Will the First Lord of the Treasury now outline the course of business for next week?

On Monday the Home Office Vote will be taken in Committee of Supply. On Tuesday the first order will be the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill, to be followed by the Merchant Shipping (Stevedores and Trimmers) (No. 2) Bill, the House-Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill, and perhaps some smaller measures. On Wednesday we shall take the Second Reading of the Naval Prize Bill. It is our present intention on the Thursday to take Vote 8 (Naval Construction) in Committee of Supply. Friday is a private Member's day.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of Members are anxious to speak on the Naval Prize Bill, and may I ask whether, therefore, the final stage of the Second Beading can be deferred till a day in the following week?

If it appears there is a general disposition to take more than one day for the Second Reading of the Naval Prize Bill, I shall be prepared to go on with it on the Thursday and to postpone Vote 8 till Monday.

Can the Prime Minister say when the Committee stage of the Old Ago Pensions (No. 3) Bill will be taken?

No, Sir.

May I ask whether it is intended to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule on Monday in view of the fact that two highly controversial Bills are put down for 8.15?

I was not aware of that, but I will consider it.

May I ask the Lord Advocate a question of which I have not been able to give private notice to the Home Secretary: Whether he is aware that prisoners and accused persons who were apprehended in connection with the trade dispute at Dowlais were taken to prison handcuffed, and whether the Home Secretary will make representations to the authorities to prevent this quite unnecessary and most undesirable practice?

I cannot answer that question without notice, and neither could my right hon. Friend, but I will communicate with my right hon. Friend on the subject.

I should like to take this opportunity, one of the very few provided to us in this House, to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for some information with regard to the annexation by Japan of the country of Korea. I should like to make it quite clear that in my opinion we have really no ground for criticising the main Japanese policy in Korea, whatever we may think of their methods. When I was in Korea last I travelled from one end of the country to the other with all the ease and comfort provided by a first-class carriage. I was then in company with an English bishop and a mining engineer. I only mention this little travelling episode to show that Japan has done something for the advancement of a country which has regarded its own civilisation with perfectly overweening complacency and concentrated all their energies on resistance to change. It is the Japanese who built the railways through the country and who have driven a direct path through the Serbonian bog of Korean finance. They, too, undertook the task of reforming Korean administration. I am quite ready to admit that the behaviour of the Japanese towards the Korean people has been open to more or less severe criticism. That has never been denied. It has been admitted by responsible Japanese statesmen themselves—by Count Inouyè after the war with China in 1894 and by Prince Ito after the war with Russia. Their methods may be open to criticism, but we have no proper ground for criticising their main policy in that part of the world. If we are dissatisfied from the point of view of our own interests with the results that have accrued from that policy, let us be careful to lay the blame on the right shoulders: it rests with our Foreign Office and not with the Japanese Government.

May I recall very briefly the salient features in the progress of events in that country during the last two decades. Korea happened to be the centre towards which three Powers, animated by wholly irreconcilable ambitions—Russia, China, and Japan—were at one and the same time converging. China desired to occupy a position of paramountcy in Korea to satisfy her national ambition; Russia desired a position of paramountcy because Korea would provide those seaports which her own Pacific seaboard did not supply, and the Japanese desired to occupy a position of paramountcy because they realised that the presence of powerful and possibly aggressive neighbours— whether China or Russia—in such close proximity to her own island shores would constitute a constant menace to her national existence. The world knows quite well what Japan was prepared to risk in order to avoid that menace. On two occasions she embarked on and carried to a successful issue a great war. In 1894 she drove China from Korea. In 1901 she drove Russia from that country. During the ten years between the Japanese War with China and that with Russia, Japan had done her very best to persuade the Koreans to cleanse their own house, while guaranteeing them independence. It was, in fact, Japan that conferred on Korea independence by the Treaty of 1895. Japan reaffirmed that policy in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1903, and again in her Convention with Korea in 1904. It seems quite clear that Japan has done all she could to reorganise Korean administration which everybody admitted required re-organising, without indulging in any illegitimate ambitions in the way of territorial aggrandisement for herself.

But in any case reform was the very last thing in the world which appealed to the immutable conservatism of the Korean mind. Nobody could have been surprised in 1905 that Japan thought it necessary to take more drastic action, and to impose upon Korea a further Convention, which practically gave Japan a Protectorate over the country. That action was endorsed by the several Powers interested in the Far East; indeed it would be a mere waste of breath to endeavour to assail the position which Japan occupied in regard to Korea in 1905. She had carried through two immense wars, and in the latter of the two she spent two hundred millions sterling, and lost 85,000 lives. It was quite obvious, therefore, that she had a right to take any steps she considered necessary to make good the risks she had run and the great losses she had sustained, so long as the other Powers recognised the steps she took. Up to that time she succeeded in doing that. In 1907 it became necessary, as a result of various episodes which I need not detail, but the principal of which was the appearance at the Hague of a Korean delegate who had no right to be there—for Japan to make a further Convention with Korea. At that time it was generally declared by public critics in this country that the Convention between Japan and Korea of 1907 differed hardly at all from complete annexation. I remember "The Times" commenting on the Convention of 1907 in a leading article in these words:—

"There is no doubt a technical and formal distinction between the control which Japan would henceforth exercise over Korea and annexation, but, except to diplomatists talking among themselves, the difference may seem so small as to be well nigh negligible."

That was the opinion held at the time. I think I shall be able to show that there was, as a matter of fact, a very fundamental difference between the annexation which has since taken place and the convention between Japan and Korea in 1907. What Japan secured by the whole series of conventions and treaties up to and including the convention of 1907 was a position of paramount control so far as political and strategic considerations were concerned, and it was in that that the Government of this country had acquiesced. But while we had acquiesced, that Japan occupied a position of paramountcy so far as strategic and political considerations were concerned, we had always been very careful to emphasise the fact that at the same time we did not recede at all from the position which we had always declared we occupied; that is the position of equality with Japan and every other Power so far as commercial matters were concerned. Let me remind the House of the very definite words which were made use of in the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of Alliance of 1905 with regard to that point. Article III. of that instrument is as follows:—

"Japan possessing paramount political, military and economic interests in Korea, Great Britain recognises the right of Japan to take such measures of guidance, control and protection in Korea as she may deem proper and necessary to safeguard and advance those interests."

Then come the important words:—

"Provided always that such measures are not contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and the industry of all nations."

In order to emphasize those words the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Lansdowne, in drafting his dispatch of 6th September, 1905, communicating the text of the agreement to the British Ambassadors at St. Petersburg and Paris, made use of these words:—

"Article III. dealing with the question of Korea is deserving of especial attention. It recognises in the clearest terms the paramount position which Japan at this moment occupies and must henceforth occupy in Korea and her right to take any measures which she may find necessary for the protection of her political, military and economic interests in that country."

Then I come to the really important words of the dispatch, which are as follows:—

"It is, however, expressly provided that such measures must not be contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of other nations."

I have quoted these words because they show very clearly that the British Foreign Office, while desiring to sanction the steps which Japan had taken to acquire a, paramount position as far as political and strategic considerations were concerned, did expressly reserve to themselves the position of a perfect equality with Japan so far as commercial considerations were concerned. What has taken place since that time? In August last Japan annexed Korea, and in annexing Korea she, of course, I suppose, brought to an end all treaties which up to that time existed between Korea and other foreign countries. These treaties ipso facto came to an end, though I think it is very likely to be disputed by some hon. Members whether any country has the power to bring to an end treaties existing between two other Powers, merely by annexing one of those Powers. That may be a matter open to dispute or not, but I am not prepared to enter a verdict from the point of view of international law upon that question. I assume, for the sake of my argument, that the treaties between Korea and ourselves and other countries did ipso facto come to an end when she was annexed by Japan. What does that mean? It means this, that Japan will have the right in future to impose upon the traders of this country the import duties of her own scientific tariff, while at the same time she lakes her goods into Korea free of duty altogether. Let the House not forget that it is not merely the trade of Korea which is involved in this matter. The trade of Manchuria is also involved in the annexation of Korea. Japan has built railways the whole length of Korea, and through Korea into the very heart of Manchuria itself. Under certain conventions which exist trade which is admitted into the Chinese Empire by the land frontier is not subject to the same duties which are imposed upon trade which is admitted to that empire by sea.

It must therefore be obvious that Japan will not only have the right to take her goods into Korea free of duty, and to maintain any duty she pleases on the trade of oilier countries, but she will also derive advantage by sending her own goods through Korea duty free into China, where they find imposed upon them a smaller duty than that imposed upon the goods of other countries coming into China by sea. That to my mind is a very serious matter. It is perfectly true, of course, that Japan has declared her intention of preserving for ten years the status quo; that is to say, for ten years she is going to admit goods of ours into Korea at the present duly, namely, at the general rate ad valorem of seven and a-half per cent., but I would ask the Foreign Secretary, does he consider that this limit of ten years for the status quo is an adequate return to us for our acquiescence in the action of Japan in annexing that country? The right hon. Gentleman must know quite well that Japan could never have obtained her present position without the assistance of this country, and he must know that Japan would never have indulged in her present policy towards Korea unless they had been given assurances that she would not meet with the opposition of this country and other Powers in so doing. The Japanese have admitted that themselves. I remember Prince Ito, one of the most distinguished statesmen in Japan, delivering, while I was myself in Japan, a speech on that subject, and the impression made by it upon my mind was considerable. The extract which I will bring to the notice of this House runs:—

"It is not with regard to Korea alone, but with regard to the whole problem of the Far East, that nothing opposed to the sentiment of the Powers should he done No strong country whatever can march forward independently and at its own arbitrary convenience. If Japan puffed up by her victories in war, should forfeit the sympathy of the Powers she will be laying up for herself misfortune in the future."

I have quoted that because it shows that the Japanese were themselves aware that they could not afford to indulge in a forward policy unless they had the sympathy of the other Powers, and therefore I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that this time limit of ten years is an adequate compensation—if you like to call it so—for the part which we have played in regard to Japan's recent procedure in that part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that the country expects great things from him in matters of this kind, because when the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition he has always been a most staunch upholder of the policy of the open door, and there never was anyone who so vehemently assailed Lord Salisbury for giving away concessions without adequate return than the right hon. Gentleman himself. The House may not be aware of the views of the right hon. Gentleman on this and analogous questions when he was in opposition. I have here an extract from a speech made by him in Oxford in 1898, and this is what he said about giving away concessions:—

"There had been a great many concessions made to foreign Governments by Lord Salisbury, It was not concessions he objected to so much as waste of concessions—the fact that they had been given up for nothing. Many of Lord Salisbury's concessions were blind alleys which led to nowhere instead of leading to some settlement of the questions in dispute."

I seem to recall the fact that when a similar case to that of Korea was in progress in Tunis, the late Lord Salisbury secured, not a time limit of ten years for favoured-nation treatment for the goods of this country, but a time limit of forty years, and he also secured special privileges for the importation of British cottons into Tunis for a period of fifteen years. I would remind him of another speech he made, also in 1898. Speaking at Liverpool he said:—

"He did not believe that trade followed the flag, but what was no doubt true was that where the flag of other nations went British trade might be excluded. An instance of that was to be found in Madagascar. All they desired in regard to that matter was to request France to respect our treaty rights, or, if our treaty rights were to be extinguished, to see that they were only extinguished in return for compensation elsewhere."

The right hon. Gentleman showed a great gift of prophecy in the last part of his speech.

"What had happened in Madagascar was what might happen on a much larger scale in China."

The right hon. Gentleman foresaw, no doubt, what was coming about. So I could give any number of extracts from the speeches of the right hon. Gen- tleman delivered in 1898 and 1899 which would show quite conclusively that he was then of opinion that the policy of the open door, and of equal opportunity for the trade of all countries, ought to be upheld and maintained by this country at all risks, and that in cases where the policy of the open door might be interfered with by a policy on the part of other countries of spheres of influence or of annexation, compensation ought to be demanded and received in other quarters. Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold the view which he held in 1898, and, if he does, has he secured compensation for us in other respects for the annexation of Korea by Japan? I only ask for information. The annexation by Japan of Korea is a matter which must affect very seriously the interests of our trade in the Far East, and the right hon. Gentleman up to the present time has been good enough to give us, I think, one single sheet of printed matter referring to that great question. I inquired at the Vote Office yesterday whether any Papers had been published on the subject, and I was informed that nothing had been published. This morning I again applied, and was given a Paper, perhaps there were two sides of a sheet of foolscap covered with print, and that only dealt with one very small aspect of the question, namely, the rights of British subjects who had mining rights in Korea at present.

There are many questions in Japan which our commercial classes would like to see dealt with satisfactorily. There is the question of the ownership of property, there is the question of the coasting trade, and other questions of that kind, which might very well have formed the subject of negotiation between ourselves and Japan at the time of her annexation of Korea, and questions on which Japan, in return for our good offices, or, rather, in return for our acquiescence in her policy in Korea, might very well have felt en-titled to meet us. I do not think we are entitled to criticise Japan for taking the fullest reward after her wars in the Far East, her expenditure and her labours, which the other Powers concerned are prepared to permit her to take, but I should lay it down that however solicitous we may be for the interests of our allies, however sympathetically we may feel disposed towards them, we ought not to allow that solicitude or that sympathy on our part to stand in the way of demanding for our traders such watchfulness and such action on the part of our Foreign Office as will fully safeguard their legitimate interests in that part of the world.

I hope no Member of the House will think that this question of British trade interest in Korea is necessarily one of slight importance to this country, because British trade, and indeed all the trade, in Korea is naturally a comparatively small matter. Not only is the trade of Manchuria and the trade of the hinterland affected, but, as a matter of fact, so far as trade figures go, it is no doubt quite true that Korean trade is a small thing. What it may become later is a very different matter, but as a matter of fact our share of the trade, considering the circumstances, is very large, and is of great importance, among other places, to Lancashire. British trade is, of course, not as large as the trade of Japan, but, and this is a remarkable fact, it is by far larger than the trade of China, and it is larger than the import trade into Korea of all the other great commercial Powers of the world put together. Under these circumstances, it is a matter of some concern to us even at present, and I am sure no great commercial nation can regard otherwise than with interest the future of a country which has the possibilities which Korea has. You have a country of over 80,000 square miles, over 6,000 miles of coastline, over 10,000,000 inhabitants, a country which in some districts has great lumber possibilities, a country whose mineral resources are as yet almost untapped, but which I believe are literally incalculable. A country with all these possibilities in the future must naturally present a matter of great interest to all Powers who have commercial interests in that part of the world, and more particularly to us.

4.0 P.M.

My Noble Friend has referred to the recent political history of Korea. Like him, I take, of course, no objection whatever to the carrying out of the policy of annexation by Japan. I have always believed that annexation was in the best interests of Korea itself, and indeed it is in annexation that I think the only possible solution of the problem which has always been presented by Korean independence is to be found. At the same time we are entitled to say that the actual act of annexation appears to have been a little hastily carried out. About six months before, what is commonly regarded as the Japanese Press, which writes with some inspiration, was declaring that there was no question of any change in the status of Korea and that any talk about annexation was wholly premature, and the treaty Powers would naturally have to be consulted first. Upon 29th August Japan declared by Imperial edict the annexation of Korea. That was done very suddenly, and I should like to mention this as illustrative of the state of things when the annexation was brought about. I am told that the Korean Government transacted business in the morning, and when they came back in the afternoon they discovered that, in point of fact, they had ceased to exist. There was a hard case, in which two unfortunate American lady missionaries were concerned. They arrived on the morning of the 29th with the intention of being married at the American Consulate, but in the afternoon it was found, to the dismay of all parties, that the consul had lost his consular jurisdiction, and was unable to perform the ceremony. What happened under these circumstances, I confess, I do not know. I only mention that as illustrating the haste with which at the last moment the annexation was accomplished.

I turn now from the more personal matters to consider the general question. We wore no party to the action of the Japanese Government in this matter, but we are rightly entitled to ask His Majesty's Government what they have done to discharge their responsibilities for the protection and furthering of the interests of British trade which devolved upon them under the new régime.

The position prior to annexation was perfectly clear, and it has been referred to by my Noble Friend. With regard to the agreements which previously existed, may I say something in addition to what was said by him? It is not only under the treaty of 1905 that special provisions were made to secure that all nations should have equal opportunities in Korea, but both before and since that treaty there were similar provisions. The Preamble of the original agreement of 1902 states that Great Britain and Japan are specially interested in maintaining the territorial integrity of the Empire of China and Korea, and in sesuring equal opportunities in those countries for the commerce and industry of all nations. Then came the Convention of 1905, which has been referred to. After that Convention there was a Circular Note sent out in, I think, the month of November, in which the Imperial Government of Japan declared that they would see that existing treaties were maintained and respected, and they also engaged not to prejudice in any way the legitimate interests of these Powers in Korea. That was the position prior to annexation. Then came the annexation, and the result of that, so far as British subjects in Korea were concerned, was the loss of all their extra territorial privileges and immunities. That is the inevitable result of the annexation of any one country by another, and it is recognised by His Majesty's Government by Order in Council on 23rd January. The Consuls' Courts were abolished, and British subjects became subject, like those of other countries, to the tribunals of Korea under the new regime. What I wish to ask the Government is whether they are entirely satisfied as to the standing of the Courts before which British subjects are liable to be arraigned. I say that because it is a matter well known to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary that judicial reform in Korea was only begun in 1907, and that at the present moment, if I am rightly informed, the law which is administered in Korea is not Japanese constitutional law, but what is tantamount to military jurisdiction. May I further observe that the waiving of extra territorial privileges has in the past, and the not very far past, been regarded as a matter of considerable importance. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary (Mr. McKinnon Wood) was at the Foreign Office, but the Foreign Secretary certainly was when we waived our extra territorial rights in another part of the world and obtained concessions in certain large portions of territory from the Government of Siam.

I wish to refer to the general commercial conditions in Korea. My noble Friend has said that it is perfectly clear under the treaties that our commercial rights were safeguarded, but that since the annexation Japan has taken the point of view that annexation of itself abrogates previously existing treaties, and that any assurances they give are given ex gratia. They are given as regards the ownership of land, and, so far as they go, they appear to be satisfactory. They have given us assurances as to the maintenance for ten years of the existing tariff. I shall have a word to say about that before I sit down, but meantime may I say that I regard with some apprehension the acceptance, without apparently a murmur of discontent, of the doctrine that annexation connotes the abrogation of all existing treaties. There have been precedents cited by Japan in support of their contention, namely, the cases of Hawaii, Texas, and Madagascar. When Madagascar was annexed by France we protested vigorously, and no one more vigorously than the Foreign Secretary, against the idea that any annexation by France should wipe out previously existing treaty obligations. In none of the three cases mentioned had there been similar conditions to those in the case of Korea, because in none of these cases had the annexing Power pledged itself to see that equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations were preserved. That condition did not exist in any preceding case, while in the case of Madagascar the Foreign Secretary went round the country with the fiery cross of his eloquence denouncing the Government of the day for having given away British rights without obtaining in return sufficiently substantial compensation.

I confess that I regard the present position as profoundly unsatisfactory. We appear to have given up a very great deal and to have got practically nothing. We have got assurances as to the ten years limit, but, as my noble Friend very justly said, that after all is a comparatively small matter in connection with the development of Korea. How great that development may be cannot be measured at the present moment. It is not going to come about in ten years, and it is only at the end of ten years that the development will be beginning to reach any reasonable dimensions. Moreover, what is the state of British trade likely to be during all this moratorium? Is there likely to be any reasonable attraction for British capital and enterprise to go and take part in the commercial life of Korea, knowing that at the end of ten years, and possibly, if I read these assurances rightly, sooner in the case of land and mineral rights, British traders may be subjected, so far as the import trade is concerned, to the rigorous protection of the Japanese tariff wall. So far as those living and working in the country are concerned the mining and land laws of Japan are very illiberal With this sword of Damocles hanging over the head of British trade, you cannot expect British trade to prosper n Korea, and, as a matter of fact, it is not prospering.

The figures of last year and the year before are striking. British trade has declined, not only relatively but abso- lutely. Our trade declined in 1910 as compared with 1909 by £200,000, while Japanese trade has increased by over £1,000,000. In 1909 we had 12½ per cent. of the import trade, and Japan 64 per cent. In 1910 we had 8 per cent. and Japan had 72½ per cent. I think some explanation of the position is called for from the Government. I do not want to appear to blame them unjustly. Our information at the present moment is practically nothing. All we have got from the Government is the single White Paper which has been referred to. Let me point out that these salient facts emerge. Annexation has taken place. We have given up our extra territorial privileges, our Treaty rights have been impaired, our trade has suffered, is suffering, and is likely to suffer much more in the near future, and the Government has apparently acquiesced in this state of things. I do not know whether they acquiesced without protest or not. If there were negotiations, we seem to have got very much the worst of them, and I cannot refrain from saying that the result does not reflect a very great deal of credit upon the adherents of the Free Trade system as bargainers in the markets of the world. I do not think that the Free Trade system has emerged creditably from the ordeal. In the meantime I hope the Under Foreign Secretary will see his way to make a full and frank statement to the House to-day of the position which the Government took in the negotiations, if negotiations there were, indicating what they claimed, what assurances, if any other than those already produced, they received, and what he considers is likely to be the future position of British trade in Korea?

The Noble Lord (Earl of Ronald-shay) gave us a very interesting historical retrospect from which it appeared that we could not reasonably have objected to the annexation of Korea by Japan. He pointed out that Korea was a country on which three great Powers converged with conflicting interests, and I think it was clearly his opinion that Korea, being a conservative country, was not at all likely to develop itself, and was bound to fall under the protection of, and finally to be annexed by, one or other of these three Powers. He pointed out that Japan had made great sacrifices for what she considered her own vital interests in Korea, and I think he made it perfectly clear that Japan was justified in annexing Korea. I should have thought it followed from that that Great Britain, as the ally of Japan, was not justified in objecting to the annexation. If it was such a reasonable thing with all the other Powers assenting, or none of the other Powers objecting, to the annexation, does anyone really suggest that it would have been a wise policy in view of our great interests in the East, in view of our intimate relations with Japan, that we alone should have stood out? It would have had an immense political influence in the East, of very much larger importance than any of the considerations which have been brought before us to-day. The Noble Lord and the hon. Member who followed him both referred to the contention of Japan, that annexation cancelled previous agreements with Korea. I think the House must say that that must in some form or another be the case, because surely they must admit that if Japan annexed Korea, it would be in the power of Japan to denounce agreements made by that country. You cannot contend that if a country is annexed, all the agreements it has made with other countries are stereotyped for ever. Therefore, there must be force in the contention that annexation cancels agreements with the country which is annexed; at any rate that must be the practical result of annexation. I listened to the two speeches with very great attention, and I could not make out what we ought to have obtained that we have not obtained. The question of jurisdiction, the hon. Member for North Down said very reasonably, was one we were bound to give up. I am sure the House will agree with me that nothing would have been more offensive to Japan than that we should have insisted on maintaining that jurisdiction. The Noble Lord criticised some of the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) in 1898, and he referred especially, and so did the hon. Member who spoke after him, to what be said as to Madagascar. When you compare the cases of the two countries, Korea and Madagascar, it is perfectly plain that His Majesty's Government in the former case obtained a great deal more than they did in the case of Madagascar. In that case we practically got nothing; we had no maintenance of the existing tariff. The French acted on the principle that annexation cancelled everything, and I think that my right hon. Friend was well justified in criticising the position that arose. In the case of Madagascar they certainly did not get what we have got in the case of Korea. With regard to the position of owners of land and mining rights we objected to the proposals of Japan because we had better terms from Korea, and we got assurances with regard to mining rights, obtained by British subjects by special agreement, that all the terms of such agreements should be preserved and confirmed, and all rights and privileges thereby granted should be duly maintained and respected. As regards the position of foreigners, who acquired property and mining rights in Korea, the Imperial Government naturally were unable to bind themselves for all time, but they are disposed to maintain, at least for the moment, the existing laws—

Does that apply only to those who have actually rights in mining properly in Korea, or who may have rights afterwards?

The words as regards the capacity of foreigners to acquire property do not seem to me to be limited. I would rather not express an opinion at the present moment, but, looking at the words, they seem to imply the capacity to acquire. We got another thing of very great importance. We got the Korean tariff maintained for ten years. The hon. Member has spoken of trade having suffered. It is obvious that trade cannot have suffered from the annexation by anything done or left undone by the Government, because the commercial terms exist exactly as they were before. The reason must be sought somewhere else. I have very little doubt that the reason is that the new hold of Japan has led to much more energetic pushing of business on the part of Japanese merchants, as the propinquity of the two countries gives Japan a natural advantage which is not affected by a tariff. I may point out that the Government did take the line that our consent to annexation ought to be met by concessions on the part of the Japanese Government. I am bound to say that I think the Japanese Government met us very fairly. They gave us this understanding in regard to land and mining rights, and they agreed to allow the more favourable Korean tariff to stand for another ten years. I think that is all we reasonably could have expected, and I must press on the hon. Member that it would have been very bad policy on the part of the British Government to be needlessly grasping in regard to this matter with the Japanese, who are our allies. As I have said other nations were not objecting to the annexation. We got very fair concessions from them. We were met in a very friendly and liberal spirit, and I think the action of the Government in agreeing to annexation on these terms is not open to serious criticism.

I desire to call attention to what is nothing less than a scandal in Scottish administration, which has been revealed by an answer given this afternoon by the Lord Advocate, and I am certain that my Scottish colleagues, whom I see on the other side of the House, will agree with me that I am not using terms too strong with regard to the revelation that has now been made. I may briefly explain to the House what the point is. My attention, and I know the attention of my colleagues on this side of the House, has been called to it within the last few days, by a flood of correspondence which has reached us from Scotland with regard to the dangers which threaten the Superannuation Scheme for Teachers in Scotland under the Act of 1908. We knew nothing of that impending cloud, but suddenly it was announced to-day by the Lord Advocate that this whole scheme, embodied in an Act of Parliament, which was laid before the country in a draft scheme three months ago, is now to be withdrawn altogether to a vague and indefinite future. The Lord Advocate, in reply to a supplementary question by myself, could only say that to his deep regret the facts were as I put them. Let us consider what has been done. In passing the Act of 1908, the House came to the conclusion that the conditions of superannuation for the profession of teachers in Scotland were such a scandal as to require an immediate remedy, and the remedy was provided in the Act. An injunction was laid upon the Scotch Education Department to prepare a scheme and issue that scheme in draft, and then submit it for the approval of this House. Two years have elapsed. We have repeatedly asked for that scheme. We were only told that the difficulties, mere actuarial difficulties, were so great that hurry was impossible, and we were begged to suspend our impatience and wait for the action of the benevolent department. Eventually this year, after repeated inquiries, the scheme was issued in draft, and we were told that after the necessary time, three months, elapsed, the scheme would be put on the Table of the House and would become within a month or two the law of the land. Is it in keeping with the dignity and credit of this British House of Parliament, having passed a scheme, having provided that it should come into operation, having said that the money would be forthcoming for the inauguration of that scheme, that now, at the end of the third year after the passing of that Act, all the hopes of the teaching profession are suddenly dispelled, and this afternoon, when the House is almost empty, the Lord Advocate tells us that whatever hopes they had raised, whatever draft scheme they had submitted to the House, the whole thing is to be withdrawn, and that in a vague and indefinite future, perhaps, some superannuation scheme may be submitted?

What is to happen to the teachers who have in the meantime to retire? Fate is active. Disability comes upon them. The time of service conies to an end. For all these men you hold out no hope whatever, and neither to those junior to them do you tell when this scheme authorised and enjoined by Parliament in 1908 is to come into operation. You have tried to do so, and suddenly without warning you withdraw it altogether. I know quite well that there are Members on the opposite side of the House, obedient followers of the Government, but who occasionally do indulge in eloquent oratory in denunciation of the treatment of Scotland. Do they intend to leave it to this side of the House only to denounce an act of flagrant maladministration, such as this, with the disappointment which it inflicts upon the large profession of teachers in Scotland without a shadow of excuse? Do they wish us to believe that the florid oratory in denunciation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, is only sound and fury, signifying nothing? Are they not going to use it at the time when. it would really be effective? Are they going to support the right hon. Gentleman in his action in the Division Lobby, in spite of all their eloquent denunciation of the wrongs done to Scotland, and is it to be left to those who are denounced as a miserable fragment, the Unionist Members for Scotland on this side of the House, to deal with this question? Hon. Gentlemen laugh; I would much rather that they took much more decided action; they are not here today in the large numbers which they often boast of, and I do not think that they compare altogether in overwhelming proportion with that insignificant minority which they denounce so often on this side of the House, the Unionists from Scotland. But I must insist, in view of the wrong done to this profession, in which I am so much interested in Scotland, and in view of this most ungracious and most careless and inefficient and dreadful act of the Administration, on raising this matter. We know quite well that it is not a new thing for the present Government to institute a system of pensions, and under the old age pension scheme they did find the money somewhere or other, though it was not provided at the tune; but here you get rid of an obligation imposed by Statute.

You pass an Act of Parliament, and you claim credit for it in Scotland. Over and over again I have heard hon. Members opposite claim credit in Scotland for having passed that Act, which was an ameliorative feature in that country. You allowed three years to pass after drafting your scheme, and, having drafted it, what is the fact? It is said, "We have not the money to carry it out, and, to our deep regret, we are forced to withdraw it altogether." If this is governing the country, if this is maintaining the financial credit of this great nation, if this is keeping faith with a great profession, then I do not know the meaning of words. I have repeatedly refrained, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, from making any attack on educational administration in Scotland, having myself had to do with it. I am not altogether without the means or the instruments for making such an attack, but my official reminiscences told me to hold my tongue when the Department was in any difficulty, and to give it such loyal support as I could. But the time for that has now gone. The great profession with which I am closely connected, and with which I have been connected all my life, like many of my Constituents in the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, has been deceived and deluded by false hopes, and I must insist that the right hon. Gentleman will at least assure us that there will be an opportunity afforded for the denunciatory eloquence of his followers on those benches by bringing forward at an early date the Education Estimates for Scotland.

Although I should be sorry to adopt the adjectives of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, still I think every Scottish Member is prepared to acknowledge the gravity of the crisis which is before us at the present moment. A few days ago we raised the question of the position of higher education in Scotland in this House, and we took the opportunity of pointing out that higher education in Scotland was seriously affected by a decreasing Grant. Serious as was the position at that time, it is even worse now. Everybody who knows anything of Scotland, or has personal experience of that country, is aware that to national education she owes everything, and that it is the life blood of the Scottish people. Under the old Scottish system there was an opportunity for a clever boy to be sent from the elementary schools to the higher schools. It was a system greatly appreciated by the people of Scotland, for every child of talent had an opportunity of going forward and of attaining to a high degree of education. But all that has been interfered with very seriously, and all we are asking the Government to do is to consider the financial aspects of this subject. More money is required, and money can be spent on no more beneficent purpose than that of education. There is no place in the whole world or in the British Empire where money devoted to such a purpose would be spent more economically and to better advantage than in Scotland. We have enjoyed the enormous advantages of the educational system that has come down to us from earlier days. It is a national system, and it is not only national in spirit but national in machinery. Every parent in Scotland is aware of the value and importance of that system, so that any interference with its due and continued development is a very serious matter indeed. I hope the Government will assure us not only that the superannuation scheme will be brought forward at once, but that some drastic steps will be taken to deal with the difficulty from the financial point of view. The other day we discussed the sum of £100,000, only as a temporary measure, in order to enable things to go in future as well and probably better than has been the case up to now. I repeat that everybody here is satisfied that every sovereign, every shilling, of the money will be spent in the most advantageous way possible on education in Scotland. I sincerely hope that the Government will make a definite statement today, and will be in a position to state that steps will be taken at the earliest moment in order that this matter may be dealt with as effectively as possible.

I really think that there will be very bitter disappointment, in Scotland at the announcement made today after the pretty certain hope of relief which has been held out in this matter. The House of Commons agreed by the Act of 1908 to put in force a system of superannuation, and we have waited since that time for the details of the superannuation scheme. I am not going into the details or minutiæ of the scheme; I think it is sufficient for us as representatives of Scotland here, to say, the House of Commons having passed that; Act and having made up their minds as to the necessity of a scheme of this kind, that it is the bounden duty of the Government, having acquiesced in the scheme, to find the money for it. I do not know how much this scheme is going to cost, nor do I venture to make an estimate, but surely a Government who are able to make various excursions in the way of spending money, and propose to pay salaries to Members of this House, ought to be prepared—and it is a scandal that they are not—to carry out this very necessary reform, and to do justice in regard to a question which, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Ainsworth), is a question to which Scotland as a nation owes practically everything which she has at the present time. I think it is very necessary that the Government should consider their position in this matter; otherwise, it will be apparent that they are taking a step for which they have really no adequate defence whatever.

The hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik) has attempted to lecture us in the best schoolmaster style, but fortunately he calls himself or his party insignificant.

No, no.

I wish to point out that I do not remember having seen the hon. Gentleman here last Thursday, when we attempted to discuss this matter.

I happened to be attending a meeting of my constituents, who were roused to alarm by another proposal of the Government.

His constituents might have allowed him to come here. I agree with a good deal that has been said on the other side, but we, on these benches, knew nothing about this withdrawal of the scheme until to-day. It is worthy of note that the Scottish supporters of the Government are the last to hear of any matter of this kind, and the scheme has been withdrawn without consulting the Scottish Members, so far as I know, in any way whatever. Parliament has already decided that there should be a superannuation scheme, and why it is withdrawn we have not been told. This is not a political matter that we need squabble about or deal with from a party point of view, and I was astonished to hear the Lord Advocate make this abrupt announcement with regard to the scheme, and I do think we are not treated rightly, nor have the teachers in Scotland been treated rightly, by the Government. This matter unfortunately comes within the province of the Secretary for Scotland as well as that of the Lord Advocate. That is one of the difficulties we are under at the present moment. I do hope that we shall have some explanation in regard to this matter. The question of money does not trouble my mind much, because Scotland already contributes very largely to the Imperial fund, and, therefore, there ought to be no difficulty in finding the additional amount necessary for this scheme. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will at least endeavour to get the Secretary for Scotland, or whoever is in charge of this matter, to do something so that it may be brought on speedily and dealt with. Not being a party question, it can be considered and decided in the best interests of the nation. We know what Scotland and the world owe to Scottish education, and we do not want to treat it in the way in which it is being treated at the present moment. I do say this, as emphatically as I possibly can, that in all these matters the Government ought to consult Scottish Members on these benches when they want to make any change of policy, so as to have us with them if possible. The way in which we have been treated on this occasion to my mind is not right at all. As far as I am concerned, I am only too glad to have the support of the small party opposite in regard to this subject, and in letting the Government know and the Scottish Department know that this is not the proper way in which to deal with a question of this sort, or in which to treat Scottish Members. I sincerely hope that instead of allowing agitation to spread all over Scotland, after the newspapers are seen to-morrow, the Government will reconsider their position.

I should like to support what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow University. I quite recognise that there are two sides to this question. I know that the superannuation scheme has caused alarm in many constituencies. I know that in one of the boroughs which I represent the people are afraid that it will raise their rates by twopence in the pound, and I quite see that it is unpopular for that reason; but I do not think that that justifies the Government in breaking faith with the teachers. The scheme has been passed. It is an Act of Parliament. It has been carefully considered. For two years we have been waiting for it, and now, when the teachers believed that they were going to get it, they are suddenly told that the whole thing is going to be shelved. Why cannot the Government, I would like to ask, get a Treasury grant in order to keep faith and keep their honour with the teachers? I do not think that that is too much for us to ask, and that they should carry out their undertakings and the Act of Parliament. If you consider the position of some of those old teachers who are just about to be superannuated. I do think that they are being most unfairly treated. All their hopes are thrown to the winds, and the promises the Government gave to them are set at nought. I think their position is one which we, as Members of Parliament, ought not to countenance. Although I quite realise that there are difficulties connected with the subject, I certainly think that a Treasury grant would put an end to those difficulties, and I appeal to the Government not to break faith with those people who are a most deserving set of people, and who have done well by their country.

I think the Debate, in many cases, so far as it has gone, has proceeded under a misconception. Nearly every hon. Member said that the superannuation scheme had been withdrawn. I did not understand the Lord Advocate to say that this afternoon, but I understood him to say that it was merely being postponed.

Indefinitely.

For this Session. The Lord Advocate said until next year.

What I understood the Lord Advocate to say was that it was postponed until after the National Insurance Bill had gone through.

He did not say that.

The right hon. Gentlemen, perhaps, will make it clear when he speaks what exactly he did say. At any rate, what I understood him to say was that after the National Insurance Bill had passed through the House he would approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the necessary funds to carry out the superannuation scheme, and that, as speedily as possible, the superannuation scheme would become law. I would like to add, for my part, just one word in support of what has been said in respect to the necessity of passing the superannuation scheme as speedily as possible. I do think that the teachers have waited a sufficiently lengthy period. There are, as several hon. Members have pointed out, many teachers who will shortly be superannuated, and I do think that the postponement of this scheme may possibly bring about certain hardships in the effects upon those teachers. I know, as the hon. Member for St. Andrew's Boroughs (Major Anstruther-Gray) pointed out, that there is the other side of the question, which is the School Board side of the question, and we are asked to postpone this scheme until the School Boards know whether they are to receive an extra Grant in respect of the staffing of schools and so on. At any rate, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see, so far as he is able, that this scheme speedily becomes law.

I wish to join in the protest against the announcement made to-day. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the feeling in this matter is not confined to those who sit upon the opposite side of the House. It is not merely dissatisfaction that will be felt in Scotland, and that is felt among those of us who heard the announcement to-day, but it is the very strongest and bitterest resentment at the way in which this subject has been dealt with, and we will feel if this attitude is persisted in that there is something that can be described as resembling a breach of faith on the part of the Government towards teachers in Scotland, and not merely the teachers, but towards the whole educational system of Scotland. English teachers have already got their superannuation scheme. We in Scotland have for many years made greater sacrifices for education than any other part of the United Kingdom. Education means more to us. Education is a greater national institution, and into it a much greater part of the life of Scotland has been transfused. It is a monstrous thing that if a slight is to be inflicted on Scotland it should be inflicted in respect of education, of all things in the world. It is agreed on all hands that there are certain difficulties with regard to the scheme which has been proposed, but those difficulties and those criticisms which have been made do not affect the principle of the scheme itself. They are directed entirely to one detail. Throughout Scotland and throughout every public institution in Scotland there is absolute unanimity in the approval of a superannuation scheme for teachers, and now because of criticisms from the point of view of one detail it is proposed not to alter the scheme, not to change the scheme, not to meet the criticism, but to postpone the whole matter indefinitely. If the Government admit that the finance of the scheme is wrong then there is a case not for postponing it, but for providing for the finance by some other way. If the Government admit that the finance is wrong then the obligation lies on them to provide for the finance by other means at once. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that unless this position is modified they will have considerable trouble from the benches behind them when the House resumes.

I am not sure that I exactly take up the position of the last hon. Member with regard to deferring the superannuation scheme. I must acknowledge I have no resentment against the Government in that way. It appears to me that where we are to tax the ratepayers of Scotland with a very considerable amount of new taxation we ought to be able to show them where they are to find the money. If the money is only to be found from the taxpayers in Scotland, and without any help from the Treasury, then I do think that we had better defer the superannuation scheme until we know where to get the money from. The particular point which I wish to bring before the House is that if this superannuation scheme is brought forward as a Minute of the Scottish Education Department then that appears to be a very considerable stretch of the power of legislation by a Department of State, where you would have in this case the Scottish Education Department passing by Minute a scheme of superannuation which would tax the taxpayers of Scotland by something like £40,000 extra, while we who sit here to represent the taxpayers of Scotland will have no power to say a single word about the details of that scheme.

The scheme was instituted originally by the Act of Parliament of 1908. It was drawn up in pursuance of that Act.

I am quite aware that there is some proposal for superannuation in the Act of 1908, but I am not aware that it states specifically that the taxpayers of Scotland require to be taxed for that superannuation. I do insist as strongly as I can that you have no right to bring in a scheme and tax people through a Minute. It ought to be brought forward by a Bill which will pass through this House with the ordinary routine. By this scheme of Minute what we have to do is to place a formal notice on the Paper. I have done that myself, and I know of its futility. We place the notice on the Paper against the scheme, and we must discuss it after eleven o'clock at night. That method is quite useless, and it takes all power from the Scottish Members of Parliament with regard to the details of the scheme. I do sincerely trust that the Lord Advocate will reconsider the answer which he gave to me when I put a supplementary question to him to-day. I do not know whether the people of England would allow themselves to be taxed for a superannuation scheme for teachers by Minute of their Department, but what I do know is that the people of Scotland have no right whatever to receive or to bear increased taxation through the Minute of any Department of State.

I should not have intervened had it not been that this discussion had arisen. I was not, unfortunately, in the House when the Lord Advocate gave his answer. It has seemed to me from the speeches on both sides that there must be some misunderstanding on this matter. I admit at once that I do not approach the subject with the same intimate knowledge on the question of education as some of my colleagues on these benches. But I may say I am devoting myself to the very able reports of the Scottish Education Department with a view to acquiring that knowledge. I think, as I say, that there must be some misunderstanding on this matter. If I mistake not, the Act says that there shall be an Order laid on the Table of the House for forty days that objections may be made, and that after the objections are considered the Order may come into operation. As I understand the matter, what has happened is this. A superannuation scheme has been placed before the public, and I am as much in favour as anyone of the principle of superannuation, and I am also thoroughly with my colleagues, both on this and on the other side of the House, in their intense feeling as to the primary importance of Scottish education. But two new facts have come out lately. We have the National Insurance Scheme before the country, in a Bill which includes large classes, and specifically exempts the teachers from that scheme altogether, in view of the fact that they are to be dealt with by superannuation in some other way. Until we see what is the bearing of that scheme, and the Insurance Bill is still sub judice, upon any suggested scheme of superannuation, how can we say it is wrong to at least give further time for discussion? I think there may be an explanation of the question.

I have received a letter this morning, and I suppose other Members have received similar letters, which raises a distinct protest against any further expenditure being incurred in Scotland for the purpose of education without provision of further funds for the purpose by the State. It is "a protest against the ever-growing expenditure," and particularly against the passing of a Minute of this kind, "until the details of the adjustment of the proportion payable by local and Imperial rates has been determined in favour of the former." We all know that at the present moment the contributions of the local and Imperial rates are under consideration, and if we are going to pass this superannuation scheme it may have to be altered hereafter in consequence of the readjustment between local rates and Imperial subventions. It seems to me very businesslike that at least we should wait awhile. I do not know what (he explanation is, but I feel assured that it will be on these two lines. I must confess again my full sympathy with the Members on both sides who are in favour of the superannuation scheme. I do not associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) in what perhaps he will allow me to call his heated oratory on the subject. And I rather think that when we come to hear what the Lord Advocate has to say he will show that there has been a misunderstanding, and that in the long run we will get a scheme that will fit in well with the general expectation.

Before the Lord Advocate makes his reply I would like to ask one or two questions. Like many other Mem- bers I have received a large number of letters on this subject this morning. I wish to ask whether in his view the postponement of this measure will at all affect teachers who, according to age, will have to retire; whether their pension will be affected by the fact of this Minute not being carried through at the present time. This National Insurance Bill undoubtedly affects the teachers, but is that also an indication that this question is going to be put into the melting pot again. Do we know exactly where we stand in the matter? I hope he will be able to give us some indication where we are, and tell us whether the thing is to be reconsidered, whether the whole thing is to be postponed in view of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whether those who have to retire before this scheme comes into operation will be affected?

It is not unnatural that this Debate should have arisen this afternoon after the answer I gave to the questions put to me by hon. Members from Scotland. I do not at all complain of the discussion that has taken place. It has revealed the deep-seated interest which all my colleagues in Scotland take in this education question. I heard with deep regret that the scheme had not been proceeded with at the time we all expected it would have been. Indeed, I feel a stronger feeling than regret, but still I think that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities were characterised by some exaggeration when he spoke of the discreditable, disreputable and shameless conduct of the Government. What are the facts? By the Act of 1908 we were authorised to frame a superannuation scheme. When I say "we," I mean the Scottish Education Department. The hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen has pointed out that there is statutory authority for framing the scheme, and unless you repeal the 14th Section of the Act, you cannot give effect to the desire which my hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire (Sir W. Menzies) expressed that we should proceed by way of a Bill. If he had examined the section for himself he would have found that ample provision is made for bringing the details of the scheme under the notice of all the parties interested, both the teachers and the School Boards, and all others, and an ample opportunity is given for moulding this scheme into such shape as might give the best effect to the desire we all have that the teachers should be fairly, though not extravagantly, treated in the matter of superannuation. My hon. Friend knows better than other Members of the House the difficulties in the way of such a scheme and he recognises, I am sure, just as well as anybody, and better than many of us, that there were very minute details and laborious calculations to be made in order to bring the scheme into existence. The scheme was framed and it was under discussion a considerable time by the parties who were interested in it.

I rejoice to hear the views expressed by my colleagues from Scotland this evening in favour of the superannuation scheme, and some in favour also of the Minute relating to the staffing of the schools. The Government are very anxious to elicit the views of the Scottish Members of this House upon these topics, and I hope we may accept it that the views expressed by hon. Members not only give effect to the opinions held by the teachers in Scotland but also to the opinions of the local authorities and the School Boards in Scotland. It was thought that they were a. little lukewarm, but. I am sure now that that is not so, and that the local authorities and the School Boards are as keen as ourselves to see this scheme carried out.

I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to gather that from my speech at any rate. I particularly said that some local authorities were opposed to the scheme. What I did say was that is was necessary to get a Treasury grant in order not to break faith with those teachers who were promised a substantial advantage.

I think I understood perfectly what the hon. Member meant. He expressed the view which I think is held by a great many Members of the House, and School Boards of Scotland, that however desirable a thing it should be to have this accomplished it would be undesirable that it should be accomplished at the expense of the ratepayers. Although they view the scheme favourably they are naturally very unwilling that a burden should be placed upon the shoulders of the ratepayers whose interests they have at heart, and I am sure all my colleagues from Scotland are agreed that if it involves an additional charge, a serious additional charge, upon the rates they would not Teally urge that we should go on, either with the superannuation scheme or the reform of the staffing of the schools.

Will you repeal the Act?

No, we will not repeal the Act, but I understand that is the view held by hon. Members who may be said to represent the school board view. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities may look at this question from a somewhat different point of view, but let me assume that all my colleagues in Scotland are agreed that the scheme should not be gone on with if there was to be any substantial addition to the rates in consequence of the Act coining into operation. There is no doubt there would be an additional cost. I think it is exaggerated by a number of school boards. It is difficult, however, to form an accurate estimate, and it may be there will be a substantial increase, and to meet that naturally all turn to the source from which the supplies come, in order to fill up the gap, to wit, the Treasury. England, as well as Scotland, no doubt complains of the undue burden upon the local rates. It is a very large question, but I can safely say that Scotland contributes more than a fair share, so far as I am aware, and there could not be any objection on that ground. We naturally come to the Treasury, but for reasons which are well known the contributions of the Treasury have dried up and there is a gap to be filled. The right hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities says, "why do not you fill it, up from the Exchequer?" That is the source from which our money comes, but for reasons which are very familiar it has to some extent dried up. In these circumstances we did approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in my answer this afternoon I have summarised the reply which he made. I really think it was a not unnatural reply, and that if one comes to reflect upon it, it was a fair enough reply. He has this insurance scheme in hand in which Scotland would participate fully, in which Scotsmen are deeply interested, and in which Scotsmen would benefit, even on the educational side. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says: "I expect to have that scheme through before the end of the Session." We all share that expectation and desire, and he says: "Wait until I see exactly the situation, the financial situation, which will have arisen when I have the National Insurance scheme through, and then I will consider the claim of Scottish education and see if this gap can be filled up." The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Colonel Greig) gave a clear explanation of the situation. It is a mistake to suppose that we have abandoned the superannuation scheme. We have not abandoned the superannuation scheme. It is a mistake to suppose that it has been postponed on account of the criticism of the details of the scheme. There is no such criticism as would have induced us to postpone the scheme.

May I interrupt and ask how does the Insurance Bill affect superannuation? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that? It is an insurance scheme against sickness and invalidity.

The hon. Member will recollect. I think he was in the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with the whole question. He said he must deal with the whole question, and that he naturally would have to consider seriously the most suitable arrangement for Scotland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman claim the right for this consideration to suspend an Act of Parliament passed three years ago?

No, I do not claim any such right.

You are doing it!

We are doing nothing of the kind. We are postponing the completion of the adjustment of the scheme.

What is the difference between postponement and suspension?

Surely the hon. Gentleman knows far better than any one in the House the exact reasons which have brought this position about. He must see quite well that if this scheme is to be a success it must have adequate funds, and he must also see that we cannot expect to get those funds from the Treasury. We also cannot expect to get the amount we need out of the rates. The money must come from the Exchequer. The reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I gave accurately on the situation which has arisen, in consequence, first of a lack of funds, and secondly on account of the introduction of the National Insurance Bill. Surely hon. Members do not for a single moment imagine that we have broken faith with them, or intend to break faith with them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask what the National Insurance Bill has to do with the matter at all?

I have explained it quite fully, and I think, when my hon. Friend re fleets upon the question, he will understand it quite as well as I do. How can the Chancellor of the Exchequer be fairly asked at once, at one fell swoop, to give us a, sum before lie knows how he will stand in respect to the National Insurance Bill? At all events I submit for the consideration and judgment of the House, that the defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a perfectly fair explanation and a perfectly fair defence for him to make at this stage when we went to him and asked him to fill up a gap which had unexpectedly occurred.

We are bound to go on with the scheme, which will not be lost. The hon. Gentleman says that I this afternoon said, "Not this Session." I did so for this reason; that I think it is too sanguine a view to entertain that the National Insurance Bill will become the law of the land much before the end of the Session. I think my colleagues from Scotland will see at once that it will be a very narrow fragment of Parliamentary time which will be left to adjust this superannuation scheme, and to get the amount necessary to give it life-blood before the end of the Session. I was only enlarging the same answer I had given in writing to other hon. Members when I say that this Session will scarcely see the passing of this matter into law. Let me say, before I sit down, that we have not the smallest intention of abandoning the scheme; not the smallest intention of indefinitely postponing the scheme. We desire, to go on with it at the earliest possible moment.

I have the fullest sympathy with the teachers; I understand their position perfectly well. We shall take care in the adjustment that no prejudice shall be suffered by the teachers to whom we are referring, who might under ordinary circumstances suspect that their interest would be affected if the scheme did not come into operation. It is not an Act of Parliament. It is a scheme which has to be adjusted at the hands of all interested in the question. That is really one of the great advantages of a scheme such as this over a statutory scheme. My hon. Friend (Sir W. Menzies) seems to think that we are putting a charge on the taxpayer by this scheme. We are not. We are merely applying money which we have already statutory authority to raise according to the scheme, and which can be adjusted in the way described much better than it would be adjusted by a Bill, which would have to go through Committee, and the provisions of which would be rigid, fixed, and unalterable when it became an Act of Parliament. If my hon. Friend looks down the Statute of 1908 he will see that not only have you ample opportunity for adjusting your scheme, but after your scheme is fixed, you may withdraw it and produce a fresh scheme when fresh experience has brought fresh light to bear upon it.

Is it not a fact that the scheme which is at present before us places a tax of something like £40,000 upon the ratepayers? I am not asking whether it is in the Bill of 1908 or not. I only ask if it is true that the Scottish Education Department, by its own authority, can impose this tax of £40,000 a year upon the ratepayers of Scotland?

The scheme really does not do that at all, but if it were a scheme involving a rate—as it might—there would not be the imposition of a rate by means of the scheme. The school authority would then have to consider whether or not they would impose a rate for the purpose for which they have got statutory authority to impose that rate. The scheme simply applies money which has already been raised by statutory authority.

I want just for a few minutes to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a fact that the Board of Trade sanctioned a meeting of Chinese sailors at the Board of Trade offices in the East. India Dock Road, and allowed them to go down by train to Cardiff in charge of Board of Trade officials for the purpose of taking the employment of British sailors who are on strike there? May I further ask him whether these Chinamen get the same wages and food as British sailors, and if it is not so, whether the help, if given to them by the Board of Trade, is not a direct encouragement to undercut British with Chinese or other labour? Is not that against all the principles of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Take the case of the Chinese in South Africa. Was not the argument used that they were to supplement black labour, so that more white men would be employed. In this case, as I understand it, these men went down with a Board of Trade official for the very purpose of taking away the employment of the British sailors on strike. I do not know whether Labour Members are present, but it would be interesting to know what they think of the matter. Perhaps, also, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the same thing could be done in regard to land employment: whether the Board of Trade would ever allow it, or help to get Chinamen to displace, British workmen on strike? I confess I cannot understand, after all the agitation there has been, how the Government or, for the matter of that, the Labour party can allow Chinamen to be employed on British ships to do the work of the British sailor. Might I just ask a further question? When I try to ask these questions, I find I am out of order. Do the Government, may I ask, intend to take any action on the Report issued by the Committee on Railway Agreements and on amalgamation? To be exact the words are as follows:—

"We think, however, that the whole question of the law and practice affecting; the throughout charges made on traffic exported from or imported into this country is one which requires investigation."

The matter has to do with the charges that are made on British produce and produce that comes from abroad. The hon. Gentleman opposite said to-night, in answer to a question, that it does not prove that British produce is charged more; that there is nothing to prove that British produce, fruit and vegetables in particular, was charged more than that coming from abroad.

May I interrupt? The hon. Gentleman has a little misunderstood my answer. What I said was there had been a Committee appointed to investigate these very allegations that foreign produce was unduly favoured by the railway companies, and the report of that Committee had been to the effect that there was no-evidence to prove anything of the kind.

What the Committee distinctly say is that it is a matter which requires investigation. If that is so, if they reckon that the matter wants investigation, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will have the matter investigated, because, as the law stands at present, the companies that keep within the law have not only to run against the competition of several other companies, but against sea carriage. Foreign produce gets the advantage of cheap sea carriage and cheap land carriage. There is the very well-known instance of the carriage of beef from London to Birmingham. I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, as the Committee says the matters wants investigation, will investigate it? It is perfectly well-known, and the right hon. Gentleman knows, that the farmers all over the country complain bitterly that the British railways, as a matter of fact, do carry foreign produce cheaper than British produce.

The hon. Member who has just sat down rose to put a question in connection with the employment of Chinese in certain cases in reference to the present dispute. He gave me no notice, and I therefore have had no opportunity of refreshing my memory upon what has been alleged. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will look into the matter, and he may say something in reply to the hon. Gentleman. As regards the other point brought forward by the hon. Gentleman, I understood he said there were within his knowledge or within his information specific cases in which the Board of Trade officers had allowed Chinamen to be engaged to take the place of some of the seamen on strike in connection with the present dispute between them and the shippers. I would ask for particulars—dates, names, and places. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make general charges of that kind.

To prevent misunderstanding may I say that what I stated was that the statement made had so far not been denied, and I put that to the right hon. Gentleman.

What statement had not been denied?

The statement I made.

I did not hear the first few remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, but I understand that what he said was that certain Board of Trade officials had induced these Chinamen to take the places of the seamen on strike, and I say I want particulars of any such cases, and that I am entitled, on behalf of my officers, to call upon the hon. Gentleman to give particulars of the places, times, and circumstances in regard to which he makes his accusation.

The statement I made was that I said what had been slated had not been denied.

What statement is the hon. Member referring to?

Just one moment. I put this not as an accusation, but simply I wanted to ask whether the hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the charge made that Chinese sailors had been at the Board of Trade Office in the East India Dock Road for the purpose of applying there in order to be allowed to replace British sailors now on strike, and what I wished to know was whether it was the case and with his sanction that these foreign sailors went by train to Cardiff in charge of Board of Trade official for the purpose of taking the place of the British sailors on strike. I took the precaution of writing to the newspaper in which this was reported to ask them whether the thing was true or not.

I understand the position of the hon. Gentleman now is, he say9 ho saw in a newspaper a certain vague statement that certain Chinese sailors held meetings, and that the procedure then was that, on the assurance of Board of Trade officials, they were to apply to be allowed to take the place of the strikers.

I said that was the question I wanted to put so that the -right hon. Gentleman might have the opportunity of denying it, and then I said that it had not been denied, and was it true?

The hon. Gentleman must have enough public experience to know in the first place that the head of a Department does not see everything written in the newspapers with regard to his Department, and that if he did it certainly is not his duty to deny every statement and every allegation that is made.

Am I not entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is true?

There has been no allegation made against the Board of Trade.

I asked, is it true?

If the hon. Gentleman gives me the dates and the time and place and circumstances I shall make inquiries, but I venture to say there is not a word of truth in the allegation made that the Board of Trade went out of their way in regard to these Chinamen taking the place of British sailors. The Board of Trade is under statutory regulations, and I can assure hon. Members, as I have already assured correspondents, and as the country desires, the Board of Trade and the President of the Board of Trade intends in reference to this dispute to maintain absolute neutrality in regard to this dispute, and as to our future policy under which we carry out our obligations. We propose to carry them out with the most absolute and complete impartiality in regard to both sides. I venture to say for my officials there is no change in regard to that, and we have not departed by one hair's-breadth in regard to our altitude towards the Chinamen. This is a question to which I have given very considerable attention, and I wish to say that our regulations are stricter than they used to be. So far as the strike is concerned they are just as they were some weeks ago, and they will remain the same. I assure hon. Members again that in this matter we will maintain absolute neutrality, and I venture to deny across the floor of the House any allegation of partiality whatever made against the Board of Trade. At the same time I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of any case that may come to his notice, and I will have it fully investigated.