether he intended to take any action in the matter?

The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative; to the last question in the negative, as I do not see that any action is called for.

asked how many British subjects were now established in the Katanga region of the Congo, and in what manner was His Majesty's Government represented at the present moment in that country; and whether any official documents were publicly accessible whereby British subjects intending to settle in the Katanga could be informed of their rights under treaty?

According to a Census taken on 1st January, 1909, there were forty-nine British subjects in the Province Orientale and the Lualaba Kasai, in which the Katanga region lies. I have no later figures. His Majesty's Government are represented in the Katanga by a salaried Vice-Consul, who is at this moment on his return journey to his post after leave of absence, which was lengthened for reasons of health. The public treaties can be obtained in the usual way. Individuals wishing to inquire on the spot as to their rights can always apply to the Vice-Consul.

asked if His Majesty's Government had examined the decrees recently promulgated by the Belgian Government, especially those dealing with Katanga in connection with the trade in rubber, the leasing of land, and the regulations for expelling persons from Congo territory; and whether His Majesty's Government were satisfied that the rights of British subjects could be freely exercised under these decrees?

There have so far as I can ascertain been no recent Decrees on the matters mentioned which deal specially with the Katanga, though I am aware that the Katanga Special Committee have recently issued Regulations respecting the lease and sale of lands. As to the second part of the question, I must decline to commit myself to an expression of opinion in regard to any of the recent Belgian Decrees until I see how they work in practice.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the inquiry ordered by the Government of Bengal into the issue of liquor licences in the Khond districts, against which public protests of the people have been made, had been concluded; whether he was in a position to state the nature of the report of the Commissioner; and what action the Government of Bengal had taken in the matter?

The Secretary of State has no information about the matter other than that contained in a letter and a leading article in the Calcutta "Statesman" of 16th February, 1910, to which his attention has been directed by my hon. Friend. He has called for a report from the Government of Bengal on the points mentioned in the question.

asked whether Mr. Merk, Chief Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, declined to receive a deputation representing the Punjab Hindu community on the subject of the riots which took place at Peshawar in March last, the deputation being composed of a number of leading Hindu and Sikh residents of Peshawar; and whether inquiries would be made as to the grounds of refusal, and also as to the breakdown of the official arrangements to cope with the disturbances named?

The Secretary of State has no official information on any of the points referred to in the question. From the newspaper reports it appears that the Chief Commissioner's inability to receive the deputation was due to his absence from Peshawar on tour. The Secretary of State will inquire into the facts of the case.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the suspension of the municipal powers of the city of Ahmedabad by the Government of Bombay; if so, whether, having regard to a recently published report stating that the municipalities in the Bombay Presidency had made commendable progress everywhere, he could state the reason for the action in suspending the municipal powers of Ahmedabad?

The Bombay Government have by Order made under Section 179 of the Bombay District Municipal Act superseded the Ahmedabad municipality for one year on account of its incompetence, persistent default, and abuse of powers. The Order was published in the "Bombay Government Gazette" of the 19th May, with a statement of the reasons for the action taken. I shall be happy to let the hon. Member have a copy of it, if he desires. I may add that the most recently published report on municipalities in Bombay, so far from commending the progress of the Ahmedabad municipality, speaks of its "incapacity to treat any subject in a businesslike manner, or to conduct the administration of city government."

asked the Secretary of State for War whether there had recently been two outbreaks of illness among the cadets at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich; whether any such illness had been caused by bad food being supplied to the cadets; and what precautions were being taken to prevent unsound food being provided?

There have been two slight outbreaks of illness, one in which seven cadets were affected, of whom one was admitted to hospital and discharged next day, and another in which forty cadets were affected, of whom two were admitted to hospital and discharged next day. Various causes were assigned by the cadets for their sickness, e.g., cider, milk, and potatoes. All articles issued were carefully tested, but no explanation of the direct cause was discovered. The outbreak cannot therefore be attributed to any bad food supplied. Every precaution is taken to prevent unsound food being supplied; the contract terms are strict, and daily inspections of all supplies are made by an officer.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would utilise the services of retired veterinary surgeons for the new cavalry depots or otherwise, seeing that retired officers were used for other branches of the service?

There are only two cavalry depots for which veterinary assistance outside the Army Veterinary Corps is required, and for these it is proposed to utilise the services of local private practitioners, as the number of horses is too small to engage the exclusive services of a retired officer. The employment of retired veterinary officers as a general measure is not considered practicable, as it would increase the existing excess of officers abroad over those at home, and consequently the difficulty of arranging reliefs.

asked whether, in view of the deplorably low standard of education on the part of those endeavouring to qualify for commissions in the Army, as revealed by the report of the Director of Military Training, the Secretary for War will take steps to procure a sufficient supply of candidates of the former standard of intelligence?

The whole question is at present receiving the careful consideration of the Army Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what practical steps he intends to take?

The practical steps which are to be taken are under my personal and close consideration, and that of the whole of the staff at the present time.

asked what had been expended upon the barracks at Bradford during the last ten years, and to what use were they going to be put?

About £12,000 has been spent on these barracks during the last ten years. The barracks will be used for any overflow of troops that may occur from other stations in the Command. It must be remembered that owing to want of facilities for training these barracks are not adapted for permanent occupation by a unit.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that labourers employed in the Army Ordnance Department at Colchester receive an average wage of 4¼d. per hour or 17s. 6d. per week; and whether he will consider the possibility of raising these wages to-bring them within the Resolution of this House relating to fair wages

The rate of wages is as stated. I am inquiring as to its sufficiency.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have the result of the inquiry.

The inquiry is proceeding now.

asked the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies if he would state the cost per mile and the total cost of the railway in the Sultanate of Johore to the date of the latest catastrophe; how much that cost exceeded the original price for which a British firm had contracted with H.H. the Sultan to construct the line; the reason for compelling the Sultan to break his contract and enable the Crown Agents to entrust the work to incompetent hands; and the amount of compensation the Sultan was compelled to pay for having broken his contract?

Figures as to the cost of the railway are not yet available. I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that no British firm offered to construct a line similar to that which has been built, and that there can be no comparison between the present line and the light railway for which a rough estimate was drawn up about twenty years ago. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the Sultan was compelled to break his contract, or that the work was entrusted to incompetent hands, and the hon. Gentleman is no doubt fully aware from definite replies to previous questions that the Crown Agents had nothing to do with the matter. I believe that the Sultan of Johore paid £15,000 in order to free himself from some entanglement with a British firm. There was no compulsion in the matter.

asked whether any liability attached to the giving of expert advice paid for by the Crown Agents for the Colonies; if so, how was the liability enforced when it resulted in defective work and waste of money; how many miles of the Johore Railway had been washed away owing to insufficient and defective bridge openings; whether he had got any estimate of the cost of the repairs; what steps, if any, had been taken to recover that loss from those to whose advice it was due; and whether His Majesty's Government had sanctioned its imposition on the Sultanate of Johore?

Owing to floods, resulting from very heavy rains, damage estimated at $150,000 was done to the Johore Railway. There was nothing in the nature of the damage done to indicate faulty construction, and the question of recovering money does not arise. The cost of the repairs will, of course, be defrayed by the owners of the line, the Government of Johore.

asked who were the consulting engineers of the Canton-Kowloon Railway; whether they acted in that capacity in connection with the Shanghai-Nanking Railway, the Hong Kong Railway, and the Johore Railway, all lines that could never pay owing to the cost of construction; whether the late chief British accountant was the nominee of those engineers; whether the amount of his embezzlements had yet been ascertained; and whether any steps were being taken to recover that amount from his nominators?

The consulting engineers are Sir J. Wolfe Barry and Partners. The consulting engineers for the Johore Railway are Messrs. Gregory, Eyles and Waring. I have no information as to the Shanghai-Nanking Railway. I cannot accept the statement that either the Hong Kong or the Johore Railway can never pay. As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 25th November, the Colonial Office is not concerned with the doings of the late chief accountant on the Chinese section of the line.

asked whether His Majesty's Government was in possession of independent evidence that the Canton-Kowloon Railway could never possibly pay its cost of construction and working expenses; that it was being forced through merely for the resuscitation of Hong Kong at the expense of the Chinese guarantors; and that it had already cost £16,000 per mile; and whether in these circumstances, a further loan for its completion would have the approval of the Colonial Office?

The answer to the first two parts of the hon. Gentleman's question is in the negative. I have not the exact figures as to the cost of the line to date, and no question of a further loan for its completion has arisen.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many submarines in the British Navy were supplied with safety air-locks?

I regret that in my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question yesterday, there was some confusion owing to both his questions, the one with regard to safety air-locks and the other with regard to safety helmets for submarines, having been considered together. If the hon. Gentleman will kindly permit me, to prevent any obscurity I will reply on both points now. The whole of the sea-going submarines in commission—47 in number— have been completely supplied with the life-saving device consisting of air-locks and helmets, sufficient in number for the entire crew. The only submarine boats in His Majesty's service which have not air-locks or safety helmets are the older non-seagoing vessels now on harbour duty, whose size does not permit of the necessary constructive alteration being made.

May I ask how many can get into those air-locks at the same time?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice, I will be very glad to inquire.

asked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty had any information as to the ordering from British firms of armoured ships for Chili and Turkey; and, if so, to what class of vessel these ships belong?

We have no information as to orders having been placed with British firms by Chili or Turkey.

asked on what dates it is hoped to launch the "Lion" and "Orion," building at Devonport and Portsmouth, respectively?

It is expected that both vessels will be launched in August next, but the exact date has not yet been decided.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would state whether the English military attaché in Vienna had asked the naval section there for some details concerning the building of new "Dreadnoughts" for the Austro-Hungarian Government; and what the reply was which was received?

We cannot make public information received from foreign Governments about their shipbuilding, except what they themselves communicate for that purpose, and in this case—where the subject has been discussed recently in the Parliament of the country concerned—I can only refer the hon. Member to the public statements of the Austro-Hungarian Government.

Would the right hon. Gentleman state if it would be possible for any country to buy the Austrian "Dreadnoughts" when they are finished?

No, Sir. I can only give the hon. Gentleman the information which has appeared in the public Press on the subject, and in the Debates of the Austro-Hungarian Parliament. I do. not gather from those Debates that the ships will be for sale.

asked the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, what steps are taken to require the trustees of charities to render periodical statements of the income and expenditure of such charities; whether the statements of account of charities received by the Charity Commissioners are audited; and, if so, by whom?

Trustees of charities are required by Statute to render yearly accounts to the Commissioners. In cases of neglect it is the practice of the Commissioners to remind trustees of their duty and, if necessary, to issue peremptory orders for compliance with the law. The Charitable Trusts Acts do not prescribe any general audit of the accounts rendered to the Commissioners or give them power to surcharge; nor is the staff of the Office adequate for so large an undertaking. When the Commissioners' attention is called to any cases of doubtful payments special inquiries are made.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he would state the total amount of Grants made by the Government under the Unemployed Work- men Act, 1905, for the financial years ending 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1910; the total amounts granted to the various distress committees for the years above-mentioned; and the total amounts granted for relief works, for emigration, for farm colonies, and for women's workrooms during these years?

The sum voted by Parliament in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905;, for each of the financial years ended 31st March, 1907–1910, was £200,000, except for the year ending 31st March, 1909, when the amount was £300,000. The particulars desired by the hon. Member, so far as they are in my possession, are shown in a detailed statement which I shall be pleased to send him.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state whether, whereas under the Old Age Pensions Act in the case of single pensioners receiving 5s. a week and husband and wife 10s. a week jointly no claim is made upon sons and daughters to repay any portion of these pensions, he can see his way to alter the Poor Law so that in the case of single persons receiving 3s. relief, and husband and wife 6s., no claim may be made upon sons and daughters to repay a portion of the relief granted, thus bringing the law regulating relief into line with the Old Age Pensions Act?

I am afraid I could not promise to introduce a Bill to amend the law in the direction indicated. I need hardly point out that the conditions attaching to the receipt of an old age pension entirely differentiate assistance in that form from ordinary Poor Law relief.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will state what precautions, if any, are taken concerning postmen going on duty who have members of their families ill from contagious disease?

In the case of certain specified diseases a postman is placed off duty immediately, and is not allowed to resume until instructions have been received from the chief medical officer to the post office. In the case of other diseases, the postman remains on duty, but the case is at once reported to the chief medical officer, who advises whether it is necessary that the employé concerned should absent himself. Absence from duty with full pay is insisted on if there is considered to be any risk of conveying the infection, whether to the local post office staff, or to the public generally.

asked what are the reasons for the difference in the average cost of construction per telephone station belonging to the systems of the National Telephone Company and of the Post Office respectively, recently stated by the chairman of the National Telephone Company to be from £22 to £23 per station in favour of the latter company?

My attention has been called to the statement in question, which has since been quoted in several other quarters. The president of the National Telephone Company appears to have overlooked the fact that the expenditure which he took as the cost of the existing Post Office telephone stations included a sum of about £1,000,000 expended in providing plant for the use of his company, although he had previously mentioned the rent paid by the company for part of this plant. This sum should, therefore, have been added to the company's expenditure, raising the average cost by about £2 per station. A corresponding deduction would reduce the Post Office expenditure by about £11 10s. per station. Expenditure on land and buildings seems to have been excluded from the company's cost per station, and included in the cost attributed to the Post Office system. Part of the Post Office expenditure has been for plant to replace the company's overhead wires and cables, and some of their older exchanges, after their system will have been taken over by the Post Office at the end of 1911. About 65 per cent. of the Post Office stations are in London, where a very costly underground system has been provided, and the average length of the lines in use is about double the length of the lines on the company's general system. The Post Office has also provided all the underground junction wires for communication between the exchanges of the two systems in London. If proper allowance were made for these circumstances, the cost of the Post Office exchange system would compare favourably with the cost of the company's system.

asked the Solicitor-General if he can bring in a Bill whereby leases should be registered, seeing that certain friendly societies recently suffered heavy loss through the so-called Franklin frauds?

I have no present intention to introduce such a Bill.

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman received any complaint or information concerning losses to the friendly societies?

I have no answer except what I gather in the Press.

Would the hon. Gentleman inquire?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Welsh-speaking inspector of the Board in the Machynlleth division was recently removed to another part of the country; whether his successor could speak Welsh; and what were his qualifications for the post?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Owing to the decrease in the amount of work to be done in the Machynlleth district it has not been found necessary to keep an inspector stationed there, and at present there is no inspector at Machynlleth.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the newly appointed chief inspector of mines in North Wales is Welsh-speaking, in accordance with the provision contained in Section 39 of 50 and 51 Vic, c. 58?

The Inspector recently appointed to take charge of the Liverpool and North Wales District does not, I believe, speak Welsh. North Wales forms only the smaller part of his district. It has never been suggested, so far as I am aware, that the inspector in charge of this district should necessarily be Welsh-speaking. The three assistant inspectors in the district (one of whom is stationed at Bangor and the other two at Chester) all speak Welsh, and this seems to make ample provision for the needs of the Welsh portion of the district.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the appointment of a non-Welsh-speaking inspector in North Wales is in compliance with the Section referred to?

I am advised that it is so. There must be a certain movement of the inspectors in a regular and established circuit; and, as far as possible, the inspectors whose duties are in Wales are acquainted with the Welsh language.

Am I to understand that the legal officers have advised the right hon. Gentleman that the appointment of a non-Welsh-speaking inspector in North Wales complies with the specific provision in this particular Statute?

I am advised that we have kept scrupulously within the limits of the law.

By the law officers?

Do the three assistant inspectors speak English also?

Yes.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board make any Grant to the funds of the Agricultural Organisation Society; and, if so, what is the amount of the subsidy and for what purposes is it granted?

The Board have undertaken to make a Grant of £1,200 a year to the Agricultural Organisation Society for three years from 1st April, 1909, provided that the income of the society from subscriptions and donations in each previous year is not less than £1,200. If the income exceeds that amount, the Grant is increased pro rata up to a maximum of £1,600 a year. The Grant is made to assist the work done by the society in the promotion of co-operation in connection with the cultivation of small holdings.

asked the Home Secretary whether the chief inspector of mines and quarries for North Wales was supposed to visit and inspect the open slate quarries, and when; and on how many occasions Mr. Hall, the chief inspector, visited the slate quarries of Carnarvonshire during the last two years?

The inspector in charge of a district is responsible for the administration of the Acts in mines and quarries throughout his district. He shares in the work of inspection, but as the general work of administration falls upon him, including heavy correspondence, preparation of the annual report and statistics, and other matters, the bulk of the work of inspection necessarily falls upon his assistants, two of whom are stationed in North Wales for this purpose. Under the new arrangements, however, which came into force on the 1st of this month, I hope that the inspectors in charge of districts will be able to devote more time to the work of inspection. As regards the second part of the question, I have not the information asked for. As my hon. Friend is aware, Mr. Hall has now retired from the service under the age rule.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding the serious nature of the accidents in these quarries, the chief inspector has not visited the quarries during the last three years?

asked the Home Secretary what reply, if any, he had made to the complaint addressed to him by the owners of slate quarries with reference to the non-inclusion on the Mines Commission of any one with experience of open slate quarries?

also asked the Home Secretary whether any of the members of the Mines Commission were acquainted with the working of open slate quarries; and whether, in view of the fact that in two of the largest quarries, Dinorwic and Penrhyn, in the county of Carnarvon, no less than one in three and one in five, respectively, of the inside workers were injured last year, he would consider the desirability of strengthening the Commission by the appointment of a gentleman who had experience of such quarries?

I have received letters from two owners of the smaller open slate quarries in North Wales asking for the appointment on the new Commission of an additional representative of these quarries. Mr. E. M. Greaves, whom I selected as an owners' representative of the slate industry in North Wales, has had experience of working slate both by open quarrying and by mining, and Mr. R. T. Jones, who was selected as the representative of the workmen, is general secretary of the North Wales Quarrymen's Union, and I am informed that the Union includes both the open slate quarries and the slate mines. In these circumstances, I am doubtful if any advantage would be obtained by additions to the Commission, which is already a large one. The Commission will no doubt take evidence as regards both slate mines and quarries.

Seeing that all the accidents to which inquiries have been directed have been in open quarries, may I ask why there is not on the Commission a single man with experience of open quarries?

I am very anxious to keep the Commission within manageable dimensions. As the hon. Member knows, when the size of a body is increased beyond a certain point, its deliberations are greatly prolonged, and generally no commensurate advantage is obtained. If the hon. Member will submit a special case on the subject I will consider carefully whether any advantage is to be gained.

In view of the fact that for two years in succession one in three of the workmen engaged in open quarries were injured, will not the right hon. Gentleman appoint on the Commission someone who is conversant with the real difficulty of the open quarries?

I have no other wish than to meet the general sense of the House in regard to the composition of the Commission, but I hope the importance of keeping the numbers small will be borne in mind.

asked whether the inspector of mines now placed in charge of the Cardiff district had a competent knowledge of the Welsh language which satisfied the provisions of c. 58, s. 39, of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887?

The Cardiff district no longer exists. Under the new scheme of reorganisation, following on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Mines, the Cardiff and Swansea districts and the County of Monmouth, which previously formed part of the southern district, have been combined to form the new South Wales Division. The superintending inspector, who before the change had the general supervision of the Cardiff and Swansea districts, is retained with the altered title of divisional inspector. He does not speak Welsh; there is no Welsh-speaking inspector who is his equal in standing and qualifications; but under him is a staff of experienced senior inspectors, each with responsible duties of inspection in the different parts of the Division, all of whom, including the inspector stationed at Cardiff, speak Welsh.

The previous inspector at Cardiff having been shifted to Yorkshire, is there now an inspector in the Cardiff district?

Yes, there is an inspector stationed at Cardiff, and he speaks Welsh.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give his name?

I do not know the names of the different inspectors, but I can easily ascertain them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that Mr. Francis Lascelles was recently fined £1 and costs at the Ivybridge Sessions for making use of the word "damn"; and whether, seeing this expression was used by Mr. Lascelles after he had been run over by a vehicle while riding a bicycle, with the result that his right ear was nearly torn off, his collarbone broken, and his legs badly bruised, he would under the circumstances have the fine remitted and state the names of the person or persons who asked the police to institute these proceedings?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies may I ask whether the Home Office proposes to prosecute Lord Milner for an entirely unprovoked use of the same word in regard to consequences?

I made inquiry in the case some time ago, and found that the newspaper reports give a somewhat euphemistic account of the language used by the defendant. In view of the facts given in evidence I see no reason for advising any reduction of the penalty imposed.

Was the fine imposed for using the word in the question, and nothing more?

The word which figured in the published reports was not the word employed.

asked the President of the Board of Education how many of the women inspectors of schools in the service of the Department had a competent knowledge of the Welsh language?

So far as I am aware, none. Perhaps I should explain that the women inspectors are appointed with a view to special qualifications in special subjects. I have never heard of any of the women inspectors working in Wales finding themselves embarrassed by ignorance of Welsh.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Office of Woods and Forests, whether, in view of the fact that no cases relating either to vert or venison or other matters, if any, falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of Verderers of the Forest of Dean had, for at least three years, been brought by the Crown officials before such court, and that the meeting of such court, which, according to ancient law and custom, should take place every forty days, now invariably stood adjourned owing to lack of business, the Government would consider the advisability of allocating additional duties to the verderers so that this ancient office might not become a sinecure?

There does not appear to be any necessity to devise new duties for the verderers of Dean Forest in place of those which have become obsolete. If the hon. Member has any suggestion to make, it will, however, receive consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of extending the jurisdiction of the verderers of the Forest of Dean to all cases of in-closure of Crown lands, and to every case in which there is an apparent conflict between the rights of the Crown and the rights of the inhabitants?

I should like to consider that question before giving a definite answer.

asked the Attorney-General if his attention had been called to the evidence in the case brought by Mr. James Docket, formerly political agent for Mr. Edmund Lamb, in the Leominster County Court, on 13th June; and whether the Public Prosecutor proposed to institute proceedings for bribery?

I am informed that this case is still sub judice, judgment having been reserved till 18th July next. I cannot, therefore, answer the hon. Member's question.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman direct the attention of his colleague the President of the Gladstone League to the matter?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the 200 applicants who were interviewed for appointments as managers or assistant managers of Labour Exchanges were interviewed by the selection committee or by the divisional officers of Labour Exchanges on behalf of the selection committee?

Two hundred and four candidates for posts as managers of Labour Exchanges were interviewed personally by the Selection Committee.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he was aware that ever since its foundation St. Joseph's Catholic School, Southowram, Halifax, had had a mistress as head teacher, but that, on the retirement recently of the head mistress, the education committee of the West Riding instructed the managers to appoint a master instead of a mistress to fill the vacancy; whether he was aware that the reports for the past twelve years testified to the efficient work done in the school; and whether, in view of the fact that the managers, the parents of the children, and the Hipperholme Council were unanimous in opposing the action of the West Riding Education Committee, he would cause inquiry to be made and would receive a deputation from the managers before the question at issue was determined?

This case is being very carefully considered, and I hope the hon. Member will allow me to defer my reply to his question for a few days.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how long Sir Horace Plunkett was allowed to retain his office in the Government without a seat in Parliament; how long Mr. T. W. Russell has held the same office without a seat; and how much longer he will be allowed to do so?

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether during six years of the period that Sir Horace Plunkett held office he was out of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—while his own party were in power?

Let us hear the answer first.

Sir Horace Plunkett retained the post of Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction without a seat in Parliament for a period of six years and nearly eight months, namely, from 25th September, 1900, the date of dissolution of Parliament, to 21st May, 1907, when he ceased to hold that office. The present Vice-President, who entered on the duties of the post on 22nd May, 1907, has been out of Parliament since the date of the last dissolution, 15th January, 1910, a period of a little over five months. As regards the concluding portion of the question I have nothing to add to my reply to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for East Down on 10th March last.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman are we to understand from the answer that Sir Horace Plunkett held the position for six years while he had not a seat in this House, and while his party was in power; and that he was re-appointed to the position by the Liberal Government when they came into power?

I have given the dates. It is for the House to say what party was in power during that period of time.

asked whether any portion of the money advanced by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction to credit societies is looked upon as a bad debt; what steps have been taken to recover this money; whether these societies are unlimited liability companies; and whether proceedings have been taken against all the members composing them?

The Department have reason to believe that a small amount will prove to be irrecoverable. The usual steps for recovery have been taken—first, by pressure from the Department, and secondly through the medium of the Chief Crown Solicitor. The proceedings are invariably taken against the two guarantors and the secretary. The societies are not limited liability companies. The Department, whatever the legal position may be, have no intention of taking proceedings against small borrowers, who in most cases would be unable to pay.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the amount that is looked upon as irrecoverable; what will be the loss to the Treasury?

I have not got the figures before me, but if the hon. Gentleman gives me notice I can get them.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners received an application for reinstatement from Daniel Shanahan, an evicted tenant on the estate of the Knight of Kerry, Farranreigh, Valentia; and what steps, if any, they have taken in the matter?

The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Daniel Shanahan, who was evicted from a holding on the estate of the Knight of Kerry, but as his application was not received before 1st May, 1907, the date mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, the Commissioners are unable to deal with it under that Act.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in preparing his Budget for the current financial year, he will consider the desirableness of seeking new sources of revenue by imposing an ad valorem, Stamp Duty upon all contracts for the sale and purchase of stocks and shares, whether for investment or speculative purposes, in substitution for the Transfer Duty at present payable upon the actual transfer of securities, of taxing racing stakes and betting transactions, theatre, music hall, and other entertainment receipts, aerated waters and other non-alcoholic beverages, advertisements, titles, and foreign investments, of instituting an ad valorem receipt stamp, and of calling in to the Department of the Public Trustee all dormant cash balances and unclaimed securities in the hands of bankers?

I shall be glad to consider these suggestions in conjunction with the various other proposals which have been brought to my notice for raising the revenue required for the financial year.

Arising out of that answer, which I have received with unvarying courtesy for the last five years, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many of these suggested taxes already prevail in other civilised countries, and with most satisfactory results; and whether he will consider the idea of a conference between, say, four representatives of the Treasury and four men of business and financial experience?

asked the Prime Minister if he will say whether there is any civilised country in the world where representative institutions exist which has not established an office of Minister of Mines; and whether, seeing that mining is now the largest industry in this country and that the loss of life and danger to life is far greater than in any other large trade, he will consider the desirability of removing the control of mines from the Home Office to a special mines department in charge of a Minister responsible to Parliament?

According to my information, there is no European country in which the office of Minister of Mines exists. My hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware that a Department of Mines was established at the Home Office by the present Government in 1908, and I am not prepared to recommend the removal of the control of mines from the Home office.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say where he gets his information as to the Ministers of Mines? I will send him the information to-night.

The matter has been most carefully gone into.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated at Alfreton on 24th January that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government before the next election to put a stop to intimidation in the rural districts and to prevent landowners canvassing their tenants and land agents watching at the polling stations; will he say when a Bill to deal with these matters will be introduced; and whether he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce this Bill?

I am informed that my right hon. Friend has expressed a hope that it might be possible by Act of Parliament to put a stop to intimidation, but we shall not be able to introduce legislation on the subject during this Session.

I desire to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department the following question, of which private notice has been given: Whether his attention has been called to the continuous intimidation of electors and speakers at Unionist meetings in East Dorset by the Radical party; if so, what steps he intends to take to prevent such intimidation?

No complaint on this subject has been received by the Home Office. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the specific cases to which he alludes, and if they appear to come within the jurisdiction of the Home Office, inquiry shall be made.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can see his way to give the House the opportunity on the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Franchise (Women) Bill to discuss the subject? [HON. MEMBEES: "NO, no."]

I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone that question till Thursday.

Several other Members took and subscribed the oath.

I rise to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill "to amend the law relating to the purchase of land under compulsory powers." The system of compulsory purchase recognised is, of course, an old established system and is necessarily the system employed in cases, for instance, where land is needed for national defence, for the lighting of the coasts, for water supply, or the development of the country, for roads, bridges, railways, harbours, and many other matters which have become increasingly necessary. I think any one who has to do with it will agree that the machinery, which is mainly based upon the Lands Clauses Act, is of a somewhat antiquated character, is unsatisfactory in working, is very cumbrous, and very costly in its operation. The main object of that machinery is to have some mode of fixing the price, and the difficulty of fixing the price is very great, and even under the machinery so provided the fixing of the price varies very much in different cases, and taken as a whole is both arbitrary and empiric. The main difficulty as to price is not so much as to buildings and improvements, or even such matters as compensation for severance, but relates particularly to the case of the variableness of the land itself. If there was satisfactory provision for fixing the price of the land itself, all those other things outside the land, houses, buildings, improvements, and all other special features like that; could very easily be dealt with. In other words, if the land matter were settled these things might settle themselves.

The real problem is, how are we to obtain a system for finding the value of the land itself? The key, I think, to that solution, is to be found in the new valuations which are now in process of being made under Part I. of the Finance Act so recently passed. As regards the measure which I am asking leave to introduce, I should like to point out, in the first place, it does not propose in any way to extend the power or scope of compulsory purchase. It proposes to leave the general powers in regard to compulsory purchases as they are now. Its object is simply to facilitate the fixing of the basis of the price, and to do that only in so far as the price covers site value. The essence of the proposals are that where land is purchased compulsorily under statutory provisions that the buyer or the seller shall have power to require the full site value as adopted for Part 1 of the Finance Act, shall be taken as the basis of the price, so far as the full site value is concerned for the purpose of the purchase. That applies, of course, only by what is covered by site value. It does not apply to the amount or to the ascertainment of the amount of any other factors, for instance, the buildings, the improvements, the effects, the drainage, or such matters as severance; these things will all be dealt with as now. This Bill does not cover any provision outside the site value. All these things are left to be adjusted on the same basis as now, and also all additional compensation, for instance, compensation in respect of compulsory purchase and additional allowance of 10 per cent. are left entirely unaffected by the provisions of the Bill. The only object is that where there is already compulsory purchase, and where there is a valuation of the full site value, that that should be utilised as the general basis of the purchase so far as the site value of the land is concerned, leaving all these other things on exactly the same basis as they are dealt with now. I venture to think that some such proposals as these are but once the sequel and the complement of the new valuation under the Finance Act. I ask leave to introduce the Bill.

Does the hon. Member rise to oppose?

Yes, Sir. The hon. Member, in introducing his Bill, has used all the old stratagems of language; but, so far as I understand the intentions he has expressed, I feel very strong opposition to the proposals he has put forward. I do not think I should be prepared to carry my opposition so far as to prevent the hon. Member from having the pleasure of seeing his Bill in print, or perhaps, for stronger reasons, prevent the House seeing proposals so remarkable as those put forward enshrined in a Parliamentary Bill

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to speak in opposition to this Bill unless he is prepared to divide the House against it?

The hon. Member told me he was going to oppose the Bill, and I have no reason to suppose that he will not do so.

He said he would not press the matter to a division. I am in the recollection of the House. Only a minute or two ago he said he would not divide, and has he not therefore withdrawn his right to speak on the question?

The hon. Member said he was going to oppose. I do not think that that necessarily meant he was going to divide against the Bill. A Bill was opposed just a week ago, but was not divided against—

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The question came up when a Bill which was opposed and not divided upon was before the House last week. You were not in the Chair, and the point was raised then whether you did not give a previous decision that anyone who spoke against a Bill introduced under the Ten Minute Rule should divide upon it—

I am sure I never gave such a ruling. It would be impossible to carry it out. How could I compel a Member to divide against a Bill? I could not take him into the Lobby myself.

I want to offer only a few observations as a sort of caveat against the supposition which might arise that a Bill like this was likely to go through the House by consent. The hon. Member is proposing a complete change of the system on which compulsory purchase is based. He is against the salutary principles of arbitration. I do not think he disputes at all the impartiality of the present method of arbitration, but he would abandon that for the hard and fast cut-and-dry course of purchase on the basis of the present Finance Act. I confess that it is here that I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not exactly apprehend upon what precise value in the Finance Act he proposes to base his purchase. He talked about "full-site value." I suppose that is the old proposal of which we heard so much last year in a new suit of clothes. Full-site value is not one of the values that appear in the Commissioners' rules. There are two values that appear upon the Commissioners' rules. One is total value, and the other the assessable value. The hon. Gentleman proposes, as a basis of purchase, full-site value which is purely imaginary. The whole question came up when the question of full-site value was under discussion. Perhaps the hon. Member was not here at the time, he might have been away on one of the fortnightly excursions of the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury. Although the proposal is, I think, unjust and absurd in regard to England and Scotland, when you apply it to Ireland it is absolutely impossible. I do not know whether the question has occurred to the hon. Member how Ireland would be affected by the application of the Bill. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are apt to talk a great deal about Ireland, but reflection upon the subject is very often conspicuous by its absence. A moment's reflection will convince the hon. Gentleman of the absurdity of his proposal as applied to Ireland, because this valuation is not going to take place there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the valuation in Ireland was going to be "roughed out" from the fair rents on the basis of taking over land for land purchase and from Griffith's valuation. If you are going to apply the system of the hon. Member's Bill to Ireland you will have results absurd in theory and impossible in practice, and even if you could carry them out they would extinguish the last spark of vitality in the system of land purchase in Ireland, which has already suffered seriously from what I may call the Radical operations of the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member opposite was apparently rather anxious to persuade the House that this was a Bill of very limited application, but although its powers are limited in application they are linked over a very wide area. I have looked up part of the area over which these powers extend, and I find, among other bodies, they extend to the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, Lloyd's Signal Stations, the Post Office, Commissioners of Sewers, Commissioners of Works, powers of acquiring land for allotments, the Development Fund, electric lighting power, and other things, and all these bodies are to be entrusted for all time with an option on land on the basis of its site value. The first immediate result of that policy is going to be confiscation. Do hon. Members not realise that you cannot expect to sell land at the same price when it is subject to such a call? If you pass this proposal the first result will be that the present owner will suffer an immediate and irrecoverable loss. Who is going to bear that loss —the State and the local authorities? Not a bit of it, but the owner of the land. Hon. Members opposite sometimes talk about Colonial methods, and they appeal to Colonial precedents. I do not think a great deal of Colonial precedents in regard to land legislation, because you can do a great many things in a new country which you cannot do with justice in an old country. But even taking Colonial precedents, you cannot find a precedent for any such proposal as that which is put forward by the hon. Member opposite. In New Zealand the local authority has a call such as the hon. Member wishes to give on the basis of the assessment, but the owner has a corresponding advantage because he can turn round and say, "This assessment is too high; either reduce my assessment or take over the land at that assessment." Even this privilege is not offered to the unhappy landowners of this country under this Bill. I am not, however, anxious to deprive the hon. Member of the pleasure of seeing his Bill in print, but I wish to point out that, unless he changes its character very much, its future stages are likely to be attended with considerable difficulties.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dundas White, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Sherwell, Mr. Hemmerde, Mr. Price, Mr. Mond, Mr. Wedgwood, Mr. Chancellor, and Mr. Aneurin Williams. Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Wednesday, 29th June.)

I am heart and soul in agreement with the Prime Minister in hoping that the contingency contemplated by this Bill may never arise. In point of fact such a contingency has never arisen. Altogether there have been four Regency Bills. The first was in 1537 by Henry VIII., and it was the only one that ever came into operation. I think we are pretty safe in believing that such a Regency Bill as this will not come into operation in the present case. This Bill, in my judgment, involves principles which are not completely consonant with constitutional usage in this House. I know the Prime Minister has stated that this Regency Bill is an absolutely necessary one, but I traverse that statement. Should it please God to remove the King tomorrow the present Heir-Apparent would be amply and abundantly competent to carry out all the duties required of him. I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should direct his attention to the fact that, although four Regency Bills have been introduced during the last 317 years, not a single Regency Bill has contemplated a Regency taking effect when the Heir-Presumptive has reached the age of sixteen years. Take the Regency Bill of Henry VIII. It was passed in the year Edward VI. was born, and in reference to the age-limit it is interesting to note that it was in the event of a Prince of eighteen years of age or a princess sixteen years of age. I think in these days when women's rights are so much in the ascendant that the age for a King attaining full power may easily be sixteen years of age instead of eighteen, inasmuch as Henry VIII. was no very great admirer of ladies.

I now come to the Regency Bill of 1751. Under that Bill George III., the Heir-Presumptive was eleven years of age. Under the Regency Bill of 1765 George IV. was three years of age, and in the case of the Bill of 1830 Queen Victoria was only eleven years of age. In 1840 no children were of age at all, because none of them were born. Why should we have all this embarrassing legislation for a contingency which we all hope and believe will not arise, and even if it does arise the present Heir-Apparent would be fully able to fulfil all the duties of the position. Take the case of Queen Victoria in 1830 immediately after the death of George IV. If was said by the Liberal party then: "How can you dissolve Parliament and leave no provision with regard to the succession?" The King is sixty-five years of age, and the Heir Apparent is only eleven. Sir Robert Peel answered that admirably. He said:— We may hear a great deal about the power of the Crown in this case. and then he said:— The powers of the Grown is now vested in the hands of responsible Ministers, and they and they alone, are responsible for them. What difference is there between a youth of sixteen and a youth of eighteen so far as great political power and management are concerned? I should say none whatever. The matter is one absolutely of Ministerial responsibility, and, if that is so, this Bill is as useless as we all hope it may be inoperative. Mr. Gladstone, expounding the political institutions of England for the benefit of the American Republic, in 1878, spoke of Ministers having absolute responsibility and of the Crown having practically none except through their hands. This is what he said:— There can be in England no disloyalty more gross as to its effects than this superstition which affects to assign to the Sovereign a separate and so far as separate transcendental sphere of political action. Anonymous servility has in these last days hinted such a doctrine, but it is no more practicable to make it thrive in England than to have ten jungles of Bengal on Salisbury Plain. Having said that much, may I, without entering into details, say how I think this Bill, although useless, is not consonant with the principles of government as we understand them. The illustrious person named in the Bill is perhaps the very best selection on constitutional principles that could be made, and absolutely accords with the constitutional precedents; but there are powers in which this Regent, if she were appointed, would be curtailed in the exercise of the Prerogative. It is said that a Regent should, if possible, on account of the uncertainty and embarrassing position, have more power than the Sovereign. These three cases in which the Prerogative is concerned, such as the succession to the Throne, are merely relics of past times, and could have been safely left out. The other matters in reference to the Scotch and Established Church are there, but I think it would be in constitutional principle and practice to leave out everything which indirectly re-establishes the Veto of the Crown. It is really contrary to the tendency of legislation of both Houses. I hope the Prime Minister will have no great difficulty in leaving that out.

There is another provision—Section 5— in reference to religious declarations. The Bill is a great improvement on other Bills, but it was only such an improvement as you would expect when you have a Gentleman at the head of the Administration who from his early years has had a hatred of religious disabilities of any kind. Section 5, however, is not necessary for the purpose for which it is enacted. In the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 the Regent was one of the specially excluded officers. Strange to say, that fact was relied on in 1867 in the House of Lords, when an endeavour was made to repeal the Declaration with reference to minor officers. I think I have stated the chief things that may in some way or other need rectification if it be necessary to pass this Bill, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the principle that there is no infancy for the Sovereign and to the well-known constitutional morality that Ministers, and Ministers alone, are responsible for the Executive Government of the country, whether it might not be well to drop the Bill? I hope, in any case, the Bill will never come into operation, and that His Majesty the King may see his children's children.

The House always listens with interest and no doubt instruction to my hon. and learned Friend when he deals with points of constitutional law and history. On such points there is no higher authority among us, and for that reason I have listened with great consideration and respect to what he has said on the various points he has raised. As regards, first of all, the necessity of a Bill of this kind, I entirely agree with him that in point of law the Sovereign, though still an infant, is capable of discharging all regal acts; but, nevertheless, it has always been felt that at least the same precautions which a man would take with regard to his own private property by providing a proper guardianship for his heir during infancy ought to be taken by the Legislature when dealing with such an infinitely important matter as the succession to the Crown and the exercise of the various prerogatives which still belong, and always; will, I trust, belong to the holder of the Throne. It has, therefore, with the single exception he mentioned in the reign of Henry VIII., when I think the age was sixteen, been the uniform rule in a Regency Bill to provide for the continuance of the Regency till the child who succeeds to the Throne attains the age of eighteen.

4.0 P.M.

As the hon. Member suggested, it makes no difference whatsoever as to at what stage of the child's life you make the provision— whether at the time of the Regency the child is seven or whether he is sixteen years of age. According to law, it does not matter at what particular age we make the provision. We act upon precedents. In the most recent—in the case of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, in 1830, and in the case of our late lamented Sovereign, in 1840—we provided for the Regency to continue until the successor to the Throne came to the age of eighteen. With regard to the other points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he will agree with me, I think, that they are Committee points, and do not strictly rise on the Second Reading of the Bill. I agree there is some force in what the hon. and learned Member said as to whether it is necessary in the altered conditions of modern times to continue the provisions of the fourth Clause of the Bill. But they are copied from previous enactments, and the omission of them may give rise to suspicions and apprehensions in some over-sensitive quarters, although I do not believe that the dangers against which they are intended to guard are dangers which in any real sense of the word need fill our minds with the notion that it is necessary to take precautions against them. On the whole, however, it seems better to follow precedent and to adhere to established rule. With regard to the fifth Clause my hon. and learned Friend has acknowledged that in point of phraseology it is an improvement on precedent, although it makes no alteration in substance. While I think the hon. Member was well founded in saying that the terms of the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 are in themselves sufficient to disable any person professing the Roman Catholic faith from exercising the office of Regent. In the two cases which have occurred since 1829 the corresponding provision was inserted ex abundante candela, and that is the reason why the Government have thought it very desirable to put the provision into this Bill. These are not arguments of substance, but they are Committee points which, if necessary, can be discussed at a later stage. I will only conclude by once more re-echoing the wish expressed by my hon. and learned Friend, and shared, I am sure, by every Member in every quarter of the House, that the contingency contemplated by the Bill may never come into operation.

; There are several points in the Bill to which objection may be raised, and which certainly are deserving the consideration of the House. For instance, there is the latter part of Clause 3, which provides that if the Sovereign enters into a marriage which is objected to by the Regent that marriage can be declared null and void. That is a very serious provision in itself. What does it mean 1 It means that the Sovereign is under a great temptation to enter into a marriage knowing that the full responsibility of marriage, as it is generally recognised in this country, does not rest upon him. He knows that the marriage can be lightly set aside, and he therefore does not enter into it with that feeling of responsibility which ordinary citizens have. I think it is wrong to put such a temptation before the Sovereign. But looking at the matter from the point of view of the poor girl who happens to fall in love with the Sovereign, it is indeed an extremely hard case. She is to be punished, while he is to get off scot-free. Then, again, the persons who act as matchmakers are subject to a very grave penalty—for death, I believe, is the punishment awarded for high treason. Again, why should the poor girl who has been foolish enough to fall in love with the Sovereign and marry him be liable to the same fearful penalty as that set apart for high treason? I think these are serious objections to the latter part of Clause 3. Again, to Clause 5 there are great objections. There are many on this side of the House who hold that there ought to be no religious disabilities whatever. The fact that a Government which not so very long ago tried to get rid of religious tests in education should now be making proposals which would have the effect of allowing a test to be imposed on the person whose duty it is to educate the Sovereign is most inconsistent. I fully recognise, however, that these are objections that can and will no doubt be raised in Committee on this Bill.

I should not have intervened in this discussion but for the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Donegal, who is admittedly a very profound student of constitutional law and history—who deserves all praise in respect of the depth and width of his knowledge, but who does not always bring to bear upon it judgment as sound as his reading is deep. On this particular occasion he has seemed to lay down a doctrine which appears to me to be utterly unconstitutional. According to his showing the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility altogether supersedes the exercise of will on the part of the Sovereign in the performance of legal Acts. I am sure that that is an entirely unconstitutional doctrine. As recently as 1850 it was laid down that it was untrue that the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility had superseded the freedom of the exercise of the Sovereign's will. Indeed, Ministerial responsibility means exactly what it says: Ministers are responsible legally, and in extreme cases criminally, for the acts of the Sovereign done when they are in the position of advisers of the Crown. The Sovereign in every case exercises an absolutely free choice in legal acts, but the Ministers have the choice, if their advice is neglected, to continue in office and accept responsibility or to resign. The Sovereign, like any other citizen of this country, is bound to act according to law, and it is entirely untrue to say that modern constitutional practice has reduced him to a dummy. The Constitution leaves the Sovereign perfectly free to perform all legal acts, and Ministers, if their advice is neglected, can either resign or accept responsibility.

I can only echo most sincerely the hope that this Bill will never come into operation. But I want to draw the attention of the House to Clause 4, which prevents the Regent from giving assent to any Bill for repealing, changing, or in any way varying the course of succession, or repealing or altering the Act of Uniformity. The present Government are pledged up to the hilt to uphold the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. The great majority of their supporters are also pledged to vote for that measure, and surely that means altering the Act of Uniformity, and if disestablishment is not held to be altering the Act of Uniformity, then I think this particular provision is of very little value. Another question being raised by devout Churchmen was that of the revision of the Prayer Book, which is clearly an alteration of the Act of Uniformity. I think it is very unsafe to put forward the suggestion that the number of subjects to which the Regent may give assent should be limited, because it must hamper Parliament; and although it may be suggested that these are obsolete provisions, the very fact that they are re-enacted in 1910 tends to show that they are not so very obsolete. There was a good deal of trouble with George III. in respect to the Catholic Emancipation Act with regard to the Coronation Oath, and if you are going to re-enact these obsolete provisions you will give great justification to any future Regent to say that Parliament has just recently affirmed this principle. Then, as regards Clause 5, I have always been brought up as a most convinced Protestant Dissenter myself, but I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that the time has come for all of us who advocate freedom from tests for teachers to also advocate freedom from tests for the Regent. I believe that there should be absolute religious equality for all religious sects before the law of this country. I ask for that myself, and I am freely willing to give it to all other sects, whether I agree with them or not. They, at all events, ought to have the same rights that I have, as far as the law is concerned. That, too, belongs to an obsolete time. No one, I think, believes now that the personal act of the Sovereign can be of sufficient importance to affect the Protestant character of the religion of the people of this country, and if we cannot remain Protestant without these safeguarding provisions of Acts of Parliament, it seems to me about time we ceased to be Protestant altogether, for our religious faith cannot be of a very valuable description. When the Prime Minister introduced this Bill a few days ago he told us that it was strictly founded upon precedent, and I have no doubt that that is correct; but may I suggest to him that there are a great many precedents which are extremely bad, and that human progress is bound up in breaking bad precedents?

Bill read a second time.

Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."— [ The Prime Minister ]

The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik), giving the Committee power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one extending to England and the other to Scotland, is not in order. The Bill does not naturally fall into two portions, and it would be impossible to so divide it. If the hon. Member wishes to have two Bills, he can in Committee move to strike out the words "Great Britain" in the first Clause, and to introduce the words "England and Wales" as an Amendment of the Bill before the House. It will then be necessary to bring in a separate Bill for Scotland, and in that way he will accomplish his purpose.

May I point out, Sir, that a similar Motion was moved by Mr. Buchanan in 1900 to divide the Bill into two parts. The following appears in the "Parliamentary Debates" of that year:— Mr. Buchanan (Aberdeenshire, E.) said his object in submitting the Instruction standing on the Paper in his name was to get two separate Bills for England and Scotland, as was the case in previous Censuses. He then moved:— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one extending to England and the other extending to Scotland. The House divided: —Ayes. 52; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 69). Here we have a Bill which I find is almost identical with that before the House, and Clause 12 of that Bill, which applies to Scotland, is absolutely word for word the same as the Clause applying to Scotland in this Bill.

What has happened during the last ten years with regard to Instructions has been to limit the opportunities upon which Instructions can be moved. The method which I have pointed out is really a much better method of arriving at the same result than that which the hon. Members seek, because really if they were successful in carrying their Instructions it would be totally impossible to divide the Bill into two parts. Where would you divide it? How many Clauses would be in the first part, and how many in the second? It would mean a complete reconstruction of the whole Bill. I have considered the matter and I have come deliberately to the conclusion that the position of the hon. Members will not be damnified in submitting their case to the House, but that it will really stand upon firmer ground if the course I have indicated is pursued, because the answer to the Instruction would at once be made, "You cannot divide this Bill, where are you drawing the line, on Clause 3, Clause 4, or Clause 5?" and so forth. It is a physical impossibility to divide this Bill into two parts, but, on the other hand, if the words "Great Britain" are struck out and the words "England and Wales" inserted, then it would be perfectly possible to bring in a Bill to deal with Scotland alone, and that would accomplish the purpose which the hon. Members wish. Therefore, I think in this case we are wise in rejecting the precedent which the hon. Member cites, because the same object may be achieved in a much better way. My ruling also applies to the similar notice given by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury).

Bill considered in Committee.

[MR. WHITLEY (Deputy-Chairman) in the Chair.]

(In the Committee.)

moved to leave out the words "Great Britain" ["A Census for Great Britain shall be taken"], and to insert instead thereof the words "England and Wales."

The reason that I move this Amendment is because, up to the year 1900, it had always been the habit to bring forward three Bills for the Census, one for Ireland, one for Scotland, and one for England and Wales. In the year 1900 the custom was abandoned and only two Bills were brought in, one Bill for Ireland and one for England and Wales and Scotland. The Instruction moved in 1900 to divide the Bill into two parts would have had the same effect as my Amendment, and it was supported by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns), who will, I presume, support my Amendment, as he is always consistent. Not only was it supported by the right hon. Gentleman, but by the present Lord Advocate and by one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury. The answer to Mr. Buchanan, who desired to have a separate Bill for Scotland, by the right hon. Gentleman who was then in charge of the Bill and the Lord Advocate of that day, was that it would be much better to have a separate Bill for Scotland, but in the congested state of the business obtaining at that moment in the House, it was quite impossible to get the three Bills through, and for that reason, and that reason only, the Government had departed from the ancient custom and had put Scotland in with England. At the present moment the situation is quite different. There is no congestion of business, and the right hon. Gentleman is face to face with one of the most reasonable Oppositions that any Government have ever seen, and one which is only too anxious to assist him and his party so long as they are reasonable. Therefore, the ground for opposing this Amendment in 1900 falls to the ground, and there will be no difficulty in getting another Bill through. It was thought, in 1900, that this would be a better course, not only by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by the present Lord Advocate, who ought to have some knowledge of the principles of Scotch law. I do not pretend to be an expert in Scotch law, but it is perfectly clear that it differs from that of England, and Scotch Members are always holding that they are a superior race, and that their knowledge and their laws are superior to English laws. It would, therefore, be much better for them and for us if they were, as they did up to 1900, to have a separate Bill to carry out the special provisions applying to Scotland. Clause 13, which provides for the application of this Bill to Scotland, provides that: "'Secretary for Scotland' shall be substituted for 'Local Government Board' and 'Board'; 'Registrar General for Scotland' for 'Registrar General'; 'registration district' for 'registration sub-district'; and 'poor-house' for 'workhouse'"; and a great many other things. It would therefore be very much simpler if Scotland were dealt with by a separate Bill, and this Bill dealt with England only. When anyone now wants to find out how this Bill applies to Scotland he has to read Clause 13, which, like all clauses which deal with legislation by reference is incomprehensible except to legal experts who have looked up all details of the references.

Therefore, I think I have made out an unanswerable case for my Amendment. It is a case which the bulk of the Scottish Members, including the Law Officers of the Crown and the Lord Advocate, wished to have put in and I can conceive of no objection to it unless it is the objection which was raised by my party ten years ago that the House was too much occupied. That is not the case to-day, and it will be a good thing that they should have something to do, because at present we are spending our time in taking holidays when we might be here discussing useful measures.

I should have thought that on a question of considerable importance to my country the Secretary for Scotland and those of my patriotic colleagues who sit on the other side of the House would have shown sufficient interest in it to give a little time for its consideration. I rise to support the Amendment, because I should like to ask a few questions and satisfy my own curiosity. I have long, as a Scottish Member, attempted to rise to the very great heights of patriotic ardour which my fellow Members on the opposite side have shown. I have never been able to understand exactly the theory which guides them in regard to these questions. They tell us often that we on this side are ignorant of Scotland and careless of Scotland, and that we are ready to leave Scotland to be deal with entirely by the Imperial House of Commons. I am not quite so sure but that that might be done, and Scotland might be dealt with very satisfactorily. I have always resented the idea that Scotland should be governed only by the Scottish Members, and I have not yet found that that opinion is disagreed with so strongly in Scotland as the ardent patriotism of its Radical representatives would give us to believe. But, whatever we may think about legislation for my country being laid down by a Home Rule Parliament or by the Imperial Parliament, I think we may at least insist that proper attention shall be given to the affairs of Scotland and that separate Scotch bills should be brought forward dealing with questions such as these in which Scottish arrangements differ from English. It is all very well to say it is convenient and saves time, and is useful to make the same Bill apply to Scotland. That is not what one would expect from these ardent patriots who are urging nothing but Home Rule as the solution of Scottish questions. In fact, hon. Members remind me of nothing so much as the lady in "Tristram Shandy" who, when found fault with by her husband for purchasing silk at two guineas a yard, immediately fell down to taffetas at 2d. a foot. Hon. Members opposite cannot have Home Rule, so they will have nothing but absolute subjection to the rights and principles which guide English legislation. They cannot have a Parliament of their own, so they will not ask the Imperial Parliament even to take the trouble of considering Scottish questions separately.

Is this quite so easy a matter to legislate by one Act as one would believe from what is said by the Front Bench opposite? We know these Front Benches have a way of making excuses for everything they do. Up to 1900 separate Census Bills were uniformly passed for England and Scotland. Why has this good and useful precedent, which lasted for more than 100 years, been broken away from, and why is it broken away from by the very people who in their patriotic ardour fought against it in the year 1900? How is it that they objected to it, and when it comes to their turn they do exactly the thing which they objected to? The supervising authority in regard to the Census is absolutely different in England and Scotland. The President of the Local Government Board, who is the only Minister present to answer for the Bill and give any reason for the principles that it contains, has nothing whatever to do with Scotland, and, more than that, has absolutely no authority over Scotland. Have we no Scottish Minister who can tell us what are the reasons for this change of proposal, and why the only Minister in charge of the Bill is one who has absolutely no authority over Scotland, and will have nothing whatever to do with the Census taken there? The Registrar-General is a different officer in Scotland. The Registrar-General for England, I suppose, is under the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Registrar-General for Scotland is absolutely independent of the Local Government Board. I want to know why he is brought into the same Bill? Not only that, but all the subordinate officers and the very districts are called by different names. The people who are to carry out the details of this work are not only different persons, they are persons chosen on an entirely different principle.

I want to know who are to be the enumerators in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, as I expected, cannot tell me, and I have failed to make it out myself. Under Clause 3 of the Bill we are told that "overseers and assistant-overseers of the poor, relieving officers for Poor Law unions, and collectors of poor rate, shall, if so required by the Local Government Board, act as and be enumerators for the purposes of this Act." Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that not one of these officers exist? In Clause 13 I find that "sheriffs, sheriffs' clerks, chief magistrates, town clerks, inspectors of the poor and assistant-inspectors of the poor, shall perform such duties, etc." Are they to act as enumerators? Instead of taking Poor Law officers to act as enumerators, you are taking judges and stipendiary magistrates acting under the authority of the law. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even tell me whether I am right or wrong in that supposition. I assure him, quite honestly and sincerely, that I do not know any more than he does from reading the Bill. You lay down certain rules for England, which the enumerators are to follow, and you have told them what they are to do. Under Clause 17 they are to perform, not the duties laid down by the Bill, not the duties which Parliament prescribes for them, but such duties as may be prescribed by some bureaucrat in some office. By jumbling up Scottish legislation with English you have not only led to confusion, but you have absolutely left these rules which you carefully laid down in your Bill for England to be prescribed as is thought proper by some bureaucrat in an office irresponsible to anyone. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman intends? Why does not he take the whole power himself? The attendance of Scottish Members and the absence of the right hon. Gentleman responsible for Scottish business during the discussion on this measure, which is very important for Scotland, shows what is the real worth of all this talk of Home Rule. It comes from the lips outward. I now ask the Lord Advocate who are to act as enumerators for Scotland? Are they to be the sheriffs, sheriffs' clerks, chief magistrates, town clerks, and the inspectors of poor, or are they to be the people indicated by Clause 3 of the Bill? It would be useful to know, and it is very difficult to make out from the Bill. Then you have the rule laid down that they are to perform, not certain definite duties, but certain duties which may be prescribed for them. They are to perform such duties as were imposed by the old Act of 1890, which was a separate Act for Scotland. You are not going to have a separate Act for Scotland any longer. You have followed the very device which you denounced and voted against in 1900, which raised the indignation of all your patriotic feelings, and when you want to lay down definite rules you have to go back actually to the separate Scotch Act of 1890. Is this not a very reductio ad absurdum ? You cannot have a Home Rule Parliament and you cannot have all legislation made by the few men who pretend that they represent the whole feeling of Scotland, which they do not, and because you cannot have that you have nothing but botched and huddled and jumbled legislation, mixed up in a corner in an English Bill, so confused and so ill thought out that the Minister in charge of the Bill has to confess himself ignorant of how it will act in Scotland.

The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) quoted "Hansard" of some ten years ago, in which my name figured in the Division List inconsistent with the advice which he rightly assumed I was going to give the House to-day in answer to his Amendment.

I did not assume that at all; I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to be consistent—that he had made an error, and forgotten how he voted, and that he would now admit his error.

Consistency is only a virtue in one's "salad" days. When one is responsible, one is obliged to revise one's previous opinions; one's duty is to the whole, and not to a section. The right hon. Baronet was under the impression that I should support the views of his Amendment. I can assure the hon. Baronet that I am going to do no such thing. What concerns me is not the quotation he has given, but rather the reason that induced him then to abstain and yet in the present Debate to adopt another view. I was anxious to know if he was going to tell the House what was the reason that induced him to abstain, but he did not, though I think I could gather.

I did state the reason.

I thought I could gather it, because to-day the hon. Baronet, who is an Imperialist in politics, and who invariably preaches the unity of the Empire, is against the struggling nationalities which, as some of his Friends say, are part and parcel of the United Kingdom. He to-day takes up an entirely different attitude in Census matters, and he twits the Lord Advocate with not being here to demand on behalf of Scotland a separate and distinct method of numbering the people of North Britain. He supported that view by making a statement in which he had the concurrence of the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Sir H. Craik). The hon Member said that it has been practically the rule to have a separate Bill for Scotland for 100 years. That is not so. From 1840 to 1900 there has been a Census Bill for England, Wales, and Scotland, while there has been during the same period a separate Bill for Ireland, and we are under the impression that the rule that has been adopted from 1840 to 1900 should still continue.

There was a separate Bill for Scotland in 1890.

I beg pardon. I should have said from 1840 to 1890, and not to 1900. The hon. Member for Glasgow University went further, and said that he was surprised that no one was here to answer the point put by the hon. Baronet as to a matter which he thought went down to the very roots of Scottish life. Well, I hope my hon. Friend will pardon me if I reply by suggesting that we consider the practice which it has been thought necessary and advisable to follow regarding Bills of a similar character to this, and Bills embodying a large amount of legislation should be followed in this case, namely, to pass it so as to apply to England and Wales, and put in a clause at the end of the Bill adapting it to Scotland by the necessary Amendments to enable the measure to apply to both countries. We think it saves time, and that there is no reason why separate legislation should go to the extent of having separate Bills for England, Scotland, and Ireland. If we were to recognise that demand in this particular case, there is probably reason why the Welsh Members should ask a separate Census enumeration for Wales. Hitherto in this matter one Bill has been thought to be all that was necessary for England, Wales, and Scotland, whilst, owing to some extent to the great difference between Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom—hon. Members opposite frequently recognise and sometimes emphasise the difference—it has been the rule to have a separate Census Bill for Ireland. It seems to me that the arguments advanced by the hon. Baronet or the hon. Member for Glasgow University are not such as to warrant us accepting the Amendment. The hon. Member for Glasgow University asked What is the meaning of "overseers of the poor" in the English Bill, and what relationship have they to Scottish life, institutions, and officials in Scotland? He will find on page 5 of the Bill, Clause 13 providing for its application to Scotland, and in the four Sub-sections all the questions he put to me are answered.

No.

Well, that is my interpretation of his question. For instance, he wants to know who is the equivalent of an English overseer of the poor. He will find in Sub-section 4 that "Sheriffs, sheriff clerks, chief magistrates, town clerks, inspectors of poor, and assistant inspectors of poor," and so forth—

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that a sheriff in Scotland corresponds to an overseer of the poor in England?

I did not say so, but we were anxious not to exclude any person who may be called upon to take any part in the work of the Census. We have put in the Bill this provision, that these persons, in the absence of others, may be called upon to help. Both in England and Wales overseers of the poor will only be called upon in certain rare and improbable contingencies. If enumerators are not available for the particular work of the Census, they would be called upon. If that contingency does arise, it will be necessary to make someone responsible, and the overseers of the poor are the persons named for England and Wales, while in Scotland the persons would -be those named in Sub-section 4 of Clause 13. The hon. Member asked, What is the type of persons who are to be enumerators? Well, he claims on other occasions that the Scottish people—and I think it is generally admitted—are probably, and to an extent even beyond the German people, the best educated people we know. Scotland boasts of its education, and the state of things there is mainly due to the fact that they had a system of education by means of parochial schools at a time further back than any other part of the United Kingdom. It may be assumed, therefore, that the Scottish enumerators will not be behind the English, Irish, or Welsh. On that matter we were advised by the Committee that sat on the question of the Census. Mr. Agnew, a competent witness who gave evidence, at the time expressed himself quite satisfied that the enumerators appointed to carry out the work on the previous occasion were quite fit. Since that testimony was given the general standard of education and competency has improved everywhere, and not less in Scotland than in England and Wales. It is the opinion of those connected with the Registrar-General's office in Scotland, England and Wales that the men who will be employed will be from the point of view of fitness and competency for this class of work better than their predecessors of forty and fifty years ago. Another question asked was whether this is not a case in which separate legislation should be insisted upon? The Scottish Office in conjunction with the Local Government Board are quite content with this amalgamated Bill. It follows the example of previous legislation which adapts English Bills to Scotland, and it seems to me that the case submitted by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment does not justify the Government in accepting the Amendment. I therefore ask the House not to accept it.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that consistency is a virtue of one's salad days and he does not consider consistency a ground why he should accept the Amendment. On the other hand, he opposed the Amendment on the ground of precedent. Surely it must be seen that that is not a reason which avails him in this particular instance. If it be true that from 1840 to 1900, according to the right hon. Gentleman, or as history says, until 1890, this House followed for five decades the practice of dealing together and not separately with England and Scotland, and, if at the end of these five experiences Parliament abandoned the practice in 1890 and took a different view that is a very good reason for not dealing with England and Scotland in one Bill. In 1900, it is true, the two countries were included in one Bill, but that was not on account of legislative difficulties, but because of the highly congested state of Parliamentary business in that Session, as those who were in the House at the time will remember. The right hon. Gentleman has not made any attempt to resist the proposal on the ground of administrative convenience or advantage. He says it is according to modern principles of draftmanship that the Bill should be applied to England and Scotland. We are to have what is called an "Application Clause" with respect to Scotland at the end of the Bill. That procedure has some advantages, but surely in this case there is a balance of inconvenience rather than advantage. We cannot apply the Bill to Scotland without word of reference that those who are to carry out the work are to look to another piece of paper and to other documents for information, so that whatever you gain by supposed convenience of draftmanship you lose by the vicious principle of legislation by reference.

5.0 P.M.

I intervene in this discussion solely for the purpose of pointing out to the President of the Local Government Board that the practice which he has suggested, is a growing one, namely, that of dealing with Scottish matters by a separate clause in an English Bill. It is one which is deprecated very much from the point of view of those who have the responsibility of trying to carry out these Acts of Parliament in Scotland. It is difficult, in the first place, because there are many expressions in an English Bill which do not have any technical meaning in connection with Scottish law. It is difficult also because it is almost impossible to frame a Bill with a set of rules of procedure applicable to England and apply the measure to Scotland without introducing some part of English procedure which has nothing corresponding to it in the legal procedure of Scotland. These are difficulties which constantly arise in connection with general Acts. I admit that we are driven to this position when the time which can be given for legislation in regard to general matters in this House is limited, and very often the representatives of Scotland have to consider whether they will take a clause in a general measure applicable to Great Britain or go without any general legislation on the subject at all. I admit that in that dilemma it is better to take a clause with all its inconvenience than stand out for a separate Bill. I am bound to say that is a very bad practice. It works out badly in legislation, and it is very inconvenient for the people who are regulated by these Acts of Parliament. It ought not to be followed where it is possible to avoid it. I would, therefore, in this case ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not reconsider this matter, and, as there seems to be plenty of time at the disposal of both sides of the House to facilitate the getting through of all necessary legislation, I would ask whether he would not revert to what, I am sure, many Scottish Members consider the better practice and have a separate Bill for Scotland, especially in cases where he has a clause such as we find in this measure, giving not only definitions which are separate but a definition clause making provisions under enactment which are separate, and bringing in a separate Bill for Scotland, passed in 1890, as part of the Definition Clause, and defining the duties for the different classes of people. I am sure that everyone who has to carry out this Census operation in Scotland, and there are many people who will have to be engaged in it, would be greatly convenienced if they could have one complete code in a complete Scottish Bill. Then they could carry out their duties with knowledge, instead of wondering what is the meaning of the different expressions of English administration, and having, perhaps, to send for the Census Act of 1890 in order to understand the meaning of an English Bill of 1910–11.

The defence of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill was really nil. The only defence he put up that I could see was that it was less trouble to carry the Census through an omnibus Bill instead of having separate Bills, as has been suggested by my hon. Friends behind me. He cited precedent. He said that the precedent was to have one Bill for England and Scotland. It is very refreshing indeed to have hon. and right hon. Gentleman on that side of the House quoting precedent. To follow precedent is a very excellent thing in its way, but we have heard a great deal lately of the bad effect of following precedent. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister this afternoon. Therefore it comes rather badly from that side of the House to have as the only argument put up in support of having one Bill only for England and Scotland, the argument of precedent. They have not got even the very good reason which was given in support of a Motion similar to this in 1900— namely, that there is not time. It is notorious that there is plenty of time to pass three separate Bills if we only approach the matter in a reasonable spirit, which there is no disposition not to do. The House has been adjourning early, discussions have not been at all prolonged, it has not been found necessary to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, and, therefore, there can be no just reason why, as far as time is concerned, two Bills should not be brought in—one for England and another for Scotland. What seems to me is the greatest reason why the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London should be accepted is that at the present moment there is a Bill being put through to take a Census for Ireland. I can quite well understand having an omnibus Bill which would apply to England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. I can quite well understand having a separate Bill for all those four countries; but I do not understand why it should be considered right to have one Bill for England, Wales, and Scotland and a separate Bill for Ireland.

Why should Ireland be put upon a different footing from England, and have a separate Bill all to itself, while England, Wales, and Scotland are put together in one 1 Surely, if it is right to have one Bill for Ireland, it is equally right to have a Bill for Scotland. Surely my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Henry Craik) thinks that Scotland is as much deserving of consideration as Ireland. Scotland has been much longer within the Union, and therefore ought to have her demand conceded before those of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman surely could give the reasons if he wished. He did not say one single word of solid reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. He simply said he thought it was a good thing to follow precedent. He implied that it gave less trouble to his Department, and he also said that, in his opinion, it would be better not to have separate Bills. That may be so. The right hon. Gentleman is a man of great common sense. Possibly he is right. But what we want here are arguments in favour of the course the Government is pursuing, and not the bare word of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Not having the honour to be a Scottish Member, I should like to protest on behalf of the Members on this side of the House at the absence of the Lord Advocate, who has now left the House. He was here for about ten minutes while this Amendment, which affects Scotland, was being discussed, and he did not say a word about it. He has now left the House, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has any answer at all to what has been said. I think that when there is an Amendment like this, which affects Scotland, I should move the adjournment of the Debate in order to secure the attendance of the Lord Advocate.

May I appeal to my hon. Friend?

I do not think I could take it at this stage. If any real inconvenience was being caused by the absence of the Lord Advocate—

There are very intricate questions connected with Scotch administration and Scotch technical terms which English Members, at any rate, cannot understand in the very least. Therefore, what we desire is to have present some Scotch Member of the Government, who should be able to explain these matters to us so that we should be able to decide whether we shall vote for this Amendment or not. Therefore I press my Motion for adjournment on the ground that we cannot vote properly without understanding what is going on.

On the question of adjournment, I should like to second the Motion.

There is no question of adjournment. At the present moment I cannot take the Motion for adjournment.

On that point, surely the fact that there is no Scottish Minister in attendance

The hon. Member cannot argue on my ruling.

As has been suggested by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, the Lord Advocate came in to attend to that section which relates to Scotland. He has been compelled to go away only for a short time upon public business that necessitates his absence from the House, I believe only for a few minutes. But the hon. Member will pardon me if I suggest to him that the difficulty that he points out is almost imaginary. The procedure that we are adopting in regard to this Bill and the application to Scotland of the Census legislation for England and Wales has been adopted with the approval of the Scottish Office, and has been objected to by no authority responsible for Scottish affairs. It is a matter of convenience for both Scotland and England and Wales that they should be embodied in one Bill. Particularly is that so because unfortunately owing to the untoward circumstances of this Session, into which I need not go, we have been unable—not through any fault of the two Departments—to bring in this Bill in the month of March or April. And I say that because I am anxious to reply to the hon. Member who has spoken as to time. It would be practically and physically impossible for us to withdraw that portion of the Bill that applies to Scotland, and bring in a separate Bill applicable to Scotland only as suggested by my hon. Friend, because the Registrars-General in both countries have been proceeding very properly with all the arrangements for the taking of the Census on the basis of this Bill going through; and I can assure my hon. Friend that it would be impossible for us to accept the suggestion of a separate Bill, as time would not permit. So far as difficulties are concerned, we do not anticipate the least difficulty in having a Census of Scotland taken under the conditions embodied in this Bill any more than we had when a Census was taken in that country under a precisely similar Bill on a previous occasion.

I confess that there is a great deal to be said for the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, which was seconded by the hon. Member for Glasgow University. But if they had backed up their position and their arguments with any reference to facts which would be wanted by the Scotch people, and which would not be received in the Census, then I should be inclined to vote with them in a Division on the subject. But I am not aware that the people of Scotland want any information from this Census which they will not get under this Bill. If they could have pointed out that the population of villages or towns or separate counties would not be received under this Bill, then I should have voted with them. If they could have pointed out that there was any great demand for an immediate Census, then I should certainly have "voted with them; but I can find no such demand. I think the Census will be taken quite as well under this Bill as it would be under a separate Bill; and, of course, with regard to the different names which are given to the enumerators and those connected with them, I have no doubt whatever that the Scottish Office will issue a leaflet giving all necessary information. The hon. Member for Glasgow University taunted as much as ever he could us hon. Members from Scotland with a certain want of patriotism in not insisting upon a separate Bill for Scotland, and said that we were giving lip-service to ideas regarding Home Rule for Scotland which we did not want to follow up by votes in this House. I can only say with regard to that that I myself have stated in the country that I believe that a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in this House would serve the purposes of Scotland at the present moment so far as Home Rule is concerned. But I have to acknowledge with regard to that position that my belief and my opinion have received a very severe shock, and that occurred only lately at a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, when I was told by a Noble Lord now in this House that the idea that Scottish opinion should be deferred to in legislation simply because it is Scottish opinion was of no moment.

My recollection is that I said that Scottish opinion was not decisive. Of course, it is natural that Scotland or any other locality should have its local opinion, to which due and reasonable deference should be paid, but the doctrine that Scotland is a separate country entitled to manage its own affairs indifferently to English opinion is a doctrine which is absurd from the point of view of history and common sense.

The exact words of the Noble Lord on that occasion, so far as I remember them, were that there were some muddle-headed people, Irishmen and Scotchmen, who supposed that the opinion of Scotch Members upon Scotch legislation ought to be deferred to, but that there was nothing of the kind. If that is the case, even at the Scottish Grand Committee, then I have to acknowledge that there is a great deal to be said for the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of London and the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow, that there should be separate Bills for everything relating to Scotland.

The President of the Local Government Board in his speech just now remarked that the Registrars-General of England and Scotland had already made their arrangements on the basis of this Bill, and that to separate this measure into two Bills would mean an alteration of those arrangements. There are several Amendments on the Paper, but if arrangements have already been made upon the Bill as it is, what is the good of our discussing them? If officials immediately a Bill is introduced are to make their arrangements and get their forms printed, it is practically doing away with the power of this House to shape legislation. If the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is to be carried to its proper conclusion that would be the result. Ireland holds the position she has always held in this matter, and if Scotland were separated from Great Britain for the purpose of the Census she would be in a better position than she is in now. From the point of view of legislation it seems to me that it is better that Scotland should have a separate Bill for this purpose. In Ireland, for the purposes of our legal procedure, for the working of our courts, it is much more valuable to have Irish Bills kept separate from Bills for the United Kingdom than to have them all lumped together, because the adoption of the latter course would cause a tremendous amount of difficulty to the law courts and to public men. Another reason why I think the President of the Local Government Board and Scottish Members on the other side should welcome this Amendment is that it comes from these benches. After this Amendment is taken to a Division the hon. Member for Aberdeen University and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London will give up, when writing to Scotland, the practice of putting in the address the letters "N.B.," and will recognise Scotland as a national entity by addressing their letters to Scotland, and not to North Britain. It is an additional advantage when we find that the representative of the City of London is going to be found in the same Lobby with us, and that he is going to recognise in future that Scotland is not really a part of Great Britain, but is a nation in itself, demanding separate legislation for dealing with the Census and with other important matters. I believe that, in the interests of legislation, and in the interests of the public service, it is an advantage to have a separate Bill for the Scottish Census. I am glad to welcome the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University among those who are at last coming to recognise that there are other nationalities in the United Kingdom than that of England.

I do not know whether the hon. Member who has just spoken is aware of the fact, but the reason why Members do not add "N.B." in addressing their letters, but put "Scotland" instead, is that many of the letters addressed "N.B." go to New Brunswick, and not to Scotland. I am glad to think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen University thinks this is a case in which Scotland should have separate treatment. I do not know the reason why we should not have a separate Bill in this instance. If there be any good reason I should be glad to know it. No one knows better than the hon. Member for Aberdeen University that, so far as concerns ecclesiastical matters, scholastic matters, and other matters of importance, Scotland is in an entirely different position from that of England. All our laws and customs in Scotland are different from those of England. I only want to know whether there is any real objection—as we are told there is—or what objection there can be to Scotland having a separate Census, apart altogether from England and Wales, and also Ireland.

There is no objection to Scotland having a separate Census. Scotland had a separate census. The only difference we have made is that a separate Census is provided for in the same Bill as provides for the Census of England and Wales. In 1901 this House came to the conclusion, after considering the question, that it was quite possible to include the provisions for the Census in Scotland in the same Bill as provided for the Census in England. It was an experiment. In 1890 Scotland had a separate Act. It was found, however, that by skilful draftsmanship and the application of a little good sense that a Bill could be drafted, including all the necessary provisions for both countries. The experience of 1901 has shown that the House was right, and the Census was never better taken in Scotland than at that time. We have a separate Report from Scotland, a separate Census, and the procedure is exactly the same as if it were under a separate Bill. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board explained, we are enabled to include all the provisions in this Bill which would be found in a separate Scottish Bill. Therefore, in the interests of saving time and of saving money, we have thought it right to follow the precedent of 1901. Having found by experience that we had made a correct experiment, we propose to repeat it now.

The Lord Advocate was absent from the House—

I was engaged on public business.

I was not about to cast any reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman, as he would have seen had he waited until I finished my sentence. I was about to say that the Lord Advocate, unfortunately, was absent from the House when the President of the Local Government Board made his second speech. In his first speech the right hon. Gentleman based the present procedure upon precedent. Now there was the precedent of 1890 and the precedent of 1901, and the former precedent is against the right hon. Gentleman. I think it was in 1900 that the President of the Local Government Board, being then in Opposition, and when he had greater freedom and lesser responsibility, voted against the very course which is now being pursued by the Government of which he is so distinguished a Member. His argument as to precedent, therefore, is not entirely sound. Then, again, his second speech is inconsistent with his first. An hon. Member put it to the Government that we had plenty of time to divide the Bill, and to bring in one for England and one for Scotland. One of the reasons why, in 1901, that course was not followed, was that there was a great pressure on Parliamentary time, and the two countries had to be driven abreast, both being put into one Bill. That reason does not operate now, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted in his second speech. Then he fell into this line of argument: "If we had only known that we were going to have plenty of time"

indicated dissent.

Yes; only in those earlier months, and from the events which occurred, it was found that Parliamentary procedure was practically dislocated. But the right hon. Gentleman admitted that now there would be plenty of time to divide the Bill into two, one for England and one for Scotland. What is to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from dividing the Bill now? He knows perfectly well, quite as well as I do, that there is nothing. So he had to fall back upon this argument: "Oh, but we have now given all our instructions." But why did you give all your instructions, and make all your plans before the Bill was introduced into the House? Why should you assume that the Bill was going to be put through the House practically without alteration? I know that this Government, even with its present hotch-potch majority, in nine cases out of ten can carry their Bills in the form in which they bring them in; but surely that amounts to discourtesy, and it is not treating the House well that the Government should say, in their magnificent style, that it does not matter what the House does or how it discusses a Bill. They have made up their minds to pass it without the alteration of a dot or a comma. We are convinced that there is plenty of Parliamentary time for the purpose of dividing this Bill into two. If the Lord Advocate had heard the President of the Local Government Board's second speech, he would not have based himself so certainly as he did on the general convenience of having the Bill in this form, because the right hon. Gentleman did not share that opinion. The Lord Advocate, not having heard the President's second speech, took the line which he did, saying that the precedent of 1901 was good and that the Government, having to make up their minds between that and the precedent of 1890, discarded the latter as bad. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board does not share that view. I am sorry at the want of unanimity on the Treasury Bench on this matter. It would have been much better, there being time to do it, to have had separate Bills, one for England and one for Scotland.

The Amendment of the hon. Baronet assumes that England and Wales are one. I object entirely to such an assumption as that. Wales is far more different from England than is Scotland. We have got our own language. Welsh is spoken in every county in Wales. We have got dozens of Welsh newspapers with circulations of thousands per week. We have a periodical literature and other activities of national culture.

If the hon. Member votes for the Amendment he will vote to have Great Britain left out.

To bring England and Wales together shows an absolute ignorance of the condition of things in Wales. If you are going to get a separate Census Bill on the ground of the antiquity of the connection, then Wales has the first right. As the Lord Advocate has pointed out, this is really a very small matter. We all get a separate Census. We get a separate Census in Wales though we never had a separate Census Bill, and there is a separate Census in Scotland exactly as if there was a separate Census Bill. Therefore, though I am very anxious on any real matter of importance to insist on the separate entity of Wales in these matters, and especially matters of legislation, I think this is a very trivial matter.

The hon. Member (Mr. L. Williams) says that Wales is more separated from England than is Scotland. What are the facts? The Registrar-General for England is the Registrar-General for Wales, the enumerators are the same, and the general law is the same in England and Wales. In Scotland there is a separate Registrar-General, and the Local Government Board which acts for England does not act for Scotland. There is a separate Local Government Board for Scotland, and all the law and ail the minor officials who are mentioned in this Bill are entirely different from those of England and Scotland. Those are reasons why we say Scotland does not stand on anything like the same footing as England.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) to say in his first reply that there had always been one Bill for England and Scotland until 1890. I do not think that is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Sheffield pointed out that in any case the last Bill of Scotland joined with England must have been in 1880. The debate which took place in 1900 on this point showed a very different state of things. Speaking on 9th March, 1900, the Member for Aberdeenshire E., Mr. Buchanan, said:— I wish to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate rather than the President of the Local Government Board to one point…Hitherto there has been a separate Bill for Scotland, but in the present case there is only one Bill, and the Scottish census is put into an interpretation clause at the end of the Bill. There have been substantial differences in the way in which the census has been taken in England and Scotland. I daresay that these differences may be provided for under this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate has departed, not only in this but in other Bills, from what has been the general practice on Scotch legislation… The then President of the Local Government Board said in reply:— If the Scotch census has been included for the first time in the English Bill; it is solely in order to save Parliamentary time in a Session when less time than usual will be available for legislation. I say that is not the case now. The then Lord Advocate said he always understood that the counsel of perfection was to have measures which dealt equally with the three kingdoms. That was the whole tendency and desire of modern legislation. The only difference between England and Scotland in this matter was that in Scotland the names were rather different. In the Committee stage Mr. Buchanan again moved an Instruction to divide the Bill into two parts. So that both on the Second Reading and Committee stages Mr. Buchanan and the then President of the Local Government Board held distinctly that it was an innovation that we had for the first time in 1900. The only reason given in favour of the proposal to include both countries in one Bill was to save time. There was a Division and the Lord Advocate voted with Mr. Buchanan. That is only ten years ago, so that the very last time the present Lord Advocate voted for the Amendment which I am now bringing before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said, "Oh, yes, but that was in my salad days. Now that I am in office I throw over all the opinions I had in my salad days." I shall not venture to apply that to the Lord Advocate.

Experience has justified the action the House then took.