asked what arrangements will be made for the provision of medical attendance upon an insured person who happens to fall ill outside the district covered by the panel of doctors who attend upon the members of the approved society to which he belongs?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that a panel of doctors will be appointed for an approved society. The panel will be appointed for the area of a local health committee. The administrative details necessary to provide for the temporary or permanent migration of insured persons from one such area to another can be dealt with by the regulations to be made by the Insurance Commissioners under Clause 14.

asked whether any steps will be taken to utilise existing provident dispensaries under the National Insurance Bill?

I am unable, to give a general answer to this question. The matter will depend to a large extent on the use made in each case by the local health committees and Insurance Commissioners of their powers under Clause 14 (4).

asked if dispensary medical officers in Ireland, who are required under the National Insurance Bill, Clause 59, to attend and treat deposit contributors in their area, will be remunerated upon the same scale as medical practitioners with whom arrangements are made by the local health committee; and if it would be practicable under this Bill to provide for the superannuation of dispensary medical officers on attaining the age of sixty-five years?

Clause 59 does not require the same scale to be prescribed in the two cases specified. It would not be possible to provide under the National Insurance Bill for the superannuation of dispensary medical officers.

When is it intended to put down the Government Amendments to Clause 59 affecting Ireland, so that we may understand exactly how that country is affected?

I do not see how that arises out of this question.

How can we discuss the Clause in Committee unless we have the Amendments?

The information will be given as soon as possible.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends himself to put down any Amendments to Clause 59 of the National Insurance Bill; and, if so, whether he will do so at once with a view to affording time for their consideration in Ireland?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to him on Monday, in which, owing to a copyist's error, "take" was substituted for "table." No avoidable delay will be allowed to occur.

Is it quite fair that while the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is able to state that certain concessions will be granted other Irish Members are kept in the dark as to what the Government Amendments are?

They will have the information as soon as the Amendments can be tabled.

Is it treating us quite fairly to postpone till so late putting down the Government Amendments so far as they affect Ireland? Why is this Clause being treated in a hole-and-corner way with the hon. Member for Waterford, while we have no fair opportunity of studying the Government proposals?

There has been no avoidable delay.

How is it that the Government Amendments are on the Paper to Clauses nearly up to Clause 59, while there is no single hint of what the Government propose to do with regard to a Clause which has regard to the whole administration of the Bill in Ireland—a Clause to the discussion of which only one day is allotted?

The hon. Member has pointed out that there are other Clauses before 59 to which the Government Amendments have not been put down: thus it is clear the Amendments to this Clause are not later than those to other Clauses.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will order that all books and accounts referred to in Clause 28 of the National Insurance Bill should be uniform in character; whether such books will be supplied by the State; and whether all cost of auditing and valuation should be borne by the State?

I will refer the Noble Lord to my right hon. Friend's, replies to him on 31st July last.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to his reply to the deputation of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and National Farmers' Union of England last July, whether he has come to a decision as regards the question of including casual labourers in the National Insurance Bill?

No announcement can yet be made.

asked what will be the position under the National Insurance Bill of a smallholder who is not employed by an employer during the greater part of the year, but who is so employed for short periods on a large farm; and, if he does not become a voluntary contributor during the period of his non-employment, will he receive no benefit in respect of the contributions made by him and his employer during the period of his employment?

A person in the circumstances described could do one of two things. He could join a society, and in that case he would have when not working for an employer to make a number of contributions necessary to keep him in benefit; or he could become a deposit contributor, in which case he would be provided with medical and sanatorium benefits and such other benefits in sickness as his own contributions, the employer's, and the State grant would reach to.

May I ask whether,, in the events which have been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the person mentioned in the question will be required to pay not only the 4d. of his own contribution as an employé, but also the 3d. that is supposed to be found by his employer?

That is so.

May I ask whether a deposit contributor who is only employed casually is entitled to become a voluntary contributor, as suggested in the question?

If a contributor becomes regularly employed, he would be so entitled.

The question is whether a deposit contributor, who is employed only for a few months of the year, if he ceases to become a deposit contributor, is then entitled by reason of his savings to become a voluntary contributor and keep up his payments?

I do not appreciate the point raised as to a voluntary and a deposit contributor.

We had better debate this matter in Committee.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now successfully adjusted the outstanding points of difference with the medical profession on the National Insurance Bill; and when Amendments dealing with these points will be put on the Paper?

So far as I am aware the most important Amendments affecting the medical profession were dealt with by the Committee on Clause 14. Points of detail arising out of the decision of the Committee concerning the relations between the societies and the medical profession have been under discussion, and will be dealt with on Report.

asked in what manner the medical benefit, due to the end of the current year, will be administered in the case of a deposit contributor who after suspension from sick benefit has become an inmate of a workhouse infirmary?

The local health committee will place the services of a doctor at the disposal of any insured person who is for the time being entitled to medical benefit.

Will not a person in that case already receive medical attendance gratis from the workhouse authorities?

Probably he would.

In that case what advantage would medical benefit be, and would the value of the medical benefit given to the individual be credited to the Post Office fund in general?

I think it would be credited to the Post Office fund in general. He was receiving medical treatment in another form under the Poor Law.

asked whether an employer who has neglected or refused to deduct an extra levy from the wages of any of his workmen who may belong to an approved society which has decided on such a levy will be liable to the proceedings and penalties set out in Clauses 52 and 53 of the National Insurance Bill?

The reply is in the affirmative, if notice had been given to the employer in the prescribed manner.

asked whether the funds accumulated by the Insurance Commissioners in respect of reserve values by the deduction of one penny and five-sixths, or in the case of women one penny halfpenny, from the contributions paid by or for members of an approved society, will be credited separately to that society; and whether the deductions will cease in respect of members of that society when the accumulation is sufficient to meet the liabilities of that society?

The answer to both portions of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend to the House such alterations or additions to the Standing Orders as will permit an Official Report of the proceedings of Standing Committee B to be circulated daily to all Members of the House whilst the said Committee is engaged in discussing Part II. of the National Insurance Bill?

asked what arrangements, if any, are to be made for officially reporting verbatim proceedings in Standing Committee on Part II. of the National Insurance Bill?

Having regard to the wholly exceptional circumstances of this Bill, we think that the normal, and, as I believe, the convenient procedure of the Standing Committees should be so far varied as that a full daily Official Report shall be prepared and circulated.

Will that Official Report be circulated in connection with the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that they shall both come under the same index?

We will see about that.

asked the Lord Advocate if the Scotch Office have brought before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the position of deposit contributors in the Highlands and Islands and of the fact that, under the Bill as it stands, in many cases the deposit contributors will have no opportunity of availing themselves of the medical benefits of the Bill; and if he will use every legitimate influence in his power to obtain a special grant to enable medical officers to visit far distant patients?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the matters to which he refers are under consideration.

asked the Lord Advocate, if he can give the reasons why time has been allocated for all the stages of the National Insurance Bill before the Scottish Members have been informed what Amendments especially relating to Scotland the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make in the Bill?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Monday to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire.

What good does it do Scottish Members to be told that Amendments have been under consideration by the Scottish Office? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he speaking for himself or for the so-called mind of the Scottish office? Then I give notice that I shall bring this matter before the House on the Adjournment to-night.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1), why was the appointment of Mr. Harper as Chief Valuer to the Board of Inland Revenue announced on 27th August and not during the Session of Parliament; and (2), whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Harper at the end of April, 1911, resigned a position of £1,100 a year, and a pension, on the London County Council, and was appointed Chief Valuer to the Board of Inland Revenue on 27th August, 1911, at a salary of £1,200 a year, he is now able to state that any suggestion was made, or assurance or hint given, to Mr. Harper that he would obtain a position under Government when he resigned his post on the Council; if not, when was the offer of his new position first made to Mr. Harper?

The reply to the first question is that the vacancy did not occur till 1st September. Mr. Harper was first approached by the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue with the offer of the appointment of Chief Valuer on 15th August, and the Commissioners decided at their meeting of 25th August to make the appointment. My right hon. Friend has already informed the House in the Debate of 11th May that at the time of his resignation of his position under the County Council Mr. Harper asked for nothing and was promised nothing.

Is it not the fact that the predecessor of Mr. Harper having passed the age of sixty-five could have been retired at any moment by the Treasury, and therefore there was no necessity for keeping it over till 27th August?

As a matter of fact, for administrative reasons the Board of Inland Revenue desired to retain his services.

Was not Sir Ernest Soares appointed during the Parliamentary Recess? Does the right hon. Gentleman tell me that Mr. Harper lived in an unsalaried condition for four months without knowing he was going to get a job under Government?

During those four months Mr. Harper was engaged in private practice.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that Mr. Harper left the position of £1,000 a year and a pension in April, and got this position in August, and was not given in April some hint that he was going to get the post?

I have answered that question. The hon. Member is as well aware as anybody of the reason why Mr. Harper left the service of the council.

asked what is the estimated increase of charge upon the Exchequer in consequence of the qualification for the receipt of an old age pension of 5s. a week under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, being increased from £21 to £42 in all cases where one of an old married couple is without any means whatever?

There is no reliable material as yet for forming an estimate of the additional cost entailed by Section 2 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911.

Is it not a fact that it is likely to entail an increased charge upon the Exchequer of at least 20 per cent.?

I have informed the hon. Member that we have no reliable information, therefore I cannot answer that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, under Section 2 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, an old man can, with an annual income of from £31 10s. to £42, and in the event of his wife being without means, obtain for his wife and himself pensions amounting together to 10s. per week, but that if his wife dies he becomes disentitled to any pension whatever; and, if so, whether he proposes by an amending Bill to remedy this state of affairs?

The effect of the present law is as stated in the question, and I see no ground for amending it in the manner suggested.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under this new Old Age Pensions Act a male pensioner, although he may have a large family, upon the death of his wife, loses not merely his wife's pension but his own pension as well? Does he think that fair?

If he has the amount which is put in the Act as income I do not see any unfairness.

asked whether public notification has been made of the provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, now in operation, whereby in the absence of means in the case of one of an old married couple the other becomes entitled to the full 5s. pension if his annual income does not exceed £42; or how otherwise has this extension of State pensions been made known to the large number of persons now for the first time entitled to them under the above provisions?

No public notice has been issued by the Government as to the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911. The provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Act have, however, been widely advertised by the Press, and I have no reason to suppose that they are not well known to those persons who are entitled to benefit by them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the experience of Old Age Pension Committees that there is considerable ignorance prevailing amongst persons who are entitled to pensions as to their rights under the new Act?

If the hon. Member can give mo accurate information, on that point it will be considered.

asked the number of acres of land acquired for small holdings by the Kent County Council since 1st January last, and the number of applicants this will satisfy?

Two hundred and sixty-nine acres have been acquired, which will satisfy sixteen applicants.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in pursuance of the publicly announced intention of the late President of the Board, he proposes to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the origin of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in various parts of the country and the best means of checking its spread?

Yes, Sir.

In view of the prevailing anxiety on the subject, will the inquiry be accelerated?

I am losing no time in dealing with the matter, and I cannot accelerate it more than I am doing now.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman has any information as to the origin of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Somersetshire, and as to how infection was conveyed into the county?

Careful inquiries have been made, but it has not been possible to trace the outbreak to its origin.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at the recent revision of the Parliamentary registers a large number of persons have been struck off the list of voters in consequence of the rates for which they have compounded in their rents not having been paid by their landlords; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to introduce legislation to remedy the present state of the law in this respect?

I have no general information in regard to this matter, but may I refer my hon. Friend to Section 8 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, under which occupiers may pay rates in default of owners and deduct the sums so paid from the next payment of rent.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that under that Section a tenement occupier paying 3s. or 4s. a week might have to pay £100 arrears of rates before he could get his vote?

In a few cases that might be so, but this and other electoral disabilities are under the purview of the Government at the present time.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the National Association for the Feebleminded urging the Government to pass a Bill making the permanent segregation of the feeble-minded compulsory; and whether in the interests of these defectives themselves, for the sake of sufferers still unborn, and for the relief of the community from the ever-increasing burden of the taxation paid by the fit for the support of the unfit, he will bring in a Bill to give effect of this resolution?

asked when His Majesty's Government propose to give effect to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feebleminded, issued three years ago, by bringing forward a measure to carry out its recommendations?

I have every hope that legislation dealing with this question will be undertaken next Session.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase, due to new creations, in the number of legislating peers, he can give any indication as to the date when he proposes to introduce his promised legislation whereby these numbers will be curtailed and not, as is now the case, augmented?

I would refer the hon. Member to an answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division (Mr. Hunt).

Is the right hon. Gentleman still of the opinion that this question is one that brooks no delay?

No avoidable delay.

May I ask has any Bill been prepared dealing with this matter?

No, Sir; the hon. Member may not ask that question. If he does ask it, I cannot answer it.

asked whether the Government has abandoned its determination to reform the House of Lords?

No, Sir.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a speech of the Lord Advocate reported during the Recess in which he stated that the talk of reforming the House of Lords was folly and moonshine, and was that statement authorised?

Seeing that the House of Lords has now been rendered innocuous, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the policy of leaving well alone?

My answer out of which these supplemental arose was the word "No." I understand the Lord Advocate denies the statement attributed to him.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether that Board makes any attempt, by requiring a lodgment of security or otherwise, to prevent moneyless adventurers getting themselves registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, then trading on the credulity of the poor as insuring societies, and applying to their own use all the premiums they receive; what steps the Board takes to prevent such bodies doing life insurance business in excess of the statutory limits; whether the National United Insurance Society, Limited, the United National Assurance Collecting Society, and Ireland's Life Assurance Society, all now collecting in Ireland, belong to this class; whether the Guardian Bank, Limited, guarantees, and is in a position to make good, the promises of the latter society; if not, what action he proposes to take in the matter; and, seeing that frauds are being committed within the limits of the Friendly Societies Acts by means of bogus whole-life policies, whether it is proposed to amend the law for the protection of the poor?

The National United Insurance Society, Limited, is not a Friendly Society, but is registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. The United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society and Ireland's Life Assurance Collecting Society are registered under the Friendly Societies Acts. The Guardian Bank, Limited, is not registered either under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act or under the Friendly Societies Acts, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies has no information with regard to it. I would refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's answer to a question by the hon. Member for South Roscommon on 25th April last for information as to the security for policyholders held by the first of the above societies. The law does not enable the Registrar of Friendly Societies to require any security from persons applying for registration as friendly societies, but industrial and provident societies are liable to make the deposits required by the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, from bodies carrying on assurance business within the scope of that Act. If the hon. Member will let me have any specific information which may be in his possession tending to show that any of these societies are not conforming to the rules or are acting fraudulently, I will have careful investigation made.

In view of the fact that this question is addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the illegitimate doing of life insurance business brings a society within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, has not the illegitimate doing of that business the same effect?

If the hon. Member will give me notice I will endeavour to give an answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the number of insurance policies contracted by the so-called Irish Provident Assurance Company, which, on the face of them and in the opinion of the Irish Court of Appeal, must be regarded as life assurance policies contrary to the Statute and to that company's articles of association; the number of policies that company caused to lapse by instructing their agents to cease calling for the premiums, and then treating all the premiums paid as forfeited to them; the number of policies transferred at less than face value by five directors of that company to themselves as directors of the London and Provincial Company; whether the Board of Trade before allowing that transfer required those English directors to discharge all their Irish contracts or to make provision for discharging them; and, if not, the evidence awaited last July being now available, whether the Government will institute the prosecution then promised?

The Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, is being wound up under an Order made by the Irish Courts on the 24th April last, and there are no official facts in the possession of the Board of Trade as to the number of policies issued or lapsed by the company, or as to the number of policyholders of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, who have transferred their policies to the London and Provincial Assurance Company, Limited. The Board of Trade have no power to impose any conditions on the transfer of policies from one company to another. The only ground on which proceedings could be instituted by the Board of Trade is that the company has carried on life assurance business as defined by the Life Assurance Companies Acts, and on the information in my possession I am not satisfied that the company has ever carried on such business. If the hon. Member sends any definite evidence it will, of course, have my careful consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept the decision of the Irish Court of Appeal as definite information?

If the hon. Member will send me a copy of it, I will be very glad to look into it.

Is it not the duty of the Board of Trade to watch these things and not leave others to call attention to them?

We are bound under Statutes as to the action which we can take and which we cannot take, and so far as information is before us on this matter we are not in a position to take action. If the hon. Member will give us further information, I will be very glad to consider it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state how much of the policyholders' money has been set aside or earmarked for covering the cost of the liquidation in this case?

I cannot say.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the recent report of the solicitor to the Board of Trade on defaulting liquidators, the refusal of the liquidator of the Irish Provident Assurance Company to give any information to aggrieved policy holders, and the fact that the Irish Provident, the London and Provincial, and the Provincial Homes Companies, amalgamated under the old directorate, still do business in the same Dublin office with the official liquidator, and collect money throughout Ireland through their former agents, whether he will have the relations and affairs of this liquidator and of this joint concern investigated and the result made public before more people in Ireland are victimised by them?

The Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, is being wound up under an Order made by the Irish Courts of Law on 24th April last, and, as I informed the hon. Member on 11th July and 19th July last, the winding up of the company is not under the control of the Board of Trade, but of the Irish Courts. With regard to the London and Provincial Assurance Company, Limited, and the Provincial Homes Investment Company, Limited, the only power of the Board of Trade to investigate the affairs of these companies is that contained in Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, which enables the Board of Trade to appoint one or more inspectors to investigate the affairs of the company on the application of members holding not less than one-tenth of the shares issued.

Will the President of the Board of Trade ask the information either from the Court of Appeal or the liquidator in this case?

In so far as the matter has proceeded we have not been able to take action. It is not a matter that comes within our statutory powers.

Is it not possible for a policyholder or a shareholder who is aggrieved to make a claim in court against the directors and prove his case?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him to state who is to bear the cost of an action by the poor people who are being fleeced and swindled?

I have said that in these matters the Board of Trade can only act under statutory powers, and so far we have not been able to get a case.

May I ask whether the Government will be prepared to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the methods of collecting societies?

That question does not arise out of this.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the verdicts in the series of libel actions arising out of the last General Election; and whether, with a view to increasing public confidence in the administration of the law in such matters, the Government proposes to introduce legislation?

The Government are not prepared to introduce legislation on this subject.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conflicting statements made as to the nature of the proposals of the forthcoming Home Rule Bill, he will consider the advisability of the suggestion made in Ireland that a preparatory Memorandum be issued, as is done in the case of the Army and Navy Estimates, submitting the main proposals of the Government to public consideration and suggestion in Ireland, so as to avoid any danger of the repetition of the fate of the Irish Council Bill of 1907?

The statements to which the hon. Member refers are, of course, mere guesswork. The course suggested in his question is, so far as I know, without any precedent, and even if it were practicable (which in my opinion it is not) it would not be likely to conduce to a satisfactory solution of the problem on the lines which I presume the hon. Member desires.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to invite the Irish party to frame a measure of their own regarding Home Rule in the same way that Scotch Members have framed theirs?

Does the right hon. Gentleman's remark that the statements are guesswork apply to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Redmond)? As it would be out of order to carry on this subject, I beg to give notice that I shall have a word or two to say on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.

Docs the right hon. Gentleman not think it worth while answering my suggestion?

I cannot hold out any encouragement to the hon. Gentleman.

asked whether the Government scheme for Home Rule for Ireland includes the proposals that the Irish Members will still sit in the British House of Commons, and whether the Irish Second Chamber will be brought into existence before the promised reconstructed Second Chamber is established by law for Great Britain?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to a similar question by my hon. Friend, the Member for the College Division of Glasgow.

May we not conclude that the Government are going to force a Home Rule Bill into law although the people have never been allowed a chance of discussing it?

The hon. Member is anticipating the Debates of next Session.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state what are the duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and whether, in the interests of public economy, he will consider the desirability of arranging for their discharge by a less important personage than a Minister of Cabinet rank, and at a lower salary than £2,000 per annum?

The duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are to control the management of the duchy estates and revenues, and also—within the County Palatine of Lancaster—to appoint justices of the peace and county court judges, and to direct the administration of the estates of persons dying intestate and without kin, and to perform various duties which in other counties devolve upon the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary. In practice, it has been found by recent Governments an advantage to possess a Minister whose departmental work is sufficiently light to enable him to attend more closely to other Parliamentary and Ministerial duties. The present pressure on Cabinet Ministers is such as to render it, in my opinion, inexpedient to make the change suggested by the hon. Member.

Have I the Prime Minister's authority to tell the electors of East Bristol to-night that the Government thinks that instead of performing with great credit the duties of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman is more useful as maid of all work to the Government generally?

I think the office my right hon. Friend discharges is one pre-eminently fitted for a business man.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. D. J. Shackleton, who attended the recent Trades Union Congress as a fraternal delegate, has made any report to the Home Office respecting the proceedings and resolutions passed at the Conference; and, if so, whether it is intended that such Report shall be laid upon the Table of the House?

No, Sir. Mr. Shackleton has not been directed to make any formal report to the Home Office on the proceedings and resolutions of the Congress. He attended the meetings of the Congress by the desire of my predecessor in order that he might be in a position, when any of the questions raised at the Congress are brought before the Department for consideration, to advise the Secretary of State as to the views of the workers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the action which his predecessor felt compelled to take in connection with the abandoned boxing contest between Jack Johnson and Bombardier Wells has had the effect of causing ground landlords and lessees of many halls in London to refuse to allow legitimate boxing matches to be decided at their premises; and whether he can see his way to make a statement which will allay the unrest, and do away with the uncertainty which prevails not only amongst ground landlords and lessees of the halls but also amongst boxers and boxing promoters?

I have not heard anything of the alleged effect of my predecessor's action on ground landlords and lessees. The decision of the High Court in the proceedings by the District Railway against Earl's Court, Limited, had a much more direct bearing on their position than anything done by my right hon. Friend. The law on the subject of boxing contests is well established. My predecessor was advised by the Law Officers that, if the object and intent of the combatants is to subdue each other by violent blows until one can endure it no longer, the contest is illegal; and that, on the other hand, a sparring match in which the object is to win by skill and not by the severity of the injuries inflicted is lawful. The difficulty is not in the law, but in ascertaining whether any contest will or will not be kept within the law—a question which depends not merely on the rules which are to apply but on the way in which the fight is actually conducted. A boxing match which, so far as the rules are concerned, would be legal, may in fact degenerate into a prize fight; and no doubt, having regard to the decision of the High Court, ground landlords and lessees are well advised in taking steps for their own protection.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that if there was any possible chance of Wells beating Johnson there would have been any talk about the matter?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Port of London Authority and shipowners advertising in provincial newspapers inviting workmen to come to London and offering employment at the docks; whether thousands of men are refused employment every morning at the places for taking on; whether the excess supply of labour is nearly 25 per cent. above actual requirements; and what action he proposes to take to prevent an increase of such surplus labour at the London docks?

I am informed by the Port of London Authority that they have not issued any advertisement for additional labour; that there has been no appreciable increase recently in the number of men seeking employment at the docks, and that the fluctuations in the volume of work at the docks render it difficult for them to form any precise estimate of the number of men in excess of the actual requirements.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement in the question that the excess supply of labour is nearly 25 per cent. is correct?

I sent this question to the Port of London Authority for their observations, and the reply they gave is embodied in my answer. The question whether there is an excess of 25 per cent. does not really arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is an unusual amount of unemployment among the dockers?

I should say no.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the chairman of Pears, Limited, soap-makers, has decided to set up works in America, because of the American tariff and because American soap-makers copy their goods, advertisements, and name, and send their goods into our market entirely free; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent this handicap to British trade and British working people?

The hon. Member appears to have correctly reproduced a statement made by the chairman of the company at their recent general meeting. The proposal to erect a factory in the United States is not likely, I understand, to lead to any reduction in the staff employed in this country. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this capital which is being driven abroad by high tariffs gives wages and employment to foreign workpeople and deprives our own workpeople of that employment and wages?

I am told on good authority that is not a correct statement in regard to the action of Messrs. Pears. I have read in newspapers that in consequence of high tariffs in other countries manufacturers come and carry on their manufactures here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name," — "Singers" and "Westinghouse."]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the company distinctly stated that they had been driven abroad by high tariffs?

Is it the case—as the right hon. Gentleman assumes he is correct in stating—that there will be no effect on employment at Pears' works in this country when admittedly they have erected those works in America in order to take American trade which was previously done by them from here?

I do not think it necessarily follows. It really is a question of debate, and I can hardly be expected to deal with it in the form of an answer to a question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the price of soap in America?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the value of British exports to Canada for the years 1896 to 1910, respectively?

The figures desired will be found on pages 154, 155, 192, and 193 of the last issue of the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom (Cd. 5841).

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the last meeting of the Cardiff Trades Council had to be held in other premises than those of the local Labour Exchange because of a certain item appearing on the agenda for the meeting; whether he is aware that the superintendent of the exchange drew the trade council secretary's attention to the item, which was Military in Ambush, and pointed out that it was not a proper subject to be discussed in a Government building, and that he proposed that either the item in question be deleted from the agenda or the council should meet elsewhere; whether he is aware that the council held its meeting elsewhere; and whether his Department has sanctioned the policy of limiting freedom of discussion at meetings held in Labour Exchange buildings, and thus discourage trades councils and other local workmen's associations from using the buildings as a place of meeting?

The facts of the case appear to be as stated by my hon. Friend. In view of the great importance of observing the impartiality of Labour Exchanges it appears to me that the Divisional Officer for Wales exercised a wise discretion in the circumstances, though I regret any inconvenience thereby caused to the Cardiff Trades Council.