I beg to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether Sir Stuart Samuel has vacated his seat as a Member of this House in consequence of the firm of Samuel Montagu and Company, in which firm he is a partner, having entered into transactions with the Secretary of State for India in Council: That Mr. Butcher, Mr. Holder, Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. Pollock, the Prime Minister, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Eugene Wason be Members of the Select Committee: That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. That three be the quorum."

I make this Motion in order that this House may exercise its jurisdiction over its own Members, and the composition of this House. That is a right which exists in this House and a right to which it has always tenaciously clung; which has never been surrendered and which has been exercised certainly within recent years. The matter for the determination of the House must be exercised in a judicial capacity by Members, and therefore following the practice of this House must be referred to a Select Committee which is to investigate the facts and determine what is to be the view of the House on the particular matter. In this instance the Committee will have to decide whether certain tests will bring this particular case within the words of the Statute of 1782, and upon the answer to that question will depend the determination of whether or not the seat is to be vacated. I will call attention, a little later, more particularly to the Statute. Putting the matter in another form, so that the House may clearly appreciate it, the point at issue, is whether a contract made and transaction entered into by a Member of this House, being a partner in a firm which has transactions or made contracts with the Secretary of State for India in Council, are contracts or transactions which come within that particular Statute: that is the real point to be decided. May I say at the outset, so as to make it perfectly plain, that the setting up of this Committee involves no reflection upon the personal honour or integrity either of the hon. Baronet in question or the firm with which he is connected. We are not by instituting this Committee inquiring into anything else or admitting the need for inquiry into anything other than whether or not there has been a breach of the particular Statute, and it is to that matter that I intend to address myself. May I also make this point clear before I go a little more into details that I am not professing to express any opinion upon the question at issue—it would be improper for me to do so—I am moving that this Select Committee should be appointed in order that that Committee may decide, and the only reason I am occupying a little time in placing the matter before the House is that I understand the appointment of the Select Committee is in controversy, and it is necessary for me to establish by precedent why it is that this is referred to a Committee. Let me just state the facts to the House, which are necessary to understand, before I explain what is the law and what should be, according to the view I present to this House, the practice and procedure. The facts so far as they are relevant are very short. The member for the Whitechapel Division of the Tower Hamlets is a member of the firm of Samuel Montagu and Company, and that firm of bankers and bullion brokers are undoubtedly engaged in large transactions in the City. The Secretary of State for India in Council decided that bar silver should be purchased through this firm of Samuel Montagu and Company instead of, as hitherto, through bullion brokers appointed by the Bank of England. As to the reason for this change all that is necessary for me to state is that whenever certain brokers went into the market to purchase bar silver which was to be bought in large quantities for India it was known that these purchases were being made for the Government and it was thought that the prices were put up in consequence. In order that it should not be revealed to the market that purchases were being made—

It seems to me that the Attorney-General is now going quite outside, the scope of the Committee's appointment, and is proceeding to defend the action of the Government. What I wish to ask is, if the right hon. Gentleman continues that line of argument, shall we have the right to criticise the whole attitude of the Government in connection with this contract?

A discussion upon the action of the Government would seem to me to be outside the scope of the present inquiry. If the Attorney-General opens up that subject he cannot complain if others follow him.

I was not, as I thought, opening up that subject beyond stating certain facts.

The right hon. Gentleman was justifying the Government.

No, I was only stating the facts in reference to entering into these contracts. I have said all that it is necessary to say on that point, and I am not attempting to justify the action of the Government now. What I want to do is to state the fact that these purchases were then made by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, acting as brokers and entering into transactions with the Government of India. There may be other transactions of a similar character into which I do not propose to enter for the reason that it is unnecessary. All we want to understand is whether the hon. Member for the Whitechapel Division of the Tower Hamlets, as a partner in this firm, has entered into transactions with the Secretary of State for India in Council. If that be so the question arises whether that constitutes a breach of the Statute of 1782. The whole point with regard to that depends upon the answer given to one particular portion of this Statute to which I shall call the attention of the House, and I want to state the case without attempting to decide either one way or the other. The question the Committee will have to determine is whether under this Statute of 1782 these transactions are transactions which were made for or on account of the public service. That is the broad question. I do not enter into the smaller questions which may be raised, but that is the broad question we shall have to decide. Of course, if this were a perfectly clear and plain matter and admitted to be a breach of the Statute by the hon. Member in question, as I apprehend the practice and procedure of this House, there would be no necessity to appoint a Select Committee. As far as I have been able to judge from a careful examination of this question, the practice has always been in cases which have occurred again and again—for example, at the election of a Member of this House who has found after he was elected that there were contracts existing between his firm and some Department of the Government which came within this Statute that he has not taken his seat because he becomes disqualified by reason of this Statute, and where there is no dispute or doubt the new writ has been issued. Where you have questions of doubt or difficulty, and where a Member does not admit that there is a disqualification by reason of this Statute, the practice always has been to refer the, matter to a Select Committee of the House. It is that practice and procedure which we are now following and which I propose to justify by a short reference to precedents. It is only necessary to trouble the House with two precedents to illustrate the practice which has always existed.

I understand the point is that in this case the hon. Gentleman does not admit that he is disqualified?

I think that has been stated quite recently by the Prime Minister in answer to a question. There is some doubt about the point, and conflicting opinions have been expressed by very eminent lawyers. The hon. Baronet will see that I am not exaggerating when I say that this is a matter which requires very serious consideration, and it cannot be decided off-hand without discussion or without a good deal of argument.

Does the hon. Baronet deny that he is disqualified?

He has not admitted he is disqualified, if he did he would have to follow the precedent of informing Mr. Speaker of that fact. The House knows sufficient of this Statute to make it unnecessary for me to read it in detail, but I may point out that the Statute of 1782 was passed at a time when, as we know from history it was the practice to distribute contracts amongst Members of Parliament in order to get them to vote in a particular way. I am particularly anxious to avoid using any words which will give rise to controversy, but all I wish to say is that any person who becomes a Member of this House who enters into a contract or agreement with any person or persons for or on account of the public service becomes disqualified, and is not entitled to sit or vote, and is subject to certain penalties enacted in that Statute. That is the position of the matter. In order to put at rest any doubts in the minds of other hon. Members which may be aroused by my statement I may say that it would not apply to shareholders in companies, but it is confined to persons who contract. A man may be ever so large, a shareholder in a company, in fact, he may own all the shares except a few nominal shares and he would not come within the Statute.

I said just now that I would justify what I have stated as to the procedure of this House by a reference to two precedents, and I do not anticipate that there will be any controversy with regard to them. There is what is known as the Rothschild case which was decided in 1855. Baron Rothschild was a Member of this House, or, at any rate, he took some part in the proceedings of this House, not being entitled to vote because the Statute of 1858 had not been passed. For a considerable time he was in one sense a Member of this House and in another sense he was not, and he was not allowed to sit and vote in the House. It was during that period, in 1855, that this question arose. His firm, Rothschild and Son, had arranged a loan with the Government of £16,000,000, and the point was raised in this House that in consequence of that, and his being a member of that firm, his seat was vacated. Thereupon, a Select Committee was appointed to consider it, and sat I think on some six or seven occasions. There were complicated questions of fact to be inquired into, and eventually the Committee reported to this House and determined the question. In that case it was decided there was no such contract as came within the Statute. Any hon. Member who is interested in this matter will find it referred to in Sir Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," 11th edition, pages 21 to 32, where this Statute is discussed. The next precedent to which I will refer was in 1869. That was the case of Sir Sydney Waterlow. There had been in October a verbal agreement for the dissolution of the partnership of Waterlow and Son by which Sir Sydney Waterlow ceased to be a member of that firm. He had been elected a Member of the House on 23rd November, and the deed of dissolution was only executed on 26th November, and the advertisement in the "London Gazette" only appeared on 27th November. I should say the firm of Waterlow and Son had a stationery contract with His Majesty's Government. The question was raised that in consequence his seat was vacated under this Statute. There again a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into it. Sir Sydney Waterlow took the view that as there had been this-verbal agreement for dissolution he was no longer a firm from 16th October, and was not interested when he was elected on 23rd November, but the Select Committee took a different view and decided that he was disqualified. I can, and if necessary I will give other precedents, but I think the matter is so plainly established by those to which I have referred that I will not trouble the House with any further discussion of these appointments of Committees.

What about a subsequent precedent?

I think I know to what the Noble Lord is referring. I was giving these as instances in which doubt had arisen and in which the Member himself had not admitted he was disqualified. I now come to the last precedent, a precedent the other way. It is a precedent in which the members concerned admitted that in consequence of transactions with the Government they were disqualified. There was the case of Messrs. Alban and Vicary Gibbs, who were partners in the firm of Antony Gibbs and Sons, which in 1904 entered into a contract on behalf of the Chilian Government with His Majesty's Government for the sale of two battleships. No one can doubt for a moment that in consequence of that they did infringe the provisions of this Statute of 1782. They were so advised, indeed one of them stated in terms he had been advised that in consequence of having entered into this transaction his seat was vacated, and they informed Mr. Speaker of the facts. Neither of them raised any difficulty or doubt about it. They themselves took the view that the mere fact of their having entered into this contract vacated their seats, and I do not think anyone can doubt that was the case when I give the facts to the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what capacity the gentlemen named acted?

I think I have said they acted as brokers for the Chilian Government, and executed a contract with His Majesty's Government, and consequently came within the provisions of the Statute of 1782. It is interesting to observe that upon that occasion the point was raised very definitely and clearly by that very vigilant constitutional authority my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill), who I see has just received the honour of an appointment recognising his value as an authority in legal matters. The letters having been read by Mr. Speaker from these two Members admitting their seats were vacated, and a Motion for the issue of new writs having been made, the hon. and learned Member raised the point that notwithstanding the admission by them it was not for them to decide a question of this character, but it was for the House itself, and the constitutional practice therefore demanded that there should be a Select Committee appointed to determine the question. That was the point. It was discussed and was put with great force by my hon. and learned Friend, but eventually the view was taken by Mr. Speaker and also by the House that as the point was not raised by the Members themselves and as they admitted their seats were vacated, they stood exactly in the same category as the case of a Member who, having been elected, discovered before taking his seat there was a contract in existence which disqualified him, and therefore did not take his seat. It was ruled by Mr. Speaker their ease came within that category, and the consequence was the House then proceeded to order the warrants for the issue of new writs without referring the matter to a Select Committee. It is that very precedent, which is the last, which justifies me in the distinction I drew in presenting this case to the House between cases in which there was no dispute and no point raised by the Members themselves and cases in which it was not admitted that the seat was vacated. In the one there is no necessity for a Committee, and in the other there is a necessity for a Committee; and it is within the second class of cases this case falls. I think I have given sufficient information to the House to justify the view that I have put except with regard to one point, which is a somewhat difficult one to deal with here in this House in view of the Motion I am now making, that it, should be referred to a Select Committee. The only reason I make any reference to it is in order to show the House that the solution of this question is one of doubt and difficulty. This matter was discussed in the Law Courts in consequence of a petition presented under the Parliamentary Elections Act, which enabled this point to be raised before a judge of the High Court under the practice which then prevailed. In those days election petitions were determined by one judge, and there was the power under that Statute to refer any question of difficulty that arose to the Court for the Court to determine. This matter did arise, and it did come before the Court.

The precise question was whether or not this Statute applied to a contract which was made with the Secretary of State in Council for India—whether such a contract did come within the meaning of this Statute, and whether it was a contract "for or on account of the public service." On that various arguments were raised, but it is sufficient for me to say that as a result of a simple discussion—I have no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and others who are interested in this matter will have consulted this, the only authority on the subject, will agree—that what was said was substantially this. The matter came before four learned judges who said the case raised a point which required very serious consideration, but they did not decide the point. It was not necessary for them to do so. There was however, an expression of opinion on it to which I will call attention. The case is to be found in the Law Reports IV., Common Pleas, page 296. I do not want to weary the House with quotations, but I think it is necessary to tell hon. Members what points arose in this case, as it is the only case which bears on the subject, and it was left undecided. It is, the point that will have to be solved by the Select Committee if the House decides to refer it to such a body.

The argument which was put forward was this. It was said, "This Statute, passed in the year 1782, was a Statute passed by the Parliament of Great Britain. The public service there referred to was the public service of Great Britain; it did not extend beyond Great Britain." Then it was said it was manifest that that was true, because in 1801 another Statute was passed which extended the operations of this particular Statute to Ireland. By that time the Act of Union had been passed. Then the argument was put forward, "Why was it necessary to so extend it if the words were sufficiently wide to-cover not only Great Britain, but also Ireland." Another way of putting-it was to say, "Suppose during the period which elapsed between 1782 and 1801, some Member of the British House of Commons had entered into a contract for services or for the supply of goods to Ireland to be paid for by moneys voted by the Irish House of Commons. The question then would arise, would that be a contract made by a Member of this House for and on account of the public service within the meaning of the Statute?" Next it was said, "It is not so, because of this particular Statute having been passed to extend the operation of the Statute of 1782 to Ireland." That was the argument on one side. On the other side it was said, "the words 'for or on account of the public service,' are words of wide meaning, and you must so construe them, because you must remember there was a Preamble to this Act of Parliament which said that the Act was passed to secure the freedom and independence of Parliament. You must look at the intention of the Act, and therefore give it a wide interpretation."

These were the opposite views of this case. Then further arguments were raised. It was said again, in the same way, during the hearing of the case, "Suppose a Member of this House were to enter into a contract with a Colonial Government for some service to be performed which undoubtedly would be a public service for that particular Colonial Government. Is that within the meaning of the Statute because the moneys are voted by the Colonial Parliament and not by this Parliament, just in the same way as moneys which would have to be paid on a contract with the Secretary of State for India are not moneys which are voted by this House, but are moneys which are dealt with in India and are not in any way voted by this House of Commons?" It is quite true under the Statute there is always a statement made with reference to revenue and expenditure of India to this House every year relating to the past, but not to prospective revenue and expenditure. In substance it comes to this: Although we get a statement under the particular Act passed in 1858 dealing with Indian affairs, and transferring India from the East India Company to the Crown, although, in consequence of that, we have this corporate body created under the Statute and the Secretary of State brought in, we do not vote the money for India. Nevertheless there is a statement of its past expenditure and receipts made under the Statute to this House. That is all regulated by this particular Statute which was passed in 1858, and it may be is controlled by subsequent Statutes.

The consequence of the argument which was presented on the one side or the other was, as I said, the Court did not pronounce any decision at all. It may not be so clear to many hon. Members as it is to me, but, when there is a great difficulty raised in a case, it is by no means uncommon, and indeed it is not unnatural, for the judges not to decide that difficult point if they can come to a conclusion on some other point which makes it unnecessary for them to decide the difficult point. That is what happened in this case. It became unnecessary for the judges to decide this point of difficulty because on another point they came to quite a clear conclusion. What they did say was this. Mr. Justice. Wills said, with regard to the contract with the Secretary of State for India in Council, the question was one deserving of much consideration, but it—

"might not be useful to express a judicial opinion upon that except in a case where it was necessary to dispose of it. Certainly the impression on my mind at first—and I do not say that that impression has been entirely removed—was that a contract with the Secretary of State for India would be a contract of public service. But I do not think it necessary to express an opinion on that."

Mr. Jnstice Montagu Smith expressed no opinion. Mr. Justice Brett (afterwards Lord Esher) went further and said he was inclined to think that the Secretary of State for India was such an agent of the Government as would bring him within the precise words of the Statute, but he added—

"I quite agree it is not necessary to decide that point, at present."

So there it was left, and that is how it is left up to this particular moment. I only wish to add with reference to it that I should have thought it became quite clear from that, that this House would not attempt to decide against the hon. Member's contention without his having an opportunity of presenting his case before this Select Committee appointed by the House. I only wish to add that it certainly does seem to be a matter which is peculiarly one for lawyers. If the House will look at the terms of the Motion it will be seen that the appointment of a Select Committee is of lawyers, with one qualification, which is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) who may be a little suspicious if he finds himself in that company. Except for that, all are members of my profession. I think it right and proper that that should be so in a case of this kind, which necessarily involves difficult points of law. Perhaps I ought to call the attention of the House to this, that there has been a change in the Motion on the Paper since last night, inasmuch as it is not now asked that I should be appointed a Member of the Committee, but that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General should take my place.

Will you give evidence?

I would not refuse to give evidence at the mere prospect of being cross-examined by the right hon. Gentleman. If he will undertake to cross-examine me I will present myself with alacrity, but, perhaps, with some trepidation. I do not desire to say anything further in regard to this matter, except that I do ask the House to deal with a question of this character, ad it necessarily must, in a perfectly impartial spirit. In dealing with this particular question the House, at any rate, is exercising a judicial function. It has to determine this question, which is really a question of law, but which the House always decides for itself according to the law and according to the best view it is able to form. It is for that purpose that we have thought it right, with the assistance of the Noble Lord (Lord Balcarres), that we should have Members appointed on this Committee who, we think, are eminently fitted to decide a question of this character, and who will bring to bear upon it not only an examination of all the precedents and all the Statutes, but minds which have been trained in the law, and which, no doubt, are capable of giving both legal and judicial interpretation to the question and to the particular Statutes they, may have to construe. I desire to make reference to points that have been raised during the course of this discussion, not in the House, but sometimes outside and sometimes in the Lobbies. It is said, "Why is not this matter referred to a judge and to the Courts of Law?" The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has said it would be better to refer it to a Court of Law because there are questions which eventually a Court of Law may have to decide, and there is nothing in any of the Statutes which makes it imperative upon a Court of Law to come to the same conclusion as a Select Committee of the House of Commons. I quite agree with him. It has always been one of the difficulties which has confronted us, that this House has set up statutory penalties in reference to the disqualification of seats, maintaining, as it always has done, that it is for this House to determine whether the seat is vacant and for the Courts to determine whether or not a penalty has been incurred. That has always been the practice.

If the Attorney-General will look at the Statute, he will see that the penalties cannot be enforced unless the seat is vacated.

I am not disputing that. If the interpretation which the hon. Baronet seeks to give to it by reference to those words is that the seat must first be vacated and that then only the penalty may be imposed, and it is for the House of Commons to determine whether or not the seat should be vacated, there could be no conflict between the House and the Courts. I am far from saying there is no precedent. If it interests him I will certainly give him a reference—in the year 1704, when the House of Lords said very much what I said just now I would not assert too positively. They said it was a matter for the House of Commons to decide whether or not a man was a Member of that House, and it was a matter for the Courts of Law to decide whether a man who claimed to vote was entitled to exercise it or not. The question had arisen and the House of Commons had asserted its privileges, and certainly the view taken by the two Houses was not exactly the same. There were, as was not uncommon in those days, conflicting resolutions passed by the Commons and the Lords upon this subject, into which I will not enter at the present moment, but which will, no doubt, prove a fruitful source of investigation to the hon. Baronet, if he wishes to inquire further. The answer I wish to make is, as I have already said, that it is for the House of Commons, and only for the House of Commons, to decide whether a seat is vacated. In all the battles that have been fought—and they have, been many, as those who have had to study the history of our Constitution know—between the House of Commons and the Courts of Law, with reference to the privileges of the House of Commons, this has not been contested. It has always been asserted and, so far as I know, never been contradicted. Further, if you were to refer a matter of this kind to a Court of Law—I do not say it would not be possible—obviously it is a most inconvenient course. I will tell the House why. A man who might be subjected to very heavy monetary penalties, would be entitled to take his case to the Court of Appeal, and from that to the highest Court of the land. The result would be that considerable time would be lost.

This will not stop it.

I am quite sure the Leader of the Opposition has not quite appreciated the point I am making. I am saying that you ought not to go to a judge, because if you do this considerable time must elapse. I agree that the reference to a Select Committee does not stop it. I will tell you what it does stop. It stops the doubt whether the seat is vacated. That is the question which we have to decide. Whether or not it may be possible to recover penalties is another question.

Is there any doubt about it?

Certainly. I not quite understand the interruption.

What I mean is, is there any doubt that notwithstanding what the decision of this House may be, or the Select Committee may be, that you can sue for penalties, and that, whatever this House decides, the Court can take its own view?

I have already stated, in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, that I quite agree about that.

Then what the doubt was.

The doubt I was expressing was whether he had subjected himself to penalties. That depends upon the answer to the first question. The question of penalties is one which does not concern this House. What we have to do is to determine whether or not the seat is vacated, and if the House considers for a moment what it means it will see that if the House of Commons decides this question it will be decided very quickly. There are no complicated questions of fact to be inquired into to determine whether or not the seat is vacated, and if the answer is in the affirmative an election has to take place. That is a question of a very short time, but if it goes to a Court of Justice obviously a considerable time must elapse before you have the answer.

There is one further suggestion. It has been said that the Law Officers of the down should decide this matter. The Law Officers of the Crown have, of course, to determine a great many points of law, but so far as I know a question of this character has never been determined by the Law Officers of the Crown, and I should have thought it would be quite improper for them to judge this question. They can only express an opinion, and they are not entitled, according to elementary principles of justice, to give a decision adverse to a man without giving that man an opportunity of being heard and presenting his view. They do not sit as a Court. They could not, therefore, hear the arguments, and the only way you can deal with a question of this character is to appoint a Committee. It is quite true, and no doubt all those who have consulted precedent know it is the practice for the Law Officers, or one of them, to sit on that Committee, and that is what is going to take place. I am anxious to make it quite plain, as we have been challenged in regard to this matter, that all that we are doing is to follow what is the practice and procedure of this House, laid down for a very long period, that we are adhering to the precedents of the House of Commons and taking what we believe to be the only right course of asking this House to determine, in its judicial capacity, that question which comes before it for determination, and so answer once and for all whether the seat is to be vacated.

I am sure the House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having gone so fully into this subject, and I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, he has completely convinced me of the proposition with which he opened his remarks, that the case is one of extraordinary complexity. I am not going to deal with the legal question. It is not for me to do so. I am going to point out to the House, from the aspect of our procedure and our etiquette and, above all, of our capabilities, that m my opinion we are about to enter upon a course which may really be fraught with danger. In the first place, I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the two or three sentences of his speech dealing with the motives of the India Council. They have already been very clearly stated both by the hon. Member opposite and by the Secretary of State, and it is really not necessary to go into their motives at the present juncture. But the precedents upon which the right hon. Gentleman has relied are in this matter really not conclusive. The Rothschild precedent is a very unfortunate one. Never has a Committee of the House of Commons been more bamboozled than that Committee was, and the counsel, afterwards a distinguished judge, who represented Baron Lionel Rothschild, actually succeeded in putting the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in two different Lobbies. They completely bamboozled the House of Commons. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear this in mind when he is talking of precedents. Consider the dates. That was in 1855—before the Act of 1868 and the Act of 1885. A great deal has happened since then. Take the Waterlow case. Sir Sydney Waterlow was elected to this House after the redistribution. He came as a Member to the new Parliament which had itself taken the first step in emancipating the House of Commons for its old, but happily abandoned, privilege of saying who shall and who shall not serve in this House. The great scandal—for it was a scandal I suppose—of party Committees in the House of Commons settling whether Members belonging to one or other of these respective parties should or should not sit in this House was after years of controversy abandoned and deliberately abandoned by Parliament because it was said on matters of this kind a party Committee—and all these Committees must be party Committees—is not a proper tribunal to settle a point of that character.

Now the right hon. Gentleman has been able to quote no case since that of Sir Sydney Waterlow. I should think there have been six or eight cases of this character since then. The only one he mentioned was that of Alban Gibbs and Vicary Gibbs. There was doubt in that case on the part of the Members concerned. I state that on my own personal knowledge and responsibility. But they gave to Parliament the benefit of the doubt, and paid the penalty for it. Then there was the law precedent that he quoted about the same date as the Waterlow case, and he says that does not help us, because the four judges concerned did not give a judgment. Of course, that is true. Naturally they did not give a judgment, because the case was withdrawn before any sufficient evidence had been laid before them to enable them to give a judgment. The right hon. Gentleman, I hope, does not contend that if it had been necessary these four judges would not have given the time and trouble to enable them to come to a judgment. Of course they would have done so. It was the mere passing circumstances of the case that made it unnecessary to give that judgment. Since 1869 the tendency of Parliament is to withdraw from Committees composed by us and of us the duty of settling whether such and such a Member is entitled to sit and vote in the House. I know nothing about the law, and never shall—never can. I am dealing with this on a wholly different ground. I do not claim that the right hon. Gentleman himself did not deal with it from the point of view of practical procedure and, if you like to use the word, etiquette. He lives in the law. I live in anything else but the law. He dealt with it from the point of view of the law while I wish to deal with it from another point altogether. I say the whole tendency of Parliament, and it arises spontaneously from Parliament itself, has been to withdraw these cases from the tribunal of the House of Commons. If any Parliamentary Committee ought to have settled this it is not a Select Committee. I think it is the Committee of Privileges. That is the most solemn Committee we ever appoint in this House—so solemn that, so far as I know, the party Whips have nothing to do with it. I was not asked to nominate any of the members of the Committee of Privileges, although two or three Members in this quarter of the House are upon it. I do not know who nominated them. That is the Emergency Committee of the House of Commons. It is set up at the beginning of the Session, and it is not necessary for the Commons to refer any matter, such as has been referred to in this case, to the Committee of Privileges. The Prime Minister is Chairman of that Committee, and if any Committee was to determine this I should have preferred that it should be sent to this Committee by the Prime Minister. He would not have had to consult the House of Commons on the subject. It is a Permanent and an Emergency Committee, and of all Committees I should imagine that is is one of the best qualified to deal with this subject. Hon Members must not forget that the personnel of the Committee of Privileges happens to coincide very largely with the Committee proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

This question was considered when we were determining whether or not the matter should be sent to a Select Committee. One of the reasons why, I thought, it was better to appoint a Select Committee was that you should have more lawyers dealing with what must be a strictly legal question. I think I am right in saying that the lawyers who are members of the Select Committee on this side of the House are also members of the Committee of Privileges, but I do not think that applies equally to hon. Members on the other side.

I will not pursue that subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. None of the four Members nominated on this side are members of the Committee of Privileges. My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, who is a member of the Committee of Privileges, did not desire to serve on this particular Committee

Why?

I am not going to pursue that point. However, I am very glad to know that it has been determined to have an inquiry into the subject. This is a question not of fact, but of law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that they did not send it to the Committee of Privileges because they wanted lawyers on the Select Committee. The facts are not disputed. The hon. Member (Sir Stuart Samuel) is holding a contract to-day, or his firm is. He is a partner of the firm. It is set out in the terms of reference that his firm has "entered into transactions with the Secretary of State for India in Council." I enter into transactions every day with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, but there is no profit. These are not transactions with a Government Department. The word "commission" actually occurs in the Act of 1782.

The word "commission" is used in the Statute in quite a different sense. [An HON. MEMBER: "Profits or commissions."]

It is, perhaps, my own fault if I did not understand the sense in which the word was used. I understood that a contract or agreement for profit was a commission; but I am not going to allow myself to be drawn into a legal argument. I am stating my general view that this is a question of law and not of fact. The facts are undisputed. The Attorney-General made some point of the fact that this was an Indian contract, as opposed to a British contract. The Gibbs-contract was with the Admiralty, and the Waterlow contract was with the Stationery Office. This contract is with the Indian Government, but surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not carried it quite far enough. What is the view of the Indian Government on the subject? The document containing the formal conditions of the contract has already been quoted in the House. They are the conditions of the contracts relating to shipping and railways. The contract is dated 30th April, 1907, and it is signed by an official of the Department. The words in the contract are:—

"By the Act 22, George III., chapter 48, no person who is II Member of the House of Commons is competent, either alone or jointly with any other person, to enter into a contract …"

If no Member of the House of Commons is entitled to deal in railways or shipping or to sell coal to the India Office without surrendering his seat, how can it be contended that a Member of the House is entitled to sell silver? The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not contest that.

lam not expressing an opinion. There are two views.

There is only one view at the India Office. I presume the India Office must apply to all articles they buy from traders the conditions applied in relation to railways, coal, and timber. But that is a question of interpreting the law, and I submit it is not one that should be put on the House of Commons. The Prime Minister stated in the House the other day that the Attorney-General had been unable to give an opinion.

No.

We gathered from the Prime Minister's statement that the matter had been submitted to the Attorney-General, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was one of great complexity, and that he had not given art opinion. If I go to my solicitor and say, "Here I am in trouble," he would not say, "It is a difficult case; I wish fifteen men to talk about it." I say we are entitled to have the Attorney-General's opinion. He is asked for his opinion; he is not asked for a verdict or a judgment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who is leader of the Bar, says he cannot give an opinion. How awkward the circumstances might become—

The matter was referred to me by the Prime Minister in the same manner as I have dealt with it now. I examined the question, and I then advised that in my view this was not a question for the Law Officers of the Crown, but one for a Select Committee. Therefore I expressed no opinion.

The Prime Minister said it was a matter of great doubt. The Attorney-General has proved to us that in his mind it is a matter of doubt. What I submit is, on a normal view of the duty of the Attorney-General, he is asked to give his opinion. If he gives his opinion he may append the statement, "I am not sure that my opinion will stand, but here is my opinion." The right hon. and learned Gentleman says he is not a Court. Of course he is not a Court. If he were a Court he would be asked to give his judgment, but as, he is not a Court he is asked to give his opinion. A similar case might arise of the unexpected seizure of a British ship by a nonbelligerent Power at the present juncture, and it might be very awkward if the Law Officer of the Crown could not give an opinion. If the Law Officer of the Crown cannot give an opinion, it is no use asking the House of Commons to make up his mind for him. The Attorney-General has recently become a Member of the Cabinet. He has lost his independence by so doing. There is only one man in the world who, I consider, has a right to say to me, "Good heavens, what a fool you have made of yourself!" That is my solicitor. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the doctor?"] Lots of other people do it. I take it in good part and sometimes profit by their remarks, but I never admit their right to say so. Up to now the Attorney-General has been the father, in law, to the Government and to every Department of the State. He has been entitled to say to the Admiralty, the Board of Education, the War Office, and the Treasury, "You must not do this; you are making a fool of yourself; you are going to do something which is foolish or dangerous." I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is now no longer the legal father of the Cabinet. He is the junior and subordinate partner in the firm. I read to-day in a very distinguished paper, which is quite neutral in politics—the "Jewish Chronicle" or the "Jewish World"—that the reason that this Committee has been appointed is to hold up this question—

dissented.

In order to prevent the vacation of the seat at the earliest possible moment. If that is so, surely it would be very much better if the right hon. Gentleman, as Attorney-General, were advising the Cabinet, not as a colleague, but purely and simply as legal adviser. I do not make that point in any hostile spirit, but it has occurred to me as one which ought not to be overlooked. No Committee is really needed for this matter at all. This is a good Committee as things go. The Prime Minister is not on it because he is a great lawyer, but because he is Leader of the House of Commons. The Attorney-General is not going to serve as was proposed yesterday; the Solicitor-General is going to serve instead. I wonder if he gave any opinion on the subject?

I ought to say that he agreed with me. I do not wish to enter into any personal explanation as to why my name does not appear here; but the sole reason is that I have so much public work that it is impossible for me to give proper attention to it and serve on this Committee.

That is a most material point, but I thought it also applied to the Prime Minister. It certainly applies to the four Members in this quarter of the House who are going to sit on the Commttee, and they would not have been able to serve had it not been for the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, who has arranged that this Committee shall sit at five or some time after five in the afternoon. The Prime Minister is not put on this Committee qua great lawyer, no more is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Eugene Wason). He is put on because he is Chairman of the Scottish Liberal party. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) is put on not as a lawyer but as Chairman of the Labour party. These are excellent appointments no doubt, but nobody can tell me that any decision given by this Committee is one that can possibly hope to command the confidence of this House or the country as compared with the judicial and due interpretation of the Statute by judges in the High Court. If we take upon ourselves the duty of giving judgment it is equally incumbent upon us to enforce the verdict. This Committee is not in a position to give any authoritative judgment upon this subject. Our decision, I grant, will be given as the right hon. Gentleman says he expected it to be given in our judicial capacity—whatever that may be, goodness only knows; I do not. It binds nobody, it does not bind any hon. Member in any quarter of the House. If this Committee says unanimously that the hon. Baronet is not entitled to sit in this House, that will not prevent him from doing so if he pleases. If it says unanimously that the hon. Baronet is entitled to maintain his seat in the House that will not prevent any Member in this House from spying strangers whenever he takes his seat or challenging his vote whenever he gives it in the Division Lobby. Above all, it will not prevent any man who likes from bringing an action before the Court, and the Court in this matter, as in every other matter will pay no attention to what is said in the House of Commons and will determine the question solely by its own interpretation of the laws.

I think the modern applications of this law are ridiculous. If I own a million pounds in a company out of a capital of £1,100,000, I can sell everything that I possess to the Government and that does not vacate my seat. If, on the other hand, I am a partner in a firm to the extent of £100 and the capital is a million pounds I may not sell coals to the Admiralty. That is ridiculous, and is on a par with our antiquated law that the Government of the day is not able to select for officers the members whom it considers best qualified to serve in these offices, without taking into account the number of votes which that Member has secured at the last General Election. It is ridiculous, grotesque, obsolete and ought to be done away with, and this law of George III. equally ought to be subject to revision. I wish that hon. Members opposite agreed about the election of Members taking office under the Crown. Unfortunately they do not. [HON. MEMDERS: "We do."] My personal opinion is that a Committee ought to be appointed not to interpret the law, but to suggest revision and amendment of the law. But the procedure of this Committee is not going to be as the right hon. Gentleman said so much more expeditious than the procedure of the Courts. We have had this before us for a fortnight. The Rothschild Committee sat for eight days. This Committee will sit for three or four days—we do not know how many. Then it has got to make its report and to agree to it and then it has to report to this House. It is not going to be so expeditious. The procedure, in my opinion, is not satisfactory, and I do not think that it will command general confidence.

I come, in conclusion, just to one suggestion which I make with hesitation, because it deals with a question of law. Why should not this question be taken to the Courts forthwith? The Attorney-General has merely got to bring a friendly action—and we know it to be a friendly action by the Law Officers—against the hon. Member to recover any sum you please, say, £100, for having voted against the provisions of this Statute. I think that could well be possible. The Attorney-General is in the Cabinet, the Lord Chancellor is in the Cabinet, and it is inconceivable to me that the case could not be brought forward in the Courts and settled in the Courts long before this Select Committee will have reported. This Committee will not sit until Monday next to choose its Chairman and settle its course of procedure, and it will meet on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and so on. I am making a suggestion which may have some technical objection to it, but the objection would be far less if an action were to be brought against the hon. Member to recover a penalty or damages. With the influence of the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers, an action could be expedited, I am certain, in the public interest. It could be discussed on Monday, and at Question Time on Tuesday t dare say we would have the verdict of the Court, a verdict which would count, and the only verdict which would count on this matter. I may be wrong as to the number of days required, but if it is necessary for the Court to take more than two or three days, still an authoritative decision would be obtained, and such a decision is the only one worth having, while you may be sure that a Select Committee is going to last a fortnight or three weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister were here I would appeal to him, not as Prime Minister, but as Leader of the House, to bear in mind that this is not a matter of mere technical procedure based on precedents that have been exercised for forty-five years, and so forth, but really a fundamental matter which does affect the status and prestige of this House, and of individual Members of this House. The one thing we really ought to do is to make it clear to ourselves and the public that we are not proceeding in a dilatory manner, that we are not going to give a decision which cannot be authoritative, but that we are anxious that this matter should be submitted, and promptly submitted, to the only tribunal which is competent to give a verdict.

My Noble Friend has stated exactly what is in my mind, and, if I may be allowed, I would like to emphasise the appeal he has made. There is no one, I am sure, in this House who does not feel that whether it is in accordance with precedent or not the principle is a thoroughly bad one. When I was asked whether I would serve on this Committee, and the Noble Lord mentioned that the Prime Minister would serve, I said at once that I would not do so, mainly for the reason that it is entirely a question of law, and should be decided by lawyers. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General has said so himself. He said it was a question of law; and I do put it to the House that, if he and the Solicitor-General are not able to give an opinion upon it, how in the world can they expect that a Committee such as is to be appointed can give an opinion! But there is far more than that involved. Anyone interested in the history of this House and in the decision of questions precisely the same as this—and the Attorney-General has referred to some of them—must know that nothing can be worse for this House than to take up a position where it can even be supposed that party interests are involved, and still more when nothing can be done which could be binding upon us. If this Committee decides the question, it will not carry conviction, because obviously it is a party Committee, and however anxious they are to give, a judicial verdict, even if they did give a judicial verdict, the composition of the Committee would prevent it from carrying the confidence which it ought to carry.

I do appeal to the Attorney-General, and, if the Prime Minister were here, I would renew the appeal my Noble Friend has made. Precedents are very good, and it is because the Government are acting in accordance with precedent that we have decided not to oppose the appointment of this Committee if they go on. I have said precedents are good, but, after all, it is far more important to have the thing done in the way which is best in the interest of the House of Commons. In principle I do not think the Attorney-General will dispute that what this Committee has to do is to decide a question which is precisely similar to the question of whether or not a Member has been properly elected, a question which long ago this House decided should be referred to the Courts. It is a question which ought not to be settled by this House.

So far from that being the case, if the question arises, where a Member accepts an office of profit under the Crown, the procedure is exactly the same; you do not go to the Court, but the matter is referred to a Select Committee, and the penalty follows just in the same way.

I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. I am not looking at it from the technical point of view, but I look at it as a question of principle. The sole question here is whether or not the Member is entitled to keep his seat. The objection applies equally in this case as in the others. Would it not be far better, if possible, and I think it is possible, to make whatever arrangements are necessary to have this question submitted to the Courts of Law in the quickest possible way? If you do so, it will settle the question for all time, and we will not have it constantly coming before the House of Commons, with the danger of decisions being arrived at under party conditions. I do not wish in the least to regard this matter from a party point of view. There is no question of a party point of view with me, because if the Committee gives a decision, obviously the Courts could be applied to, but I do say, in the interests of the House, that we ought now to set up a precedent more in conformity with the dignity of this House, and which the House will be able always to carry out.

I am really astonished, after the speech of my Noble Friend, who occupies a prominent position on the Front Bench, and after the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, that not a single Member on the Treasury Bench has risen to reply.

I was about to rise, but I thought the Debate was going to be carried on.

I did not intend to continue the Debate, because I thought the case was so extremely well put by my Noble Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that it was not necessary to do so, but as, during the course of the Debate, I saw that an hon. Member below the Gangway is apparently under the impression that this is not a party Committee, may I point out that there is a majority of the Liberal party on this Committee. If, on the other hand, there had been a majority of supporters of the Opposition, hon. Members opposite would have been quite entitled to say that this was a party Committee, just as Members on this side of the House are now entitled to say this is a party Committee. You cannot have a Select Committee which is not a party Committee. I do not care who appoints it, whether it is one appointed by my right hon. Friend or one appointed by the Prime Minister, there must be a majority of one party or the other on the Committee, and, under these circumstances, the Committee must be of a party character. I am not imputing any object to hon. Members, but it remains that the outside public, knowing that there is a majority of one party on the Committee, will look upon the decision as a party decision. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is going to answer, will endeavour to meet this particular point. The decision of this Committee, whatever it may be, is not binding and will not be binding. Consequently, the hon. Member will be very ill-advised if he sits in this House after the decision of the Committee and takes part in the Debates in this House. That is a point which, from our point of view, is probably a good one. The hon. Member must be perfectly well aware that after the decision of the Committee, if it is in his favour, it is absolutely certain some one will bring an action in a Court of Law. When that action is decided, the opinion of this Committee will be of no value and carry no weight, and the seat will be vacated if the Court of Law says it should be vacated. The question with regard to the different precedents which have been raised, I venture to say, does not bear on this case. In the Rothschild case, Lord Rothschild stated it was impossible for him to enter into a contract for a loan because they thought it could not begin unless the House of Commons had decided there should be a loan, and therefore they had not entered into a contract with the House of Commons, and it was a contract that did not come within the meaning of the Act. That is a very highly technical legal point which does not arise in this case. In the case of Sir Sydney Waterlow, he had terminated his connection with the firm, which the hon. Baronet has not done. I do think that in the interests of everybody the suggestion of my right hon. Friend ought to be carried out. It is really in the interests of this House that people should not think that we are endeavouring to shield one of our Members by setting up a Committee which is a party Committee, and which will be biassed in favour of that particular Member. Therefore I hope that the arguments, which appear to me to be unanswerable, will have convinced the right hon Gentleman.

I ought perhaps to repeat that the reason why I did not get up immediately was not in any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Noble Lord. I would also like to say I do not think this is as easy to decide as one would imagine at first sight. I was very much attracted with the suggestion made by the Noble Lord when the thing was first considered. I thought there was a good deal to be said for it—that is, a judicial decision upon a matter which is purely one of law—as, of course, the facts are not in dispute in the slightest degree. The Government did not adopt that course for the reasons that have been stated by my right hon. Friend. The first reason was the reason of delay. I am only repeating what he said, but inasmuch as the point has been raised I would point out that if you had an action I am not sure whether that would be the best form of procedure. My right hon. and learned Friend says that there is great objection to that particular method of obtaining the decision of the Court. At the same time it is merely a technical matter, and there are methods undoubtedly by which the Law Officers could obtain a judicial decision upon a question of this moment. So therefore that is purely a technical point. Let us assume that a method which commends itself to the judgment of the Law Officers has been discovered of obtaining the decision of the Court and what would happen. In the first case it would come before a judge of the King's Bench, I think; he would give a decision. If it was against the Crown, would the Crown necessarily accept that?

If it is against the Member?

If it is against the view presented by the Noble Lord, would the Crown necessarily accept it, for it is a question of very great moment indeed? On the other hand, if it is against the Member, is he bound to accept it? I do not wish to say anything about it I have no doubt that who the particular judge was who gave the decision would have something to do with the weight of the judgment which was delivered. The Member probably would be advised to take his case to the Court of Appeal. May I say, as far as the hon. Member is concerned, he is not merely ready but willing to resign his seat, but he was strongly advised by his legal advisers not to do so on the ground that it was by no means clear that he had infringed the Statute. In fact, he did obtain the opinion of very distinguished counsel that he had not infringed it, and that was the reason it was not done. He would probably go to the Court of Appeal.

Is he present?

He is not in the House; he is awaiting whatever the House decides. After the decision of the Court he would probably go to the Court of Appeal, and supposing that the Court of Appeal took a different view, is the Member to be precluded from taking the case to the House of Lords? All that obviously involves considerable delay. The Noble Lord, I take it, from what he said, has very little experience—

made a remark which was inaudible.

That does not inconvenience the constituency. After all, until it is decided, this constituency is disfranchised.

The constituency is not disfranchised. Until the decision of the Court has been got the hon. Member is entitled to be in his place; but on the other hand hon. Members are entitled to challenge him.

I do not doubt at all that whilst the matter was subject to adjudication in the Courts the Member would be advised by his lawyers, certainly not to take part in any proceeding of the House, because he would be liable to a fine of £500 per day for doing so. Therefore, I have no doubt it would be much wiser for him not to put in an appearance. The Noble Lord who admitted that he had no experience of litigation, and I congratulate him on the absence of experience from what I know of litigation, said that this could be decided in a very short time. I think he rather suggested it might go to the Court on Monday, and that you could have a decision on Tuesday. That is not the way it is done in this country, not by any means. On the contrary the solicitor will want a considerable time to prepare his brief and counsel will want some time to look up precedents. It would certainly take some time and the arguments would take some time; the Court might wish some time to deliberate; that is all going to take a long time. If the judgment is against the Crown, what would be said? Here is an action practically for penalties which have run up to forty or fifty thousand pounds. What would be said of the Law Officers if they were to appear before the Courts and judgment went against them? Something has been said about party; the right hon. Gentleman very fairly said he did not suggest there was any party in it. From what one has seen and the readiness to comment upon matters of that kind, I have no doubt there would be suggestions that there was collusive action and that the case had not been pressed before the Court.

We cannot hear a word here. Speak up.

I have to address the Chair. Therefore you have two points: First, that it might be suggested that the action was a collusive one, and had not been properly pressed; and, secondly, that it would take a considerable time, because the subject would have the right to go to the ultimate Court of Appeal, which is the House of Lords, and the House of Lords would have to decide whether a Member of the House of Commons could sit in this House or not. In the ordinary course that would take a year; but the matter might be expedited in this case, and it would not take a year. But it would certainly take a long time, and that would be unfair to the constituency, which has a right to a decision and a prompt decision. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a party Committee whose decision will carry no weight. But I understood the Noble Lord to say that his view was that the Law Officers ought to decide. Would not that be subject to exactly the same comment?

The Law Officers never decide. They can only offer an opinion. I stated in my speech that I should attach more value to the Attorney-General's opinion if it was given merely as a Law Officer than if it were given as a colleague of Members of the Cabinet.

That would be an opinion delivered without hearing the other side. That surely would not be fair upon a matter which involves not merely the presence of a Member in this House, but ultimately a question of £40,000 or £50,000 in the way of penalties. What the Noble Lord says is that while he might take the opinion of the Law Officer given without hearing the other side, he would not attach the same weight to that opinion if it were given by the Law Officer as a Member of the Committee before whom the case had been argued on both sides. That is a position which cannot be maintained. After all, if it is to be said that the opinion of a Committee of this House has no weight because there is a party majority upon it, that applies to every Committee of this House. All the Committees are party Committees, and the Government in power always has a majority.

Those Committees do not decide questions affecting the Government.

Everything affects the Government. Take the South Africa Committee, on which there was a party majority. That dealt with a matter which most vitally affected the Government. There never has been a question submitted to a Committee which more vitally affected the Government of the day which appointed the Committee. Take the Committee of Privileges. I do not know the composition of it, but I think that the party in power for the time being has a majority. There you have dealt with questions affecting the Government far more vitally than the question with which we are now dealing. Every Committee deals with some business which may vitally affect some interests of the Government, and as long as you have the party system these Committees will be party Committees. When the right hon. Gentleman says that their decisions do not carry weight I do not agree with him. I have not the faintest doubt that when the matter is argued before this Committee there will not be a party division on it. I am perfectly certain that these distinguished lawyers from both sides of the House who will sit on the Committee will put themselves in a judicial position and decide the question judicially, and I am sure they will decide it much more promptly than it would be decided if it were referred to the Law Courts.

^*But the decision is in no way binding.

The right hon. Gentleman says you are not getting a decision. But you are getting a decision on the only question that concerns this House. That question is whether a Member has vacated his seat or not; whether he has a right to sit and vote here. That is the question which concerns the House. The question which concerns the general public is, after all, one to be decided by the Law Courts.

The Member cannot sit here until that is decided.

Of course he can.

At his own peril.

He can do that now.

At his own peril. That is quite true. But he will have a decision of the House of Commons and of this Committee, and it will be for him to decide, having that decision before him, whether he will continue to sit. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General informs me that there is no case on record where the Law Courts have decided and given an opinion contrary to that given by a Committee of the House of Commons.

What about Wilkes and Bradlaugh?

I mean on this particular question. That shows that, so far from being treated as party questions, they have always been treated on their merits, as the interpretation of a Statute by a Committee of lawyers in this House. We are following the precedents which have been set before us. We have heard a great deal recently about our violating the traditions of this House. The charge against us now is that we are keeping those traditions. We have followed every precedent that has been set in this matter. If we had taken the course which we have been invited to take by the Noble Lord, it would have been a departure from every precedent established in this matter. In every case the precedent has been justified by the result.

That is really not true. Take the Bradlaugh case.

The Bradlaugh case is totally different. It decided a great religious controversy.

Whether he had a right to vote.

I quite agree, but it was decided on a totally different basis. It was not the interpretation of a Statute of this kind by a Committee of lawyers. Everybody knows that the question excited great religious and sectarian feelings, and when you come to a question of that sort Committees of the House of Commons are not above prejudice. That is the real reason why we have not been able to accept the suggestion. It is a very very serious matter for the House of Commons to say that it is going to part with its right to the Law Courts to decide questions of this kind. Up to the present we have maintained this right. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have parted with it as far as election petitions are concerned. That is a totally different matter. A great deal that has happened recently has made some people doubt whether, after all, the change in that respect is such a great improvement. It is by no means an accepted success.

There is a difference of opinion on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yarmouth," "Nottingham," "Exeter."]

The judges are always in your favour.

Let us see what that question was. You had a Committee of the House of Commons sitting to hear petitions, and to hear evidence between rival party agents, the Conservative agents swearing one thing, the Liberal agents swearing another. They were full of party bias. Even the witnesses were strong party men, giving evidence upon party questions as to what party committees and party organisations had done. I agree that there is a good deal to be said in favour of withdrawing from Committees of the House of Commons the power to decide questions of that kind. But that is a totally different matter to this. The facts are admitted here. There is nothing here that involves any party question at all, or any partisanship. It is to lay down the interpretation of a Statute upon accepted facts. We have not to consider whether we are to take the evidence of the hon. Member for Whitechapel: whether we can accept his statements. That I agree to be in some respects a very difficult thing for a Committee of the House of Commons to decide. Party bias might come in. Really it is here only a question of interpretation. Taking into account the desirability of having a rapid decision, taking into account the precedents of the past, and taking into account the undesirability of the House of Commons parting with its rights to any judicial tribunal in the matter of declaring who shall and who shall not be a Member of this House, I think the Government have come to a right conclusion.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has come to the conclusion that he has done. I think I can show the House in a very few minutes that the reasons he gives are really not conclusive at all in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman wound up his speech by saying that there was nothing here to be decided but the interpretation of Statutes —a pure point of law, nothing else ! He really says to the House that the best tribunal to decide a pure point of law is a Committee partly of laymen and partly of the lawyers in this House. I submit that that very statement really shows that the right hon. Gentleman has not applied his mind in any wise to solving this question. Everybody knows that there is only one tribunal which can decide the interpretation of a Statute properly, and that is a Court of Law. Everybody knows perfectly well that in any tribunal meeting in this House there may be partisanship on both sides; and even though they be lawyers, they know perfectly well that it is the very worst tribunal you could get to decide a point of law. If it was something affecting the honour and dignity of this House, something affecting the privileges of this House, of which this House is the natural judge and custodian, then I think a Committee is probably the proper and only tribunal. In that case the matter ends when the Committee has decided, and the House has really adopted what the Committee has done. The whole vice of what the right hon. Gentleman insists upon doing in this case is that after the Committee has met and after they—the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leicester, and the hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Scottish Badicals—have given their solemn judicial interpretation to this legal statute, and after the Committee has probably been divided in opinion as to their interpretation every thing remains exactly as it was. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Member whose seat is in question in this House took the opinion of his own lawyer, an eminent lawyer no doubt, and that he was told that he was rightly in possession of his seat, but that there was a doubt—that it was arguable. I do not know. But assuming that the hon. Member has got the opinion of an eminent and unbiased lawyer, why does not he come here and act upon that opinion and vote? It is as good an opinion as the opinion of the Committee would be. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Far better. Because it is simply the opinion of a lawyer asked with out any reference to politics whatsoever, unbiassed by politics. Everybody knows when a lawyer is asked an opinion upon these points, the question of whether it pleases or displeases his clients never enters his head. Therefore, he has got the opinion of an eminent lawyer, unbiassed by politics or by partisanship, and he does not dare to come and vote in this House! When the Committee nominated from the party—

What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying conveys quite a wrong view as to the attitude of the hon. Member in question. Let me say in regard to his appearances here, I was asked the question at the outset, as to whether he was entitled to come to the House, and vote, and take part. My view—rightly or wrongly—was that so long as this House had not decided he ought not to sit or vote. That is the view I expressed, and that is the reason he has not come.

Purely a question of etiquette?

I did not think it was right.

Let me proceed. When this Committee of politicians of both sides has Bat to interpret the Statutes, assuming that they have divided opinions when they give their opinion, will it be safe then for the hon. Baronet to come and vote in this House? Of course it would not be safe. You will have opinions on each side. Would it be even decent for him to come and vote in this House? If there is any doubt, by a division of opinion upon the Committee, and if unfortunately the division was in accordance with political opinion—I am not saying it would be, but assuming it turned out that way—does anybody say that in the first place the hon. Member would venture to come here, and in the second place that he ought to come when it was doubtful whether he is really a Member of Parliament or not? The thing really becomes an absurdity. Pray do look at the contest you may get; a contest which from the time of Wilkes to the time of Mr. Bradlaugh, has brought this House into collision with the Courts. According to my reading of history it has always been worst for the House; certainly for the dignity of the House. What happens? The hon. Member incurs £500 for every vote he gives. I believe he has incurred £45,000 fines up to the present time.

What will happen? The matter will go to the Courts and everybody knows the Courts will not pay the slightest attention to what has been done in this House. What has been done here will not be allowed to be referred to even in the Courts. Assuming that the Courts, in the interpretation of the Statute, hold that the hon. Member is not a Member of this House at all, would not this House be in an absolutely ridiculous position in trying to save a Member from having to go to election by setting up a Committee which held something to be legal which was illegal? Anything more ridiculous I cannot imagine. When the right hon. Gentleman tells ns that this is in accordance with precedent, I say that the precedents he has given us are not very satisfactory ones. There have certainly not been any precedents of recent years, for what has been done in cases which we ourselves remember? If there was a doubt arising as to the hon. Members' seats they gave up their seats, and allowed an election. That happened not merely in the case of Messrs. Gibbs, but it happened also in the case of the present Judge Rentoul. When he was appointed there was a grave doubt about whether the appointment, being under a corporation, did not necessitate a vacancy. The issue being in doubt, as in all doubtful matters, one expects when there is a doubt narrowly weighed on one side or the other as to whether the man is or is not a Member of this House, that the natural thing for the Member to say is: "I do not want to stand here in any doubtful position, and I am prepared to resign my seat," and that is why this question has not arisen in recent years in an acute form.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put this solely on the question of delay. I think he is quite wrong. I think he will find, for the reason I have stated, that he is taking the very longest course, because I think he will find, when this matter comes to be threshed out, assuming that the Committee holds that the seat has not been vacated—of course, if they hold it is vacated the matter is over—but assuming that they hold it is not vacated—and there is the opinion of the India Office in their contract that it does come in, because they have put a provision upon their contract under the tenth Section of this very Act of Parliament—the matter will then go to the Law Courts, and you will find the hon. Gentleman will never take his seat so long as there is an action pending for penalties, until it is decided in the Law Courts; and in the long run there will be more time lost and more discredit attaching to this House for keeping the matter going on in that way. Let me examine the statement about delay. The right hon. Gentleman said this matter would first have to go before a judge, and that a great deal would depend upon whom the judge was as to whether the matter would go further. If this ease is to be decided in the Law Courts upon the interpretation of a Statute, and if it goes to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords, does not that emphasise the absurdity of sending it to be tried by a political Committee set up by this House? Could anything be more ridiculous? And then the right hon. Gentleman says it would be taken through these various Courts of Appeal and up to the House of Lords. I ask the right hon. Gentleman is it not time to put an end to that kind of procedure?

What kind of procedure?

The kind of procedure you are setting up here, and, if you please, of the difficulties and delay of the Law Courts. There is an easy way in which it could be determined, and I think a satisfactory way, by passing a one-Clause Bill that the matter should be referred to the Privy Council. That would be a very simple measure and it would be applicable to all future cases. Recollect that one of the powers you have as regards constitutional questions with all your Colonies is, that a mere reference on a sheet of paper may be made at any time to the Privy Council for their opinion upon any question of law that may be put before them. It is a most valuable provision and prevents delay. You hon. Gentlemen sitting in the Privy Council entirely removed from politics, who consider these questions as great constitutional questions, and there could be nothing better than this tribunal for trying this and all future cases of a similar kind under the Statute, and I venture to think if the right hon. Gentleman desired to do that it would not take an hour in this House to get a Bill through, because it is so apparent that you cannot have these two jurisdictions, the futile jurisdiction of this House and the absolute determination of the Courts running side by side without bringing about a collision which must be disastrous to this House. I hope it is not yet too late to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have this matter further considered.

I do not know whether I shall be in order in moving an Amendment to this Resolution, but I wish to make an observation or two with reference to the discussion which has taken place here today. I am sure so far as ordinary lay Members of the House are concerned, we are not anxious in any way whatever that there should be any delay in reference to decisions relating to the matter under discussion. I most decidedly hope that instead of allowing anyone to escape who has anything to do with these matters and appears to have made surreptitious profits out of contracts and matters of that description, the Committee will do everything it possibly can to prevent a continuance of that practice. So far as the public are conceried, and so far as ordinary lay Members of this House are concerned, they view with grave alarm the practice which has introduced itself into this country, and not nearly so much into this country as into others, but still one can see it here, of the directors of railway companies or company promoters or Government contractors for public works using influence in connection with such contracts, and it may be taken for granted that if it is the real object of the Government to hit that sort of thing, they will have the full co-operation of every lay Member of the House behind them. I think myself, where there is the slightest suspicion that the business affairs of a man, or his own personal emoluments depend upon something in this House, so that he is likely to use any influence in this House for the purpose of bolstering up any concern with which he is financially connected, it should be made perfectly clear that that is something that is contrary to the rules and regulations of this House. It is surprising to outsiders that there should be this set made upon one particular man while others are not taken into account, and, therefore, now, when a situation of this description comes up to be decided, I should have wished that this thing should not be dealt with piecemeal, but that we should have some de finite regulation and that this Select Committee should have an opportunity of going into the whole subject, not merely of this case, but of every case. That there are such cases there cannot be the slightest doubt. Even last night a certain Gentle man got up, in a certain place in this House, when the subject of a particular kind of monopoly was under discussion—

I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of the Resolution before the House.

The Resolution raises the question of whether a Member has vacated his seat by holding a contract made with the Government.

The point which my hon. Friend has put has been engaging our serious attention. The reason why we did not deal with it in this Motion was, first of all, that we did not think it would be in order; and, secondly, it was thought that by so doing it would take a longer time before we got a decision, and it might be thought that we were trying to postpone a decision upon this question. I quite agree that it is a matter which must be considered.

I am delighted to hear that explanation, because it is clear that others are thinking the same as we are on this point. After all, the question whether a man is entitled to be influenced, or should place himself in a position where he is likely to be influenced in this way in the transaction of the business of the nation by some personal interest, is a matter of great importance, and on these benches we consider it of such great importance that we should like the subject specially considered. I want it to be understood that on these benches, at any rate, we do not wish to stretch a point in this case, and I hope everything will be done by the Committee to tighten the matter up, and if there is a ghost of a chance of turning a man out for any part he has taken in any contract, for heaven's sake let us stretch a point and turn him out. We want that principle applied all round, so that we can be sure that our business here is being carried on by men who have no personal interest in contracts with the Government. I intended to move an Amendment, but after the observations which have fallen from the Chair I am doubtful whether it will be in order. The Amendment I wish to propose is to insert, after the word "consider," the words "the question of the position of any Member of this House who may be a director of a public company, or a partner in a firm which makes a contract with any Government Department." If that is in order I shall have great pleasure in moving it.

The hon. Member has rightly anticipated my decision. I cannot accept this Amendment, because it is outside the scope of the Motion before the House, which is an ad hoc one.

May I submit that it is really part of the same problem, because if the hon. Member in question had chosen to turn his business into a private limited company, he might still have retained the same interest as he has got now as a partner, and he would not have been liable. We cannot consider this question in all its bearings unless we can call attention to the fact that an hon. Member who participates in a contract to the same extent being a member of the firm, is liable, and when it is a limited firm, although it may be a one-man company, he is not liable. I submit that that point is not out of order.

The Motion before the House is not one under which this question can be considered in all its bearings, because it deals only with the question of the action of the hon. Member. Such a question as that which has been put to me must be raised by a separate Motion.

Will the Attorney-General take into consideration the suggestion I have made to consider this matter on some future occasion.

I certainly will. The matter has been engaging our attention, and it is worth while considering it as soon as we can deal with the matter. I think some alteration ought to be made which will work a little more fairly all round.

The remarks made by the hon. Member for Stoke remind me of some aspect of this case which has been overlooked. When we are considering the best course to adopt in a case like this, surely it is only fair to the House to consider the position of the hon. Member whose seat is imperilled. Apart from the question of precedent, can there be any doubt at all that from the point of view of the hon. Member whose seat is endangered a judicial tribunal would be best, because it would only act when conclusive proof is brought forward. I think that would be a fairer, better, and more desirable tribunal than one consisting of hon. Members of this House, who would be deeply concerned to preserve the prestige of this House even at the cost of individual Members. A Select Committee is not desirable even from the point of view of the hon. Member in question. It is interesting to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer justifying this course as the Attorney-General did on the ground of precedent. It certainly is the case that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not always so slavish in their adherence to precedent, but precedents of this sort are only in relation to the particular conduct and the particular matters of this House, and they are a small thing particularly when the departure from precedent adds to the prestige of the House. I do not dispute that there are precedents, but there is not one in all the records I have been able to find where a pure point of law was referred to a Select Committee. That point cannot be emphasised too much. We have been told that there is no question of fact in dispute. The hon. Member for the Whitechapel Division of the Tower Hamlets is a member of this firm, which has entered into a contract with the Government, and the only question is was that a contract for the public service? There is no precedent for the appointment of the Select Committee of this House to determine a question of law. You have here all the facts admitted and nothing but a pure question of law, and you are asking a mixed Committee of laymen and lawyers to arrive at a conclusion which the Attorney-General and his colleague the Solicitor-General themselves find perplexing. The more difficult the point of law, the more serious the perplexity, the worse tribunal a Select Committee of this House becomes. It is precisely in such a case that you should depart from precedent. It is not, however, a departure from precedent that matters of this sort should be considered by a Court of Law. I do not say it is contrary to precedent, except in the sense I have mentioned, that it should be considered by a Select Committee of the House itself.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the objection that there might be a difference of opinion among the judges. That is a very unworthy observation; and it is one that can carry no weight. It is an observation that applies to every form of action and every action taken in any Court of the country. As long as human nature is human nature you are not going to get questions of mixed law and fact, certainly not questions of law, inevitably determined the same way by different men. It is not an argument for not having recourse to the Courts, though it might be an argument for extinguishing the Courts altogether. The right hon. Gentleman also said it might be suggested the action was collusive in character. I do not think he need have any apprehension on that score, considering it is from this side of the House the suggestion has emanated and been pressed that the determination should be in legal form. I think the right hon. Gentleman may say no one who disagrees with him, however profoundly, is going to suggest there would be any impropriety or collusion. The only other question raised was that of loss of time resulting from going from Court to Court. That is applicable to any case in any Court, and therefore in principle affords no answer. It still less affords an answer when you bear in mind the fact that you do get a decision from the first Court, and a decision on which the hon. Member could safely act, even if afterwards it was reversed, whereas by the course you are taking he cannot safely act until there has been all this prolonged legal discussion hereafter, because a Select Committee not only does not decide for the time being, and is not only subject to appeal, but it does not decide at all. It does not decide even for the purposes of this House whether the Member is entitled to retain his seat or not. Therefore, by taking this course, you not only do not get a decision, but you hold the eventual decision in suspense, and, however long the attainment of that decision may be, you by that length of time increase the suspense before you can get the matter finally settled. I should have thought the fact that a Select Committee cannot determine this question is good ground against this course being taken. Nothing would be easier, on the contrary, than for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to the Courts and ask for a declaration that the seat is vacated by reason of certain facts. The facts are admitted, a legal argument would ensue, and you would at once get on the claim for a declaration a decision of the Court. Surely that would be a far more prompt, definite, decisive, and desirable way of solving a difficult question of law than by referring it to a Committee of this character.

Two points have to be borne in mind with regard to the case to which the Attorney-General made reference. First of all, that case was in the old days before this Clause prohibiting contracts with Members of Parliament was included in the India Office form. There was no such Clause in that case, and there was no decision at all upon it. Three judges decided the case upon other and different grounds, but this, at any rate, is to be found. Of those three judges one definitely expressed the opinion that action similar to the action in the present case was within the mischief of the Act and was in relation to the public service; the second judge expressed the impression that it was equally within the mischief of the Act; and the third judge did not express an opinion at all. Therefore, so far as that case goes, you get one definite and one less definite expression of opinion both adverse to the position of the lion. Member for Tower Hamlets. If there is a doubt, and it can only be a vague doubt, the preponderance of doubt must be against the hon. Member in face of that particular case. You have also the case where it was expressly decided that the position of the standing counsel for the Secretary of State for India in Council was an office under the Crown, and, if it is decided that an office of that sort is held under the Crown, it must almost inevitably follow that a contract in rela- tion to silver for India must be a contract for public service. I think the case which decided that office was an office-under the Crown carries with it the necessary corollary that silver bought or sold for the Government of India is silver bought or sold for the public service, and, if that is so, the point is definitely determined against the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets.

One cannot help expressing the opinion —I wish to do it without any heat or offence—that the easiest solution of this difficulty would not have been either the appointment of a Select Committee or recourse to the Law Courts, but the voluntary resignation of the hon. Member himself, in accordance with the course adopted by other hon. Members in recent times. That course has not been taken, and it is therefore necessary to consider these alternative suggestions. I urge the House to bear in mind you never have had a precedent where a pure question of law on facts that are admitted was referred to a Select Committee. You have the machinery by which a pure question of law on admitted facts can be at once dealt with, and that is by Declaration. The proceeding by Committee carries with it no ultimate and final determination of the question involved, and you have the further inconvenience of postponing the question until there has been a legal decision. Above all, you have the interests of the particular Member to consider, and I am quite certain the House would be better advised to let the matter go to be determined by the judicial authority rather than to leave it to a Committee of this House, which would be quite as much concerned with the privileges of the House even at the expense of the position of the Member.

As this is a Motion which arises upon an Indian question, I am quite certain the reports of our Debate will be read with the deepest interest by hundreds of thousands of people in India. I am aware, too, that not only in the twenty-second year of George the Third, but in many others, Parliament in its wisdom passed laws to prevent any sort of improper gain by means of contracts or appointments in the administration of India, and that is one reason why this particular case is receiving so much attention to-day. I do not like to give a silent vote on this matter. I have listened with the deepest interest to the arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members. I think that, in assenting to the proposal to refer this matter to a Select Committee, we are undoubtedly following precedent, although the precedent may differ in the one point that the matter which the Select Committee may have to judge will apparently be a pure question of law. But one cannot tell what matters may arise in the discussions in Committee, and, therefore, I would not like to say that there is nothing likely to be dealt with by the Committee except the point of law which apparently, at the present moment, is the only matter for determination. As regards the argument that the decision of this House may come into conflict with future decisions of the Courts of Law, I do not deny that, but it seems to me, looking at the State trials in constitutional history, it is not possible to avoid conflicts of that sort, however careful we may be. I think that the question whether persons who have been elected Members of this House are disqualified by Statute Law, should be kept under the control of this House, and the proper method of doing that is by the appointment of a Select Committee. Again, there is the important point, if it is left to a judicial decision, there are likely to be delays; there will be the original suit, and there may be two or possibly three appeals, and that will leave the Gentleman affected in an uncomfortable position for a long time, and may induce him not to take his part in the service of this House. There is much in the suggestion which was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that it would be highly convenient to refer this point to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I know there is a Statute of William IV. which has been applied with great effect when disputes have arisen in Colonial Legislatures. But before we can make use of that procedure we should have to pass a law. I think it would be a serious matter to pass a law of that sort in a hurry. It would require a very long period to pass it, and while recognising the inconvenience which hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite have pointed out, I have made up my mind to vote for the course recommended by the Government because I believe that in so doing we shall be following precedent and upholding privileges of this House.

The hon. Gentleman who last spoke is apparently satisfied that a Committee would be a fair tribunal, but he did not consider whether it would have any jurisdiction. Anybody may be per- suaded that a tribunal is fair, but the question is: Is it endowed with jurisdiction. The question whether the hon. Baronet opposite is or is not the Member for his constituency is a matter between himself and his constituents, and the Courts only are entitled to pass judgment on that question. Nobody else is competent to decide it. But I did not rise to touch upon legal points. I rose to call attention to a matter which apparently has up to the present escaped notice. I should like to go back to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I wish to comment on the objection which he raised to the delay in dealing with this question which would result from referring it to the Courts of Law. Whether there is delay or not in a Court of Law does not in the least degree affect the question whether or not a Court of Law is the only tribunal competent to settle the question. Everything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on that point was entirely beside the mark. Nevertheless it is of great importance that this question should be settled without delay, and I desire to point out to the Government that by the composition of their Committee they may lead to a delay which they themselves would regret. The Committee consists of nine Members, eight of whom are learned in the law. It is obvious that there may be an equal division of opinion between the lawyers. There may be four on one side and four on the other. If that happens the decision will actually depend upon the layman, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). I am not commenting upon his appointment at all, as I am aware that it is a root principle with this Government that no Committee, whether of laymen or of lawyers, whether dealing with British or British-Indian subjects, can be complete without the hon. Member for Leicester. It is quite possible that this Committee of which he is a member may fail the Government.

I understand that another Committee of which he is a member is to sail for India in the month of December. In that case, how he is to settle this question; and is it not necessary that it should be ascertained that he will be here as the only layman among eight lawyers to give, if necessary, the casting vote, or whether they may not—on account of the exigiencies of the public service and the absolute necessity of his presence in India to settle matters connected with Indian administration—have to proceed without him, or arrangements made that, if he shall commence to sit, he shall sit throughout and not through his absence defeat the object of the Government in appointing him to the Committee? You do not want to set up a Committee and have one of its members—an important member when he is a layman —suddenly carried away 6,000 miles to another part of the world while this question hangs over. In that case the delay which the Chancellor of the Exchequer feared may occur through their own action, it may be thoughtless or inadvertent action, in appointing that hon. Gentleman as a Member of this Committee. The Attorney-General, in answering the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward), spoke in a sympathetic manner respecting a proposal which he made. I wish to make a protest against the view laid before the House by the hon. Member for Stoke. He said that a Member of this House who was a railway director, for instance, would be practically in the same position as the hon. Member whose case is now under consideration. He said that directors of companies, and he chiefly referred to railway companies, should not properly vote upon matters that come before this House because of the interests they have in the matters before Parliament. I submit that if that principle, to which the Attorney-General took no sort of exception, were accepted, it would be necessary that Parliament should be a body possessed of no money, no influence, no capital, and no concern with all the business of this great business country, whose merchants are princes, and whose traffickers are the honourable ones of the earth. They would all be cut out of this House, and we should have nobody here but those who the hon. Member for Stoke represents, or professes more particularly to represent.

I am sorry that the Attorney-General received the suggestion in so sympathetic a manner, and that he did not make it perfectly clear that he was not in sympathy with the hon. Member for Stoke in making a suggestion so utterly unacceptable to any public assembly, and particularly to an assembly representing a country which is the greatest commercial country in the world. It is hardly a step further to hold that no Member of this House who holds any shares in a limited company should be competent to vote, whereas I understand that if we were dealing with the Marconi contract possession of shares in that company would in no way invalidate a vote, or make it improper that a Member of this House should vote. That happens to be a case of interest at the moment, but a similar position must occur whenever a matter of commercial or industrial moment comes before this House. It might easily be argued that in such cases hon. Members opposite, like the hon. Member for Stoke, were themselves disqualified by immediate interest from voting on any such question. I maintain that would be quite as arguable a proposition as that put forward by the hon. Member, which the Attorney-General did not in the least disown or disclaim, that a Member of this House, because he is a railway director, forsooth, or because he has any interest which is greatly to his credit in these great industrial concerns which make the wealth, the glory and greatness of this country, should be disqualified from voting upon questions which arise. There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. Some doubts have been expressed as to whether this contract for silver was a contract for the public service. I should have thought that there could be no doubt whatever that it was a contract for the public service. The India Office is a Department of State, and the mere fact that the salary of the Secretary of State is not upon the Estimates cannot affect the question. To attempt to hold that it was not a contract for the public service, seems to be the merest quibble, and will be viewed with great disapproval in India and give rise to suspicions and accusations which would be deplorable and, in my opinion, entirely unfounded. I hope it will not be seriously argued that this was not a contract for the public service. That is the direct issue to-day. As the merits of the action of the India Office in dealing with Messrs. Montagu are not in issue to-day, that is a matter into which I do not wish to be drawn.

There is one aspect of this case which I should like to put before the House. I do not think the House really appreciates what has been the position of the Law Officers of the Crown on this question. It appears to be generally the opinion of Members of this House that if they are shareholders in limited companies they can have financial relations with the Government and not in any way invalidate any vote they may give in this House. That is not the opinion which was given in my own case by the Law Officers of the Crown some years ago. I was the owner of a colliery which was trading in the form of a limited liability company. A contract was taken by one of my agents with the Board of Works and, having some doubt whether I should not be disqualified, I wrote to the Board of Works pointing out that I was trading as a limited liability company, and was the holder of a majority of the shares in the company. The matter was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown who advised that, even although a member was trading as a limited liability company, he would invalidate his seat in the House if he accepted a contract with the Government. There are numerous Members to-day who have contracts with the Government who hold the majority of shares in some company, therefore, I think it only right to point out that, although it is not generally understood it is a fact which the Law Officers have decided that any Member who holds a majority of shares in any company which trades with the Government is disqualified from giving a vote and loses his seat. Having taken the wise precaution in my case of seeking the decision of the Law Officers of the Crown the contract was cancelled and I did not invalidate my seat. If hon. Members only recognised that that is the decision of the Law Officers I fear there would be a good many other cases which would immediately come before the House in addition to that of the hon. Baronet whose case we are deciding now. With reference to the point put by the hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) I can only say as a Nottinghamshire Member that if he makes a speech at Nottingham about the glory of this country being dependent upon directors making successful businesses he will not be very long Member for Nottingham, because the House has always been jealous, and rightly so, that any vote that is given in this House should always be an unbiassed vote, and I cannot think there is anyone who has considered this particular transaction who cannot see that, however unwittingly, the hon. Member (Sir S. Samuel) has been wrong in entering into financial relations with the Government and without any reference to the Committee he ought to vacate his seat.

The Law Officers of the Crown change from time to time; but I remember a very different case from that which the hon. Baronet mentioned I remember when Sir Weetman Pearson was a Member he wanted to make a contract for the Dover Harbour Works, and he thought he must become a limited com- pany in order even to apply for the contract, and he did become a limited firm and he applied for and obtained the contract.

I think the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) must be mistaken in his recollection of what he had been advised, because if it was under this Statute the case which he put could not possibly have come within the Statute. Section 2 of the Statute has a proviso which is contained in Section 4 expressly excluding contracts entered into by incorporated trades and companies, so that any contract entered into by an incorporated trading company does not come within the purview of Section 2 at all.

Not only was the decision given, but the contract was rescinded by the Board of Works on the very reason I have given to the House, and on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Of course, we do not know the facts of that case, but I will read the proviso. It is quite clear:—

"Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend, to any contract, agreement, or commission made, entered into, or accepted by any incorporated trading company in its corporate capacity."

3.0 P.M.

It is impossible to criticise the case which the hon. Member has referred to, but certainly, by the express terms of the Statute, any shareholder in a trading corporation who enters into a contract with the Government is not within the disability of that Statute. With regard to the question before the House, I gather from the speeches of hon. Members opposite, and, indeed, it is manifest from the terms of the Resolution, that it is admitted now that the question which is to be referred to the Select Committee is purely and simply a question of the construction of the Statute. The facts are stated in the Resolution. The only question is whether those facts bring the case within Section 2 of the Statute. Upon that question we have no direct judicial decision, but we have the opinion of one of the greatest lawyers who has ever sat on the English Bench (Sir Baliol Brett) to the effect that a contract such as this is within the Statute. What is proposed by the Resolution is to set up a Committee in the House consisting of nine Members to deter- mine whether or not that opinion is sound in law. Can you imagine any worse possible tribunal to determine such a question as that? The question as it arises to-day is one in which every Member of the Committee will have a political interest in the decision which it gives. It will have, according to the proposal, five Members from one side of the House and four from the other. It will be to the political interest of the five Members to find that the contract is not within the Statute, and it will be to the interest of the four Members to find the exact contrary.

In years gone by this House—I will not say in its wisdom—used to reserve to itself the consideration of all questions arising on election petitions. Election petitions used to be referred to Committees of this House. There they were in a better position to determine the question than a Select Committee would be here, for there they had two parties represented by counsel, and all the arguments which would be adduced on either side were put before the Committee. But the House found that, notwithstanding that, such was the force of the political views of the Members that those Committees proved to be wholly unsuitable for the determination of those questions. It was found generally that there were two reports, a majority report and a minority report, in which, wholly irrespective of the evidence, Members voted according to their political convictions rather than as judges deciding judicial questions. The scandal became so great that this House had to pass an Act referring election petitions to the judges of the land. Here we have precisely the same question—whether or not a Member of this House has to vacate his seat. In those cases the question was whether or not a gentleman who had been returned as a Member of the House had been properly returned. The question is precisely the same, the political interests are precisely the same, but here we shall have no assistance given to the Committee by counsel or parties for the simple reason that there are no parties. The Select Committee will no doubt apply to this House, in the ordinary form that they may be entitled to hear counsel on the part of any person whose interests are affected. The hon. Member for Whitechapel would probably apply to be heard by counsel, but no one else could apply as having a personal interest in the matter. That makes it all the more ridiculous when you have a question before the Committee with counsel on one side and nobody arguing the other side. Can anyone imagine a more unsuitable tribunal for the purpose of deciding a simple question of law under those circumstances than the tribunal the House is asked to set up? The probability is that there will be a majority report and a minority report —a majority report of five and a minority report of four —but whatever the result may be, this at any rate is certain, that the judicial body we are setting up will be composed of persons who have a direct political interest in their decision, and that the decision will be given after only one side of the question has been argued before them. Suppose for a moment the result of this were that the majority of five were to decide that the judge was wrong in his law, what would be the general opinion of such a report as that? Inevitably the opinion must be that it was a party affair, when you have five against four Members of the House of Commons saying that the opinion expressed after full argument by one of our most learned judges is wrong in law. It is a most incompetent tribunal to decide whether a great judge is wrong in his law.

If we adopt this Resolution, I believe we are running great risk of bringing the proceedings of the House into ridicule and contempt. The Attorney-General has asked, what is the alternative? I believe in years gone by the Attorney-General did not occupy a scat in this House. The question was raised in this House whether he was competent to occupy a seat in the House. In those days one of the duties of the Attorney-General was to advise the House on questions of law, and if we were to revert to the older practice of the House a real solution of the difficulty would be found, and we could call upon the Attorney-General to give his opinion on this question as a matter of law. For my part, I would much prefer to take the opinion of the Attorney-General on this and act upon it rather than that the House should be probably brought into the contempt of the people of the country by adopting the Resolution which has been proposed, with the possible consequences I have suggested. That is one alternative, which, I believe, would be consistent with precedent. Of course, there may be another course, namely, that of getting a suit brought by the Attorney-General to obtain a declaration of the Courts on the subject. That, I agree, is open to many objections. I am not at all clear that the Courts would entertain such a suit as that. There is no question about what is involved, and it would be merely asking the Courts to give a decision on an abstract matter of law. There are other precedents for the House. We know very well that the House of Lords constantly took the opinion of the judges on judicial matters. It was a common form until comparatively recently, when questions came before the House of Lords as a judicial tribunal for that House to summon the judges of the High Court to give them their assistance and the benefit of their opinion. It seems to me that there would be no reason, following that precedent, why this House should not take the same course, and ask, through Mr. Speaker, the opinion of the judges on this matter. The course proposed by the Attorney-General in this Resolution is one fraught with difficulty with respect to the future, and one fraught with a minimum of advantage to the deliberations of this House.

I agree with the argument of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that the appointment of a Committee such as is proposed in this case is not quite the way of determining a question of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), suggested that it would be better to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Only a few weeks ago that Committee sat and heard a question of law on an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada for the purpose of guiding the proceedings of the House of Commons of Canada, just as we are now in need of a legal decision to guide us on the question whether there is a vacancy or not in the Whitechapel Division. I may point out that the Privy Council heard this appeal because there is a Statute of the Dominion of Canada—I think the same Statute has been passed in nearly all the provinces of Canada—which provides that the Government may submit to the highest Court, which in the case of Canada is the Supreme Court of Canada any questions they see fit for that Court. The particular question to which I refer was one of great importance in which a political question was involved. The question was whether the Dominion Parliament could legislate with regard to the solemnisation in Canada of marriages. There had been a great deal of discussion upon the subject, and in order to have the question of law decided, not by political parties, but by a Court of Law, an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was taken. I can say, and I think every Canadian will agree with me, that the Statutes which provide for such procedure have been in force there for many years, and have been of the greatest use to the Dominion Parliament and also to the local Legislatures. I think if we had such a Statute here it would be much more satisfactory to everybody to have the decision of the Privy Council, which would be given without a suit or anything of that kind, on the question submitted by the Government. I was very glad to hear that the Government were contemplating a general reconsideration of the position of the law in regard to that matter. I was glad to hear it stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. J. Ward), that they would take into consideration the anomalous position of large shareholders in limited companies.

I would like to put a further question to the Attorney-General, namely, Whether the Government will, in the general reconsideration of the law, also consider what seems to me a very peculiar anomaly which exists here by which Members of this House who happen to be barristers can take employment from the Government of the day and not violate the Act? I do not wish to go into that as material to the question now before the House, but it does appear to be a great anomaly in the Colonies, where such a thing would not be tolerated. No Member there of the House of Commons or Legislature there can take any employment whatever from the Government of the day, and I do not see why, if it is wrong that a Member should have a contract with, or get money from, the Government of the day, the legal profession should be exempt from the consequences of such provision. Of course, I am making no reflections on the present Members of the Government who are in receipt of employment from the Government, because it is legal, but I suggest to the Attorney-General that the practice here should be made similar to that of the Colonies, and no Member, whether a barrister or anything else, should be allowed to have any relations at all with the Government of the day except those of absolute independence.

I wish to ask the Attorney-General one question. Suppose that the Committee which it is proposed to set up report that it is their impression that the hon. Baronet should not resign, and that a common informer goes forward with a claim against the hon. Member for the large sum of money that I hear is at stake, and that the judge holds that according to law the hon. Member had vacated his seat, would the decision of the Committee or that of the judge prevail? If the decision of the judge is to override that of the Committee, would it not be much better to let the case go before a judge at once and be done with it? On the other hand, suppose the Committee say that the hon. Baronet should resign his seat, and that he does so and somebody gets in in his place, and that still the common informer goes on against him, and the judge decides that there was no necessity for him to resign his seat, and he is not mulcted in damages, then the difficulty would be greater than even in the first instances, and would it not be better, seeing that all the lawyers have evidently agreed that this is a delicate matter, to have a legal decision than to have this Committee set up, or, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University has said, let it be decided by the Privy Council, seeing that this Committee may be accused afterwards outside the House of having some party bias in the matter? It is absurd that any Member, by the threats of Whips or however it has occurred, would not rather go to his constituents and say, "I will not have this happen to my name, and not for the sake of the House of Commons alone, but for the sake of my own personal feelings in the matter, I would rather have it settled in this manner rather than by a Committee, which must be the subject of criticism afterwards."

There is a suggestion which I wish to lay before the Government, because I do feel fully that the decision of the Government is in accordance with precedent, and therefore I shall not vote against this Motion. Yet I think that every hon. Member who has listened to the Debate will say that to proceed in this case in accordance with precedent is not a satisfactory and a desirable procedure. Suppose the decision of the Select Committee is in favour of the hon. Member for Whitechapel retaining his seat, I do not think that anyone in the House would think that would be a decision which would command anything like universal public assent. Unquestionably there would be all sorts of criticism upon it, particularly if there were a division of opinion in the Committee, and I am sure it will not be a satisfactory result. That would be a very undesirable position. On the other hand, suppose the decision was against the hon. Member and to the effect that he ought not to retain his seat; it may be that actions have already been started against him. I have seen it stated in the papers that they have, or that it is extremely likely that they will be. If I was the hon. Member I should feel a great grievance in those circumstances that there was the decision of a political Committee which might have decided under the influence of a perfectly respectable motive, though not strictly legal, that on the whole it was better for the House of Commons to decide a doubtful point against the hon. Member than that he should retain his seat. I think it would be very hard on him, and it might be even harder if a case was taken further, and he would have to go before the Court with that decision against him, which might at any rate influence some Courts, and I think would influence them against him. Therefore this is a most unsatisfactory form of tribunal, and I would suggest that if we can find any way out of it, it is desirable to do so. Two hon. Members have suggested recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under the Act 24 of William IV. It was suggested that that could not be done. I immediately obtained the Statute from the Library, and it certainly appears to me that the Section could be used. It is very short. It runs:—

"It shall be lawful for His Majesty to refer to the said Judicial Committee for hearing or consideration any such other matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit and such Committee shall thereupon hear or consider the same and advise His Majesty thereon in the manner aforesaid."

Therefore I do not think that there will be any difficulty whatever in the Government advising His Majesty to refer this question whether the hon. Member has or has not vacated his seat to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is quite true that the decision of the Judicial Committee would not be technically binding on the Courts afterwards, but since under the present constitution of the Judicial Committee it is practically identical with the final Court of Appeal, the decision of the Privy Council nowadays, though not absolutely binding, is of enormous authority with all the Courts, and practically a decision of the Privy Council tinder that Section would be, I think, final as to the question whether this Statute had been infringed. If the hon. Member got a decision in his favour from the Privy Council, he would be perfectly safe as a reasonable man in going on and sitting and voting here without the slightest chance of any penalty being enforced against him. Therefore, you would really get a decision which will be quite final and could be arrived at quite as soon as the decision of the Select Committee, because all that it will be necessary to do would be to give time to instruct counsel on both sides to argue the case. That would be the only delay, and that you will have to give also in the case of the Committee, because if the hon. Member desires to be represented by counsel he will be entitled to be represented by counsel. I have looked up the precedents and the Members affected were almost always represented. Therefore there will have to be a delay if he asks for it to enable him to instruct counsel. I do not know whether it is contemplated that counsel should be instructed on the other side. At any rate the Committee will have to hear it. There would be the Judicial Committee. Why should you not go to the Judicial Commmittee and get a final decision that would be authoritative in the Courts and in the country? Hon. Members sometimes speak unwisely and unjustly of the High Courts, but however unjust and however unwise may have been their observations in regard to the High Courts of the land, I have never heard any such observations about the Judicial Committee, which stands higher or is as high as any Court in the country. The decision of the Judicial Committee would be final, and I submit that the real way out of ths matter, and one whch you could adopt without difficulty, is to exercise the powers given under that Act. I hope that matter will be considered, and if the Attorney-General does not feel in a position to give a reply to-day, I will put down a question to the Prime Minister on Monday.

I will answer the hon. and gallant Member opposite, who put the question whether, if the hon. Member had not to vacate the seat, that did not get rid of the liability to a penalty under this Statute. I have looked at this point with great care, not merely as a Member of the House of Commons, but as a lawyer, to see if any case has arisen where the Courts of Justice have given penalties when the seat has been declared not to have been vacated by the House of Commons. I can find no such case. I do not want to press that too far, because it is only right to say that I could not find any case in which the point had been raised, so that it really does not take us very far. What I have found is that the Courts of Justice have referred to the decision of the House of Commons, whether a seat has been vacated or not. I do not say that it is binding on a Court, but undoubtedly they have taken cognisance of it. I think that is as far as one can press the matter with reference to the position between the House of Commons and the Courts of Justice. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) has made a suggestion, and referred to the Statute dealing with the Judicial Committee.

I am well aware of that Act, because under that particular Section to which the Noble Lord referred, when the present King ascended the throne, the question was raised whether it was necessary for judges, magistrates, and others again to take the oath of allegiance, and that question was referred by the King to the Judicial Committee under the Section. That it was not a judicial procedure was shown by the fact that I was asked, as Law Officer, to argue the case on both sides. I appeared at the Bar in order to argue it, and I was asked to come inside and take a seat and to discuss it with the judges. To the best of my ability I put both sides of the question to the Judicial Committee. I cannot help thinking that this is a matter which ought to be left to the House. The suggestion has been made on both sides during the discussion that some other solution should be found for this difficulty, but I venture to submit to the House that this is a far bigger subject than perhaps has been quite appreciated. I am not expressing an opinion about it. I do not wish to do so, but I do wish to point out that it is plain that this House, as regards its own internal administration, if it allows a question of this kind to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or any other tribunal, would be giving up what it has always jealously maintained, namely, its right to decide these matters for itself. I do not express any definite opinion against the suggestion; all I do say is that I should require to consider it with extreme care and in all its bearings before acceding to the view that we should have this recourse to legal tribunals.

The procedure I suggested would not interfere with the rights of the House of Commons, which will vacate the seat. It could not interfere with that; that would still be within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons; but the House would get authoritative advice on the point of law from the highest tribunal in the land to enable them to arrive at a conclusion.

Either when you take the advice you must follow it or you would be acting very disrespectfully to the tribunal, which I quite agree is worthy of the highest respect both here and in all our dominions. I cannot conceive the House of Commons acting upon the suggestion and then not following the advice given, and if it does act upon it it is really surrendering its own function and submitting to the jurisdiction of a Court of Law. Call it by any name you please, put it even as attractively as did the Noble Lord, that it is not really the decision of the Court of Law, still it derives its power from this, that it would be the decision of the judges of the highest Court of the land, and reference could be made to it. I am speaking entirely for myself. I have had no opportunity of consulting with the Government or with the Prime Minister; I do not view it adversely, but I do require to proceed with extreme care and to satisfy myself by examination of all sides of the subject before I can come to the conclusion that the procedure suggested is one that ought to be adopted. Certainly it could not be adopted in this particular case. We could not hang up this question whilst we considered this suggestion which has been made by the Noble Lord. The suggestion has been made that the Attorney-General of the day should bring an action or take the initial step in proceedings to bring the matter before a judicial tribunal. I cannot help thinking that that would be a very dangerous course to pursue. Supposing, for example, the Attorney-General of the day proceeds against a Member of his own party who has rendered himself liable, if the Statute has been infringed, for penalties amounting to large sums, £50,000 or £100,000, whatever the amount might be. Assuming that the Attorney-General having presented his view failed, he might be accused of not having put forward the case in its full strength. The Noble Lord has said that it would be satisfactory to the general public. Does he suggest that for one moment?

It is not my suggestion.

As regards a Select Committee of the House of Commons it would have upon it lawyers who are Members of this House, men who may in the future occupy high judicial positions, and they would consider the case. You have four Members on each side with the Leader of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister himself, present: Some of those Members are lawyers, the majority of them trained to consider questions of this character, and I cannot help thinking that that is very much better than the course suggested, namely, that the Attorney-General should institute proceedings. Another great objection is that the case is in danger of being treated by the Courts in a way which would make it impossible to get a decision. The Courts do not like collusive actions; and the Attorney-General might be placed in a position of very great difficulty. Is it idle to suggest that it would get a decision of this kind from the Courts in anything like the limited period in which you would get a decision from a Select Committee. Our present practice has stood the test of time. It seems to me this is very much like some other points which may be raised in our Constitution. You may put forward all kinds of views against them in theory, but in practice it is remarkable how they work. I would submit to the House that we should, as I think we must, proceed with this matter, and that the Select Committee should be appointed. There are various questions which have been raised during the course of the Debate which have no reference to this Committee, and to some of which I should be very glad to give more consideration. I would ask the House to come to a decision on this matter.

May I ask one question? Is there any precedent at all for appointing a Select Committee when the facts are admitted and a pure question of law is the only question?

I think so, but I have not considered it exactly from that point of view. It seems to me that in the Waterlow case you had actually the same position. Besides, it is wrong to say that you have the facts admitted. I did not myself deal with the documents, and I do not think there can be any serious question, but I am not in a position to say that no question of fact may arise.

You repeatedly said so.

I do not anticipate that there will, but I cannot say anything further.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question whether the Government will consider the anomalous position of the legal profession?

That does not arise.

The right hon. Gentleman answered the Member for Stoke about a limited company.

I desire to explain to the House the provisions of this Bill. The pilotage system dates back a very long time and it is full at present of anomalies and anchronisms of all sorts. We have harbour authorities, pilotage authorities, various trusts and Commissioners. We have various general Acts and a very large number of local Acts which govern the details of each separate port. Practically at the present time there is a hopeless welter of authorities which administer the pilotage laws. In that state of confusion in May, 1909, we appointed a Committee representative of the public, of the pilotage authorities, of the ship-owners, of the pilots, and of the Admiralty, to inquire into the condition of affairs. This Bill is largely founded on the Report of that Committee. I desire to take this opportunity, which I am sure the House will endorse, of expressing our indebtedness to the members of that Committee for the very great care which they gave to their duties, and for the very valuable Report which the Committee has presented to us. This is largely a consolidating Bill to evolve order out of chaos, and. to bring about in the pilotage system of this country simplicity and uniformity, which will be certainly to the advantage of all those concerned, the pilotage authorities, the shipowners, the pilots, and the public. The first point is the question of the machinery for simplifying the law, and I am proposing by this Bill, which is practically a consolidating Bill, to bring about simplicity in that respect. This Bill practically repeals all existing Statutes and all existing general Acts, and it will also repeal a large number of local Acts as well.

In future the pilotage system of this country will be governed by one general Act under which local pilotage orders may be made by the Board of Trade, and by local by-laws made by the pilotage authorities, which will have to be submitted to the Board of Trade, and which will follow the lines of a model code. The first step in order to obtain these is to have inquiries in the various pilotage districts in order that the inquiries may lead to Provisional Orders to be submitted to Parliament, to finally govern the local position and the general position as well. There are, as we know, many local pilotage authorities; there are some very good authorities, and there are some rather bad authorities, and there are some who are more or less in the middle. We are extremely anxious in no way to interfere unnecessarily with efficient and intelligent pilotage authorities, and where a pilotage authority can show that an inquiry is unnecessary, or where possibly, not having a perfect system at present, they can show the Board of Trade that they are themselves going to improve the position and submit a scheme to the Board of Trade, then in those eases an inquiry will not be necessary to be held. The inquiries will be held by Commissioners who will be representatives of the Board of Trade, which will receive the reports and promote the Provisional Orders, which will be submitted to Parliament. Thus for the first time we shall have a complete code for the pilotage system.

The second part of the Bill deals with certain grievances which have necessarily sprang up in this matter of pilotage, very largely, in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining amending Acts. For instance, in certain parts the pilots' rates of remuneration and rates of charge are practically governed by Acts of Parliament, either general or local, some of them as old as a hundred years. The pilots have not been able to go to the expense of promoting and carrying amending Acts, although it is recognised in many of those cases that the rates which are charged are not fair ones. The expense and the difficulty of obtaining an alteration of an Act of Parliament has been so great that they have had to continue under that great disability. In future those rates will be fixed by by-laws, which from time to time can be altered as circumstances arise, while the question of expense in connection with them practically disappears. Even where the present law admits of alterations being made by Provisional Order there is considerable expense involved to the pilots, either in promoting the orders or in opposing them. The same applies to the shipowners. In future the only Provisional Orders that will necessarily require the sanction of Parliament will be the original Provisional Orders introduced after the inquiry and report of the Commissioners. After that, a Provisional Order will take effect, unless there is a petition against it, without having to come to Parliament. As regards the shipowners, and especially as regards the pilots, we are proposing to carry through a cheap and easy means of obtaining alterations and amendments, and of meeting grievances in that respect. It is fair and just that pilots should have some voice in the management of pilotage authorities and in the pilotage system. In some of the best pilotage authorities the pilots are at present well and properly represented; in many others they have a very small measure of representation, and in some none at all. Everybody will admit that they ought to have some measure of representation, and it is in the interests of the pilotage authorities they should be so represented. The Bill, subject to a certain discretion on the part of the Board of Trade, will give the pilots a better opportunity of securing adequate representation on the pilotage authorities. The same applies to shipowners.

There is at present a considerable grievance, especially on the part of pilots, in the matter of appeals. There is an appeal to the County Court as regards fines, and the revocation or suspension of licences, but there is no power of appeal with regard to such matters of administration as examinations, excessive increase in the number of pilots, alleged favouritism in the appointment of pilots, the administration of pension funds, and so forth. In addition to the appeal to the County Court we propose to give the right of appeal to the Board of Trade in such matters as these. There will be a Court of Appeal equally as regards shipowners and pilots against the acts of the pilotage authority, or against any existing by-law made by the pilotage authority, or in favour of making fresh by-laws. This appeal will be to the Board of Trade. Therefore when this Bill is passed, we shall have a speedy and economical appeal in regard to various grievances of a local or general character in connection with the pilotage system. In order to establish this right of appeal, and for other purposes, the Bill will practically create a central authority, with real power to remove genuine grievances, and to hold the scales fairly as between the pilotage authorities, the pilots, and the shipowners. That central authority will be the Board of Trade. At present the powers of the Board of Trade are of a haphazard and nebulous character. They are a somewhat unknown quantity; it is very difficult to know exactly how far they extend and in what respects they are limited. That condition of things will be swept away by the Bill. The authority and the powers of the Board of Trade will be carefully defined, limited where limitation is required, and very largely extended for the purpose of these proposals. We are also proposing to associate with the Board of Trade an Advisory Committee, representative of the pilotage authorities, shipowners, pilots, and other persons interested in the matter. By that means we hope that the Board of Trade will be kept in touch with the interests affected, and enabled to have such grievances as may arise brought promptly to their attention and dealt with by those specially competent to deal with them. I attach very great importance to the existence of this Advisory Committee, which I hope, as has been the case in other matters, will be of very great assistance to the Board in carrying out its duties. Those are the broad lines of the Bill.

The measure deals with many other questions and matters of detail, which will best be considered in Committee upstairs. I may, however, refer to the question of pilots' pensions, because that is a matter in which great interest is taken. It is an intricate subject, and one of some difficulty. Broadly speaking, what we want to do is to encourage pension funds, so that as far as possible they shall be universal in the various areas. To obtain that result it is necessary to secure that the money paid in is applied to pensions only, that the pension funds are disentangled from other funds, that they are properly managed, and that there are adequate sources of revenue to maintain them. Provisions for securing these ends will be found in the Bill. If it is thought that in one or two respects they fall short of what I have said, the matter can be dealt with in Committee. I am extremely anxious that the pension funds should be put on a really businesslike basis.

That brings me to the question of what is called compulsory pilotage. The House is probably aware that in some ports there is compulsory and in others non-compulsory pilotage. The ports are divided about equally between the two systems. Even where there is compulsory pilotage there are a very large number of exemptions. It is a difficult question to decide what course the Board of Trade should take in the matter. Some persons think that in all districts pilotage should be compulsory. Others hold equally strongly that it should be non-compulsory. The various Committees that have inquired into the matter have not given us much light and leading. Some of them recommended that it should be compulsory, some that it should be voluntary, and others that the matter should be left alone. The Bill takes a middle course; experience shows that it is practically impossible to take any other. The Bill provides that, subject to the provisions of any pilotage order, pilotage should continue to be compulsory in every pilotage district in which it was compulsory at the time of the passing of this Act, and shall continue not to be compulsory in every district in which it was not compulsory at the time of the passing of the Act. It practically leaves the matter as it stands. I do not think it would have been possible for the Board of Trade to have proposed any other solution of the question.

It has been pressed upon us that we should extend the compulsory area. To make nil the ports practically compulsory would be a very great change, and would have met with great opposition. Before we could propose such a change as that, four things would have to be shown: first, that there were more casualties where pilotage was not compulsory than in the compulsory ports; secondly, that the supply of pilots was not properly maintained at non-compulsory ports; thirdly, that the pilots at the non-compulsory ports were not equally efficient with those at the compulsory ports; and, fourthly, that the earnings of the pilots at the non-compulsory ports were not adequate. No evidence has been brought before us to prove that, as regards either efficiency, suitability of pilots, sufficiency, or casualties, there is really anything to choose between the compulsory and the non-compulsory ports. In these circumstances it appeared to us that the only line we could take was to leave the compulsory and the non-compulsory ports as they stand. There is a provision in the Bill under which in future foreign-going as well as coasting passenger ships will be subject to compulsory pilotage. Further, Clause 6 (1) gives the Board of Trade power, by order, to make any district that is voluntary, compulsory, and vice versâ. This is a new provision which will give, in every case, both the shipowners and the pilots the opportunity of placing their views before the Commissioner who will inquire into the matter, and if they can make out a case, no doubt, a change will take place. I want to make it quite clear though, that while there may be cases in which a change is desirable, and may take place, there is no intention on the part of the Board of Trade, by this Clause, to utilise those powers to institute a general system, either of compulsory pilotage on the one hand or non-compulsory pilotage on the other. If there is to be a change it will have to be done after very careful consideration. There is one point in which shipowners are especially interested, and in regard to which grave complaint very often arises, and that is the question of the difficulty often felt as to how far a particular port is a compulsory or non-compulsory port. There is great difficulty also in knowing what are the actual exemptions which prevail in a compulsory port. This leads to a considerable variation of practice, considerable confusion, and often litigation. We are therefore providing that where, after an inquiry, a Provisional Order is made in respect of any port, the Order may define the status of that port, and may declare whether it is a compulsory or non-compulsory port. Further, the exemptions at the present moment are very often very difficult to appreciate. By Clause 10 they are made quite clear and simple; so that there can be no doubt as to what they are.

They will be four-fold:—(1) An exemption for ships whoso master or mate holds a pilotage certificate, for which he has passed an examination; (2) for His Majesty's ships; (3) for non-passenger ships under 100 tons; and (4) for non-passenger coasting vessels, and fishing vessels under 600 tons, as fixed by by-law. In regard to this last point I have had various representations made to me by hon. Members behind me and others as to whether a limit of 600 tons is not too low.

Too high?

Too low. But I have informed them that that is a point which we can consider in Committee, where both my hon. Friends opposite and hon. Friends behind me can put forward their views.

4.0 P.M.

So far as regards the Bill itself, I may, just in conclusion, make reference to the reason why I am asking the House to read this Bill a second time to-day so that it may pass this Session. It really is a question of urgency. The question of the granting of pilotage certificates to alien masters and mates under certain circumstances constitutes the urgency. We deal with it under Clause 19. The question has created some interest and in some quarters, I think, quite undue apprehension. I think the Clause has been a good deal misunderstood, and that it has not been sufficiently appreciated of what an entirely different character it is from the so-called Frequency Clause of last year, the Clause which was recommended by the representative Departmental Committee, to which I have referred, over which Sir Kenelm Digby presided. It was the unanimous opinion of the Committee.

Not unanimously agreed. There was at least one Member of that Committee who dissented, and I think there were more, but at least I think there was one.

I do not think there was a dissentient. I think the Report was a unanimous one, but possibly I may be mistaken. But the matter really is not material to the point. That Clause no longer exists. It gave rise to misapprehension. In the first place, it was thought that under it a large number of British masters and mates could obtain pilotage certificates without examination. Secondly, it was thought it would largely open the door to alien masters obtaining pilotage certificates under the same conditions—and without examination. That Clause has, however, now been superseded by the Clause of this year, which is of a totally different character, and which confines the question of alien pilotage certificates solely to the port and to the voyages in respect of which pilotage certificates were granted previous to June, 1906. An examination is required in the future. As I have already informed the House in reply to questions put, I think, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend, I have been in consultation with the Admiralty, and in view of possible anxiety, and to allay any possible anxiety that may arise from that Clause from the point of view of national safety, I propose to add a Sub-section to that Clause the material part of which I will read in a moment. It enables the Admiralty on the ground of public safety to absolutely veto the issue of any new certificates in regard to any particular port. The words of the Sub-section added to Clause 19 will be as follows:—

"Provided that if the Admiralty at any time consider that on the ground of public safety the provisions of this Subsection should not be applicable with respect to any pilotage district or part of a pilotage district they may make an Order excluding that district or part of a district from the operations of those provisions."

Is there going to be any provision for the cancellation of existing aliens' certificates in times of national emergency?

Under the Act of 1906, and the Act consolidating previous Acts, the Clause relating to that matter, and to any existing certificate, stands. No alteration has been made in that respect.

Is it not intended, when it is a question of national danger, to close any port?

That arises under the head of national safely. The hon. Member opposite asked me concerning existing certificates and as to whether they were affected by this Clause. That is not so. The existing certificates, as the House knows, were saved in the Act of 1906. The first Sub-section makes no change in this respect. The history of the matter is this. Section 73 of the Act of 1906 was enacted solely on grounds of public safety. As soon as the Act came into operation representations were made from various quarters to the Foreign Office, and the argument was pressed that under the Section a disability was imposed upon the masters and mates of foreign ships which was alleged to amount to an infringement of certain treaty rights. His Majesty's Government, while they found themselves unable to accept that view, were not able to avoid the conclusion that a practical difficulty had been created involving to some extent discrimination as regards the dues charged on British and foreign ships entering the same British ports in some few cases in which the plea of public safety, which was the foundation of Section 73 of the Act of 1906, could not be urged with any force. At the same time it became clear on an examination of the facts and figures that the extent of the practical problem was minute in relation to the general pilotage system in this country.

Ultimately, in 1910, at the request of the Foreign Office, who were naturally anxious to arrive at an amicable solution, a small Commission representing the French and British Governments was appointed to consider the matter. They reported that an acceptable solution of the question would be afforded by the adoption of the recommendation of the Departmental Committee over which Sir Kenelm Digby presided, with regard to exemption from compulsory pilotage on the ground of frequency of voyages. This recommendation was embodied in last year's Bill. As I have already said, the matter on several points was subject to strong and, I must admit, cogent criticism, so that the Clause, as it stood, was quite impossible to be enacted, with the result that it has been entirely superseded by the much more restricted Clause of this year. This Clause is further guarded and limited by the Admiralty veto. The French Government, I am glad to say, have agreed to this solution, and I should like to add that the discussions with the French Government, though prolonged, have been of the friendliest character throughout; and there is little doubt that this Clause, which completely guards national safety and inflicts a minimum of hardship to the pilots, will prove to be a mutually satisfactory solution of the matter. I am glad to know from the conversations I have had with various Members of the House on both sides, who, I think, were somewhat alarmed in regard to the question of national safety that they are fully satisfied with the Clause. As to the urgency of the Bill, we are pledged to the French Government to give effect at the earliest possible moment to the arrangement arrived at with them, and I think hon. Members will agree that it would be very regrettable if that arrangement should fall through. The result would be to reopen difficult and disagreeable international questions. I have now explained as shortly as I can the main provisions of the Bill, and I would like to say that in this matter I have had the advantage in drawing up the Bill of consultation with the various interests concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) has more than once said that I have the habit of introducing a Bill one year in order to have it criticised, and then re-introducing it next year. I do not think that is a bad, but rather a very good, habit. Since the Bill of last year was introduced I have had the advantage of consultation with the pilotage authorities, with the shipowners, with pilots, with Members of Parliament, and others interested in the matter, and I hope that the Bill is better and more acceptable now, and that these consultations will save a very great deal of time in the Committee upstairs, because I have had, as it were, almost a Committee stage already in regard to these matters. I hope, therefore, when the Bill goes upstairs it need not involve much time or labour.

I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the same view.

I hope the Second Reading of this Bill will be passed without a Division, and then in Committee all matters brought to my attention will be considered. Various Members have mentioned various Amendments. I do not think there is any matter of principle involved in any of them that would prevent, me considering them with an open mind. On a Bill of this kind, of a non-contentious character, affecting a very considerable number of interests, I certainly will do my very best to consider the Amendments with an open mind, with a view to making the Bill generally acceptable to the various interests concerned, so that it may pass through Committee and pass into law.

I have listened with great attention to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and I only wish I could see this Bill through his spectacles, and that I could have the same optimistic opinion as he has, as to all the good that is going to be got out of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. With all such Bills as this, especially dealing with pilotage matters, I have my doubts. The President of the Board of Trade spoke of the alien pilotage question. I want to refer to that question because it has played a very important part in the affairs of the pilots of Great Britain and Ireland for many years past. From the first day that a pilot's certificate was granted to an alien pilot, the pilots of this Kingdom have been in arms against it, and we did our best to bring public opinion to bear in order to stop it. After twenty-five years of hard struggling the pilots succeeded at last in what we thought at the time meant the killing of the alien pilot for ever by getting a Clause inserted in the Bill of 1906 refusing to grant any further pilots' certificates to alien shipmasters and men. We were very pleased at our success, because the system had been enlarged year after year, and the pilots looked forward to the time when those aliens who held those certificates would die off and the alien pilots would cease for ever in this Kingdom. But some, international difficulty existed which was found out after some years, and when the French and the English diplomats met to consider the question, as is generally the case, the French got the weather gauge of the English Foreign Office, and I presume the English Board of Trade were outmanœuvred by the members representing the French Government, and they agreed that France had a grievance. How did they propose to remedy it? Simply at the expense of the pilots. We had great cause for anxiety when we saw what the outcome of that meeting in Paris was and what the outcome of the Departmental Committee was. Why should this great rich Government make the pilots pay if there was any difficulty between them and the French Government? Why could they not find some other way out of the difficulty? That is the question which has been troubling my mind. Why should the poor man be made to pay the piper in this case? There was a grave national danger in granting those certificates, and this caused the pilots last year to appeal to their friends in this House and out of it, and, thank God! they have got plenty of friends in every quarter in this House, in the Press, and among the public outside, to fight what we considered was an iniquitous Clause inserted in the Bill of last year. By our struggle we succeeded in defeating the attempt made to insert that Clause in an Act of Parliament. That great difficulty is removed, but in Clause 19 of this year's Bill the difficulty is there still, although in a lesser form.

I confess I have sonic sympathy with the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the position in which he is placed. It is for that reason that, having made the best fight we could, the pilots of this Kingdom are not opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. We recognise the difficulty, and we recognise that the Board of Trade in all the deputations that have appeared before it this year on behalf of the pilots have met us in the frankest and most friendly spirit. I stand here voicing the opinions of the pilots of this Kingdom, and I say we do recognise the perfectly frank and friendly manner in which we were met, and how every man of the deputation was allowed to air his opinions and to voice his feelings as freely as he cared to do. We proposed a remedy to the Board of Trade, even if they are bound by this international difficulty and even if they do bring in the foreigner in small numbers. We always believe, however small the numbers may be, the bringing in of the foreigner is introducing the thin end of the wedge, and whatever promises may be made we shall see what this Bill will be when it becomes an Act. We recognise the danger in introducing the thin end of the wedge. Clause 19 does introduce the thin end of the wedge, and I am opposed to bringing in one foreign pilot. I hope the Admiralty will see to it that all the great ports are safeguarded, as has been promised to various Members during the past few months. We proposed an alternative. If we were to be hit and injured by this Clause, then we asked the Board of Trade to give us compulsory pilotage. There are several reasons why compulsory pilotage should be adopted in this Kingdom. You have compulsory pilotage in all foreign countries. No foreign country will allow a British shipmaster or mate to pilot in their waters, and we say, "Why should they be allowed to pilot in our waters?" I may be told there are one or two open ports, like Marseilles, into which a child of six years could bring a ship, but I do not call that pilotage. Pilotage is where a man has to use his considered judgment, where navigation is dangerous, where he has served a long apprenticeship, and where he must be a thorough seaman if he is competent to do his work. I go further and say the pilots of this Kingdom, whose mercantile interests are so large, greater I believe than those of all the other nations of the world put together, are a national asset. If a vessel approaching the shores of this Kingdom has sickness on board, the pilot must bring it to the proper quarantine ground, where she must be brought to anchor and boarded by the health officers of the port. More than that. No matter how stricken she is with disease—whether with cholera or not—that pilot must remain on board, and dare not leave her until the medical officers give her a certificate of exemption and of freedom from disease. Again, the pilot has to serve a long and arduous apprenticeship to his profession, and in many instances he has to do it without fee. In most cases he holds a master's certificate or a mate's certificate, and many hundreds hold an extra master's certificate. He cannot leave the particular port for which he has been licensed by the authority; he cannot ply his profession in any other port. That is where the difference conies in between pilots and other trades and professions. A pilot on the Thames cannot go to the Mersey; a pilot on the Mersey cannot move to the Shannon, and a pilot on the Shannon cannot go to the Clyde—he is, in fact, bound to the port for which he holds his licence. Furthermore, at any time of national crisis the Admiralty have the power to call on every pilot in this Kingdom to come under its command and perform any work allotted to him. Thus the pilot cannot be looked upon in the same way as a member of any other trade or profession. He cannot carry his wares to other markets, and for this reason the Board of Trade and the Government of this country—this is not a party question—should exercise some parental character over our pilots here as the Governments of other countries do in regard to their pilots.

So much for the question of alien pilotage. I know that at this time it would be difficult for the President of the Board of Trade to take up the question of compulsory pilotage, but that does not take from it the question of fair play. It is not a question of Free Trade; it is a question of safeguarding the rights of a valuable body of men who are a great national asset, in time of war as well as in time of peace. Having said so much about what I think is not good in the Bill, let me state very frankly that there are a good many points in the Bill which I should like to see brought into operation, and these of course had great weight with the pilots when they withdrew their objection to the Second Heading. There is the question of pensions. That is very important to the pilots of this Kingdom, where the pension funds have accumulated, and we want that the old pilot shall be able to look forward after his labours to getting a pension to which, mark you, he has largely contributed himself during his life's work. Masters and mates who have been granted certificates under the maritime laws of this country have been subscribing a certain amount—I do not say it is enough—but this has been carried forward to the pension fund I hope that in the passage of this Bill through Committee the President of the Board of Trade will strongly set his face against any pilotage authority being able to fritter away that pension fund of the pilots, or apply it to any other purpose than that for which it was originally intended, or to pay any of the expenses incidental to carrying out their work out of the pensions of the pilots.

I wish to refer to the question of the Advisory Committee. That, I think, will be one of the most valuable suggestions in the Bill. I have great faith, if you get a good Advisory Committee set up under the Bill, comprising representatives of pilots, shipowners, pilotage authorities, and harbour authorities, who will meet together and talk matters over; that the time will come when the friction which is so much in evidence now as between pilots and the various pilotage authorities in the country, will be largely removed. I am sure that when such a Committee is set up to advise and consult the Board of Trade, and with the Commissioners which the Bill will set up, nothing but good will result. One word as to the Commissioners. I agree that these Commissioners should be set up. I do not agree that they should have a free hand, and I am glad that the President stated so, to go into any port to capsize arrangements which have been working well for a good many years. I should like to see a body of Commissioners in whom all those concerned would have perfect-trust, in whom the pilots could trust, knowing that if their case was brought before the Commissioners fair play and strict justice would be dealt out. I do not think the Commissioners should be allowed of their own sweet will to go round the country into any port or group of ports, and change what has been working well. Where they are asked to go into a port, where those who have a right to ask them, be they pilots or others, do ask them to make inquiries, I have no hesitation in saying they should go. We look forward to these Commissioners, in conjunction with the Advisory Committee, carrying out the work that will have to be carried out under the Bill both thoroughly and well. The President said that this was a Bill which tried to bring all ports and pilotage authorities into uniformity. That is a very good thing, but I think it will be almost impossible to do it. The Bill may go far in doing it, but each port in this Kingdom has its own peculiar laws and conditions, and if the Bill will assimilate so far as it is possible, all those ports whose conditions approach each other now, it will be doing a very good work. I hope when the Bill comes into Committee the President of the Board of Trade will not be wheedled or cajoled by Gentlemen with sweet tongues, who have other interests, which are always well served in this House. I hope he will listen with patience to the case put forward on behalf of the pilots, and where we have not a good case we will not try to put a case forward. We accept the Second Heading of this Bill for the reasons I have given. I think it is only my duty, speaking on behalf of the pilots of Great Britain and Ireland, to thank all those Members, in every quarter of the House, who took such a kindly interest in the pilots and who have done so much towards making the Bill even as good as it is at present.

I rise to support the Bill in its general lines, and yet to indicate that to a class of traders there has been, inadvertently I am sure, some wrong done. I have not a word to say against anything that may be urged in favour of pilots—a body of men who are worthy of respect and confidence, but at the same time pilots exist for the ships and not the ships for the pilots, and I am quite sure it is not the intention of the Board of Trade, or even the idea of the pilots themselves, that rules should be multiplied for pilotage, in cases where it is not needful, in order that sufficient work may be found for so useful a body of men. I have no sort of interest in the matter myself. I am speaking on behalf of constituents and others who represent five large associations of traders in the narrow seas, and they find themselves in the position—I do not think it was contemplated—that if the Bill is carried into law and not amended in Committee, they will be liable to some thousands of pounds —I do not know how many: it may run into tens of thousands, for additional charges for pilotage, and they have not been charged, nor has it been proved against them that the system existing at the present time has involved danger to life or limb. The Board of Trade has taken powers to set up a pilotage authority in regard to vessels which are coastwise trading—that is, running from one port to another in these islands. Many vessels which are running coastwise are also running across the narrow seas into ports in France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, and the Baltic. These vessels are used alternately and indiscriminately, and being in that category they are excluded from the operation of exceptions in this case. They have been accustomed to run, say, from the Humber to London, or from the Tyne to London or to other ports in the British Channel. In future they will not be able to plead that their captains and mates are fully acquainted with the navigation, and do not require a pilot, although the Bill permits exceptions in the case of those who are presumably well acquainted with the coast. If the short services across the seas were added to the coastwise trade, there would be no wrong done to parties, for it would be simply maintaining the existing arrangements, and there would be a considerable saving, or rather there would be the avoidance of a very considerably increased charge for those vessels. I am told that in some cases the extra amount of pilotage for a single vessel will be £13 on one journey. Of course, it might be said that the owners could qualify their captains and mates. Still, as we have heard, that would mean examinations and a close acquaintance with one particular part of the coast and not with others, and it would be a very great, infliction on owners to have one captain or mate qualified for the successive ports to which they might go in sailing from one place to another. There is at the present time in some of the coastwise trade, captains qualified as pilots running from one port to another. They have passed the examinations and paid the fees. These things are a great infliction on individual captains and mates, and they can hardly be carried out to any great extent. We have heard from the President of the Board of Trade that the question of pilotage is quite open. There is no uniform system proposed in the Bill for the whole of the United Kingdom. At the present time there are several ports which are all free as regards pilotage. My point is that a very small extension of these exceptions would enable the Board of Trade to continue the system which up to now has worked well. The evidence which was taken before the Commission proves that there is no percentage loss of life under a system where there is no pilotage as compared with a system where pilotage is compulsory. There is no danger of a uniform system being established for the United Kingdom. It must be remembered that owners are perfectly aware of the necessity of taking care of their own property, and where there is any question of doubt they are employing pilots at the present time. When they plead for exemption it is because they wish in regard to pilotage to exercise a permissive power instead of being subjected to a compulsory system.

As to the size of vessels it is proposed that those of 600 tons and under shall be free from the obligation of having pilots. Why should that be1? It is because these vessels being small could not pay the charges. The trade they are engaged in would not bear the charges. These small vessels are so numerous that the charges for pilotage, if imposed, would have to be so small that the pilots could not be remunerated properly in view of the large number who would be required. We have a state of things in which neither the necessities of the case nor the conditions of humanity require that there should be an inexorable rule. I would argue that a small vessel is more likely to take risks in certain places such as we have on the Eastern seaboard of this country than a large one. A vessel of 3,000 tons goes up the Humber or the Ouse with a spring tide. There are more or less recognised channels. These are subject to fluctuations, but still the captain of these big vessels does not take any risks. He waits for the tide and keeps to the well-defined channels that are used for large vessels. Small vessels are much more apt to take risks in running up and down. They are not so careful about the state of the tide. Consequently I may say, though I have not the figures here, that the percentage of loss is very much greater in the case of small vessels than in the case of many of the huge ones. All that my friends want is to have the right, not to decide themselves, but to appeal to the Board of Trade to decide whether it is or is not wise to give a relaxation in this particular case. There are steamers at present specially built for tidal work in rivers in which there is a great difference in depth between high and low water, and they are so arranged as to carry a considerable tonnage with a very small draught. It is not a question so much of pilotage being required for the large as for the small vessel.

The line drawn at 600 tons is quite artificial, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there should be no special limitation except he and his successors consider it necessary in any particular case to make such a provision. But unless power is given in the Bill for discretion to be exercised by the Board of Trade, of course it cannot be done. There is another consideration. If a pilot is compulsory, the captain is bound to take the pilots in rotation. He may have one pilot on one voyage and another on another, but where it is permissible, he advises beforehand, and in some cases he obtains the same man. We all know that the captain knows his ship and that ships have temperaments and peculiarities. So peculiar are ships in temperament that we invariably call them by the female gender. But the captain may know a great deal more about his own ship than the pilot who is quite strange, and may navigate it more safely. At any rate, he will not take risks, and he will get a pilot who knows his ship. I am told that there are two groups of pilots, those who are the compulsory service and those who are pilots of exemption with whom a contract can be made. It is proposed in the near future, I believe, to amend the law to make the owner responsible for damage done by his ship when in charge of a pilot. If that is so, it makes it more necessary perhaps for the owner to have some sort of choice in the selection of the pilot. Therefore, to summarise, the request from this large group is that coastwise shall be extended to coastwise and short trades, short trades being described as trades from these islands to places north of Brest in France; that we may have an appeal to the Board of Trade as arbitrator in the fixing of exemptions, and that the limitations as to the size of the vessel shall be not retained.

The President of the Board of Trade, at the beginning of his remarks, said that this was a non-contentious measure.

I said that parties were agreed in Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman did not intend to convey that in the fifty-two Clauses of this Bill there were not a great many questions which are controversial and must be dealt with. I think it a pity—I am not blaming the President of the Board of Trade, for we had not expected the previous Debate to continue so long—that this Bill, involving so many grave questions, should be dealt with late in the afternoon at the end of the week in a House which naturally would be expected to be very empty after very tiring and fatiguing nights. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that is was high time that the pilotage of this country should be brought under one system as far as possible, and that there should be a central authority. For a very long time there has been a division of authority which has been, not injurious to effective pilotage, but injurious to effective administration; and I am not disposed to agree altogether with the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on this side, who says he thinks it would be a great mistake if the Commissioners go into a port unless they are invited by the pilotage authorities. This brings me to one of the chief points of the Bill. I object entirely to the appointment of these Commissioners if there is going to be any restriction upon the authority of the Board of Trade in connection with the authority of the Commissioners. If the purpose of this Bill is to codify the rules and regulations which control pilotage in the United Kingdom, if the purpose is to get something like uniform administration, then certain it is that your Commissioners must be Commissioners appointed with something like a broad authority intended to carry out the purpose of the Bill, and that is codification and uniformity of regulations which the President of the Board of Trade says is one of the chief purposes of the Bill. I assume my interpretation is correct that these Commissioners are to have large authority given to them. If that is so, I trust no question will arise concerning the Commissioners going into any individual ports to make inquiry when the Board deems necessary in its administration for the better government of the ports of the Kingdom and the pilotage within the ports of the Kingdom.

This appointment of Commissioners is growing to be a very serious question in this House and in the administration of the country. It will be noticed that in Clause 3 and Clause 8 not only the Commissioners but the persons who assist them in the discharge of their duties are to be paid. Then the Advisory Committee, I have no doubt, is to be paid, and with their expenses. It has been charged against this Government that it lends itself to jobs. I am not saying that this is a case of jobbery. I do believe, if you are going to have this codification and rearrangement of the regulations of pilotage in the ports of the United Kingdom, that Commissioners are necessary; I admit that, but I am glad to see that those Commissioners are to be appointed only for five years. Am I to assume from that the President of the Board of Trade has it in his mind that these Commissioners are not to be permanent.

After the inquiries into all the various ports, I do not see anything there will be to occupy them

I am glad to have drawn that from the President of the Board, and to know what the intentions of the Government are, because it is quite clear when you have had your inquiries, and have established something like uniformity of regulation of pilotage throughout the country, that the usefulness of those Commissioners will disappear.

made some observations which were inaudible.

I still can offer no apology. I know what the tendency is. Once the Commissioners are appointed they are indeed like limpets, they hang on to office so long as they can, and as long as the Government, which is pressed by its supporters in favour of those Commissioners will permit them to do so. I do not want to carry that point any further. I just wish to register in a general way my objection to this growing habit of appointing Commissioners and paying for them heavily, and paying for Advisory Committees. I believe there are great numbers of people in this country who would be perfectly willing to act upon such a Commission without any salary for the honour and duty of the thing, only with their expenses paid by the Government, and I do certainly think that to pay an Advisory Committee beyond the ordinary expenses attached to their services, is something to which this House ought to object. This country has found enough people in the past to do service for the State without being paid for it, and if you are going to carry from the House of Commons down through all the official administration, this payment of hitherto voluntary service, you are going to raise the expenditure of this country beyond all reason.

I hasten on to two extremely important things, and one is that to which my hon. Friend has referred. I may say in passing, that the pilots have had a very warm and very good friend in the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Joyce), who opened this Debate after the President of the Board of Trade. I desire to refer to Clause 19. The President of the Board of Trade has explained why it is that he intends to add to that Clause as it stands the Section which he read to the House. I would like to recall to the memory of the House the circumstances to which the President of the Board of Trade referred, but which he did not refer to, and quite naturally, with full scrutiny. This is the situation. In 1906, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, under pressure from Members, in the Committee upstairs consented to the exclusion of alien pilots. That was done, as I have papers here to show, on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. The President of the Board of Trade stated that the Law Officers were of the opinion that, though there might be difficulties, we were justified, no matter what our international agreements were and under those agreements, in excluding alien pilots. What I want to point out is that this was a case of hasty legislation. It was like the Workman's Compensation Act. We believed in the principle and we hastened it through. There is great danger in that; I hope there is not going to be more danger concerning this Bill. If that Bill had not been forced through Committee in 1006, if we had not had the absolute assurance of the President of the Board of Trade that the Law Officers were of opinion that we could act in that way, we would not have allowed that Clause to be inserted. See the position in which the Government are placed. Some years pass, and the French Law Officers, evidently better informed, insist that out Law Officers did not rightly interpret international agreements. Either our Law Officers were wrong or else France, once again, as in the New Hebrides case, has scored diplomatically off this country. While I say that, I also express my great satisfaction that a solution has been reached. I do not say that the pilots of this country are grateful for the insertion of this Sub-section. It is not a question of the pilots; it is a question of national safety, above and beyond all claims of the pilots. As the President of the Board of Trade said in 1906:—

"The Director of Naval Intelligence has 9ent a report to the Admiralty expressing the opinion that the granting of these certificates to aliens introduces a possible source of danger to ourselves in war and that the withdrawal of such a privilege would correspondingly diminish our danger."

5.0 P.M.

No one need express any gratitude whatever to the Government for that provision. My point is that the legislation of 1906 was hasty. The Law Officers were evidently wrong, or else the French Government are now saying that they will not object to a Clause being inserted enabling the British Admiralty for the safety of the country to prohibit alien pilots from being employed in navigating the waters of any individual port. That being the case, having stated what I believe the circumstances were, and having registered my conviction that this situation ought never to have occurred if due inquiry had been made in 1906, I leave the point, because I am satisfied that the solution now reached will on the whole be satisfactory. There will be general agreement in regard to that. If our Law Officers were wrong, I can congratulate our diplomacy for having achieved this result. If our Law Officers had been right from the beginning, there is no reason for congratulation.

There is one more point. In Clause 47 in will be noted that pilots who have held exempt pilotage certificates in the waters of the Thames, Rochester, and the Note shall have their certificates made permanent. That is an Act of justice. If that had not been arranged this Bill would have had very great trouble in this House, for I am absolutely certain we should have been able to enlist Members on both sides of the House to support the, contention that those exempted pilots, having done river work for so many years, having given their lives to the profession, were entitled to continue in it, and work it for their own interests and also effectively and efficiently in the public safety. I would ask the sympathy of the House for one question that remains, and I think I shall have the sympathy of the President of the Board of Trade who, when he knows the circumstances—as I imagine he does—will see that the thing is put right in Committee. The exempted pilots are provided for. But there is a large number of men who have been candidates for exemption certificates. Many of these men have worked on the Thames for twenty or thirty years. I have a list of seventy-seven. Of these six have done from thirty to forty years service, seventeen from twenty to thirty, and seven from ten to twenty. Fifteen of them have been captains of tugs on the Thames and its estuaries, and four of them mates. Three of them have been captains, and seven mates of coasting vessels, with pilotage certificates for navigating their own vessels. Thirty-nine of them have assisted in the navigation on the Thames; and have been captains of British steamers on the Thames. These men, I want to point out, have been for years living with the reasonable expectation of some time or other being called by Trinity House and given exempt pilotage certificates. It has been their ambition in life to get exempt pilotage certificates for working the river. Meanwhile they have worked the river, but not as pilots, and they have had experience extending from ten to forty years. I know-many of these men personally. They are-men of good character and thoroughly efficient, inasmuch as they are pilots who already have certificates for working the river. These men are cut out under the Bill, since compulsory pilotage is accepted, on the Thames and its estuaries. I ask the House to agree with me that the President of the Board of Trade should insert a Sub-section in his Bill empowering Trinity House to engage those men.

I want to pay a tribute to Trinity House. It has had not only the confidence of the pilots, but it: is entitled to the confidence-of the mercantile trade and of all those whose interests are affected in the Thames, district. Trinity House ought to be empowered under this Bill to make selections, no matter how high they put their restriction, from those men who have devoted so many years of their lives to the river and who have done efficient service, so that those men shall become compulsory-pilots for the river alone, as the exempted pilots are. I do not think there is a Member of this House who will not see the absolute justice of this pica for men who have a reasonable expectation in this matter. The names of a great number of them have been on the list of Trinity House, and they had a right to expect that they would be called upon. Until three years ago they were called in. Then the whole question was to be gone into and their expectations for the moment ceased. But they have the right to demand from this House that they shall not now be crippled in their profession, of watermen, dock masters, mates, and captains, but that they will become pilots. I beg the President of the Board of Trade not to> resist that plea, but to give me an assurance that he will accept my Amendment, or, at any rate, that he will deal with this point effectively and do justice to a number of men worthy of our consideration. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me an assurance this afternoon that this case will be considered and that Trinity House will be empowered by this Bill to draw upon those men who should have a preference over any outside their own ranks who have not had the same training, and who, perhaps, may go to sea tomorrow and go through a two years' training as compulsory pilots and be appointed instead of them. I believe the Bill, whatever it may lack in detail, however it may fail in certain points, which can be corrected in Committee, is on the whole good for pilotage in the United Kingdom, and if the Commissioners do their work properly, and if the President of the Board of Trade and his Department carry out the purposes of the Bill, good service will be done by the codifying of the Regulations and bringing the pilotage of this country under one central authority.

As one who worked upon the Bill of 1906, and particularly upon the Clause dealing with alien pilots, I express my profound regret that the President of the Board of Trade has felt it his duty to ask for the cancellation of that Clause in the present Merchant Shipping Act. The hon. Baronet opposite said that pilots existed for ships and not ships for pilots. I must not be associated with any such sentiment. As a matter of fact, I think the pilots have a very serious grievance and complaint that the Board of Trade has not seen its way to accept the whole principle of compulsory pilotage. The point has been made that pilots are limited in their activities and are not free agents. They are confined to their own particular area and are not at liberty to refuse. If a master wants a pilot the pilot is compelled to give his services, but the pilot has no right to demand that he shall be taken on. The argument for compulsory pilotage is unanswerable from the standpoint of the pilots themselves. When this Bill gets into Committee I hope my right hon. Friend will bear an open mind on these matters and not limit himself to the plea of the hon. Baronet to make this Bill less advantageous to the pilots than it is. It is a mistake to assume from the statement made by my hon. Friend who spoke on behalf of the Pilots' Association, that there is no division of opinion in regard to some of the proposals in this Bill. They came to a majority decision, but there was a strong minority against it. When we come to mould this Bill into an Act of Parliament in Committee we shall probably revise the pilotage dues in order to bring them something nearer what they ought to be. It is twenty-four or twenty-five years since the pilotage dues were fixed, and therefore it may be necessary to come forward with proposals which will give to the pilots a rate commensurate with their responsibilities and duties. In addition, we may have to ask for a recasting of the pilotage boards under which the pilots will have a fuller representation. I shall be prepared to vote for the Second Reading with the reservation that we may bring forward proposals in Committee which will call for much change, and in these matters I hope the President of the Board of Trade will meet us in that fair spirit which he has always displayed in the House and in the Committee.

This is a most important public measure, and I think we are entitled to make some complaint that at the end of a very busy week the sittings of the House should be indefinitely continued. I feel that this Bill has been prepared without proper consideration. It is one of those measures where you are going to legislate first and inquire afterwards. These Commissions which the Government propose to set up are very unnecessary indeed. A Select Committee, if it had been properly directed, might have obtained all the information, which you now require, and if there is any information which has not been obtained, why you have Members of the Government who are more or less unemployed who might have obtained it. Then with all the information at your disposal it would have been possible to have prepared a proper Bill, because there is not the slightest doubt uniformity in our systems of pilotage is as far as practicable very desirable. One can realise a good deal more information is required than is at present in the possession of the Government, or certainly than is at present before the House. It is a very complicated Bill. There are fifty-two Clauses in it, and it requires reading not once but a good many times before one can really understand what it is all about. It is not as if this Bill was going to be the end of it all, because after, the Commissioners have reported the Board of Trade will proceed to make pilotage orders which may or may not require the confirmation of Parliament. I should have thought it would have been a very much better plan to have got all your information and material together and then to have endeavoured to deal with it as one big comprehensive Bill of Pilotage. You are going to give every pilot a copy of this Bill. He is required to carry it, and to produce it at all times. What on earth will be the good of it to him I do not know, because it is full of pains and penalties. There are something like twenty-three different penalties, either penalties to which the pilot is liable, or to which the master is liable, or to which owner is liable, and they are extremely difficult to follow, they are so scattered about in the Bill. There is a penalty of £5, I think, for not having a copy of the Bill, right up to a penalty of £100 if a pilot sells an ounce of tobacco. These penalties ought to have been arranged in the form of a schedule, so that a pilot who has to take a risk may be able to look down his schedule and pick any penalty which he will chance.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I think very nearly all the penalties are existing penalties. This is a Consolidation Act.

I quite agree, and in a Consolidation Act you should endeavour to simplify as far as possible. You might very well have put these penalties in a schedule so that the pilot could understand them at a glance. The question about alien pilots seems to me to be a very much more important question than has so far been realised. It seems particularly important to those who have some knowledge of the passages and the work which these alien pilots undertake. I have been particularly impressed with how in the thickest of fogs and with practically no reduction of speed the line of steamers which runs from Flushing to Queenborough are brought right up the Thames estuary, inside the North Sand, and right past our Fleet which is moored at Sheerness, into Queenborough Harbour. It is no unusual thing for them to make the passage without sighting land from Flushing until they are alongside Queenborough Pier. That is a serious menace in these times of huge armaments. Because they are aliens it is not fair to say that they would necessarily use their knowledge against this country. But, at any rate, it is a knowledge which they possess. It is a knowledge which as aliens they would be perfectly free in time of war to use against this country, and it is knowledge of the greatest possible value. They know the soundings, the tides, and the channels; they can bring a ship in almost any state of the weather from the open sea, into our great naval base at Sheerness. From that point of view I venture to say that Clause 19 and the Amendment which the President of the Board of Trade proposes to introduce requires a great deal more consideration than it has received. I do not want to urge anything that would cause complications in foreign negotiations. My one object in referring to it is to call attention to what I think every one must agree is a peril which requires our earnest consideration.

There are various kinds of pilots, and one would have thought that the Government would have incorporated in this Bill the qualifications of pilots. What is the training of a pilot to be? We ought to have some definite, clear proposal for the training and examination of these men, and not leave it to the Board of Trade or to the various pilotage authorities. Personally, I should have been quite content to have left it to the old Trinity House, but, as that is not possible, I think the House should be fully informed of what the Government proposals arc, and should have an opportunity of considering very carefully what are the qualifications that these new compulsory pilots are to have. The hon. Member for Limerick referred to foreign compulsory pilotage. I think there is this great distinction between British and foreign compulsory pilotage. In Continental waters the compulsion is as to fees and the master still remains in charge and responsible for the ship. The pilot goes on board: he is the adviser of the master, who is still in charge. Now under the law as it stands here that is not so. I think I am right in saying that the compulsory pilot goes on board and to some extent entirely supersedes the master in his authority. It is interesting to inquire what are the relative positions of the masters and pilots under the existing law. Under the Merchant Shipping-Act of 1894, one of the Clauses provides that the master gives charge of the ship to the pilot when he comes on board. This Bill is absolutely silent as to the position of the pilot. The Pilotage Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act are repealed, but this Bill does not say and gives no idea as to what position the pilot will occupy. This is important from the point of view of Section 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which gives relief to the owner where any loss is caused by fault of the pilot acting in charge of the ship where the employment is compulsory. There are three things under Section 633: first, that the pilot is at fault; second, that he is in charge; and third, that he is compulsorily in charge, but under this Bill as framed, I fail to see that the pilot would be in charge. The pilot's position may be merely the position of the foreign pilot to whom I have referred, and the ship-owner may get no relief whatever in the event of any accident.

The law as it stands is extremely complicated, and as this is a consolidation Bill, and you desire to have uniformity—you are going to give a copy of the Bill to every pilot when it becomes law—I should have thought that the first thing you would have done was to have made it as simple as possible, and to have made it perfectly clear, so that after the pilot has mastered the measure and the master has read it they would both know where their respective duties and responsibilities begin and end. Nothing of the sort is done. The law is left in absolutely the same confused and ambiguous condition that it is in to-day. It may be said that these are matters which may be dealt with in Committee, but I think that they require consideration by the House. It is not fair to rush a Bill of this sort through at this late hour, involving very important changes and consequences, without giving Members the fullest and freest opportunity of considering the points in all their bearings. The difficulties which have been experienced in the law as between pilot and shipmaster are extremely complicated. I have here a leading text-book which lays it down that although a pilot has charge of the ship the owners are most clearly responsible for the—

"competency of the master and crew, their obedience to orders and, under ordinary circumstances, that the commands of the pilot are implicitly obeyed. To the pilot belongs the whole conduct and navigation of the ship, to the safety of which it is important that the chief direction should be invested in one only."

There are a number of instances where owners are held rsponsible for the acts of the pilot, and there are other instances where the shipmaster is held responsible for not having taken the command out of the pilot's hands. Surely these are cases which might easily have been dealt with in this Bill with very great advantage to mariners generally. Here is a ease of very common occurrence, a ship in collision in the Thames in a fog. The judge who tried the case expressed the opinion that it was the duty of the master to take the charge of the ship out of the pilot's hands and to bring her up. There are heaps of cases of that sort. If this Bill is to be of real benefit and use to the mercantile marine, opportunity should be taken to incorporate and deal with difficulties of that character. Another point which does not appear to be dealt with is what is known as the choice system. Will owners, when this Bill becomes law, be able to choose their pilot, or will they have to accept the first pilot who is offered to them? As matters stand at present owners have their own pilots. A particular ship is, perhaps, a little difficult to handle, and the owner is in the habit of having a certain pilot who knows the ship to take her in and out of harbour. That is quite a reasonable and a very desirable matter. You are setting up this system of compulsion, and, after all, the idea of compulsion does not come from the owners. It is really coming from the pilots themselves. They are at the back of it. It is not because there is any necessity for compulsory pilotage. It is because this is to some extent a pilotage trade union Bill. The pilots themselves are seeking by compulsory pilotage to get advantages which they do not get at present. On the Severn there are certain ports where pilotage is voluntary and others where it is compulsory, and naturally the pilots desire to make it compulsory at all the ports. If they get compulsory pilotage, the pilots, as in all other trade union movements, will work for a general levelling up of the incompetent, shall we say, with the competent. Will not the next stage be to prevent owners from exercising the choice they exercise at present as to the men they will engage to pilot their ships?

There is no change made in regard to the particular point the hon. Member is dealing with.

It is perfectly true that no change is made, but when you get the powers proposed to be conferred by the Bill the Board of Trade can make the change. At present I think you cannot make the change without an Act of Parliament. I have heard of pressure being put on a Government Department at the instance of a class. By this Bill yachts will be liable to compulsory pilotage. They have never been liable to compulsory pilotage in the past. It is particularly desirable that that proposal should be altered in Committee, because no one in any part of the House would like to do anything which would in any way hamper the sport of yachting or make it inconvenient for foreign yachts to visit our waters as they do at present. I think this Bill has been hastily prepared, and I trust it will receive more consideration before it is placed on the Statute Book.

I think it is necessary for those who are interested in one of the most important rivers on which pilots work to give some slight expression of opinion as to the action of the Board of Trade in introducing this Bill. I regret that we have not had more time this afternoon to discuss it. I think those interested in legislation of this description view with pleasure the fact that this Bill has been brought in. One thing in favour of legislation is the continued uncertainty that has prevailed year after year. That uncertainty has been hanging over the whole of the shipping interest—both the shipowning interest and the pilotage interest, and it was felt that, sooner or later, there should be legislation of some description. This is largely a consolidating measure, and many of the things that have been criticised as though they were something new have been only the re-enactments necessary in consolidating measures. The measure is one which, more than most measures, requires to be threshed out thoroughly in the Committee upstairs, all the details being so highly technical, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to receive with an open mind the suggestions that will be made from both sides. I believe that a very good measure can be made of it. This measure is of considerable interest in my Constituency, which extends for ten miles along the river, and I associate myself with those who desire to see this great question settled, not only in the interests of the shipowners, but also in those of the pilots.

I quite agree that our pilots are a great national asset and we cannot do much for them. I would like to ask, however, is it to be enacted that the pilot and the master of the vessel are to be in almost equal authority? On board a man of war the captain is always responsible.

I am not altering that.

A man may be a brilliant navigator and yet useless as a pilot. The two things are absolutely different. So much in the mercantile marine do they use pilots that captains are often very bad in bringing a ship alongside a wharf or to anchorage in pilotage waters.

I ought to have mentioned the case of captains coming constantly to the same point.

Then I do not think that Clause 19 is half strong enough. There is very grave danger of having alien pilots and captains. I quite appreciate the diplomatic difficulty, and I do not want to make it more difficult. Let me give an instance. The first time I went down the Thames it was with a Belgian ship under a Belgian captain at night, at 20 knots an hour. I was amazed to think that a foreign vessel could do that, while I was convinced that not a single ship in our service had ever done it. The point that struck me was that the pilot was able to pilot in our waters without marks. He knows the tides, he knows the soundings, and he is so well acquainted with the waters that if the marks were removed he could go in and out with equal ease. The Clause relative to what the Admiralty is going to do is rather like shutting the stable door after the horse has been stolen; but I suppose the provision will never be acted upon except in war. You must have some of these alien pilots, but you should curtail the number as far as possible because their experience and knowledge and practice in going in and out of these harbours gives them great facility in piloting vessels. Suppose they went to the side of our enemy, they would be a very great danger to us in time of war, and therefore the number of these alien pilots and captains who pilot their own vessels should be limited as far as possible and as far as it can be conveniently done having regard to diplomatic relations. Attention has been called to the large number of men who have all their lives worked and used their experience with the definite object in view of becoming pilots. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember those men, and will allow a certain number of them to gain those positions in life to the attainment of which they have devoted the whole of their experience and knowledge in the hope of getting positions by and by.

I rise to protest against the introduction of this Bill at the end of November, and I do so not only on my own behalf but for others. There can be no proper opportunity to give adequate consideration to a measure of this length and importance at this period of the Session. If this is seamped in Committee and is going to be rushed through in a few sittings, it is going to jeopardise the life of the Government. We have had one instance of this kind of proceeding in the Mental Deficiency Bill, and we are now going to have another fiasco over this attempt of the Government to extort the utmost from their loyal supporters in the way of legislation. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, thinks he can placate and conciliate all the various interests affected by this Bill. I do not think he can. An attempt is being made on the opposite benches, and in the Garvin newspapers, to get the Government to go on with non-contentious business in preference to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill and other measures; but the Conservative party do not drop their programmes in order to please their opponents, and yet they have the cheek and impudence to think that this Government will do it. You will have exactly the same cry over this Bill, now you have brought it in, that you have had over others, that it has no chance of going through.

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Unionist party have pressed for this Bill? If he suggests that he is absolutely inaccurate.

The hon. Gentleman is quite capable of understanding the meaning of my remarks. I say they are bringing pressure through the Press and in the Committee to induce the Government to pass the Mental Deficiency Bill as a nonparty measure with the object, the avowed object, of defeating Welsh Disestablishment. Any man who would deny that would make a laughing-stock of himself. Surely you can see that this is a highly controversial measure. In Clause 3 yon have a set of new Commissioners, a thing I abhor. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) hinted that he does not like the appointment of these Commissioners. Of course, the Conservative party always say that in this House, but when they get into Grand Committee they always vote for them—the more the merrier, and with the largest salaries. Whenever they think they will not be reported in their own faithful Press, which will only make selections out of their speeches, they invariably vote for the largest number of officials at the largest salaries. The hon. Member himself will vote for this in Grand Committee, and for the larger salary, and if there is any Radical Amendment, in favour of economy he will carry his whole party against it. That is what takes place in Grand Committee. That is highly controversial matter. Very soon we will have so many of these Commissioners that we will have to devote a great portion of the Metropolis where they can reside. It may be thought I am pressing this objection too far, but hon. Gentlemen who are becoming impatient at my remarks know that is the hardest charge we have to meet. Hon. Members opposite who vote for all these posts under a Liberal Government go down to our constituencies and pretend we are manufacturing salaries in order to give away jobs. They will do so again.

One of the Clauses of this Bill provides that the Board of Trade shall be able to repeal any Act, Order, custom, by-law, regulation, or provision, thus giving them power to repeal all the Acts that have ever been passed on this subject. The Government cannot hope to get through all these points without discussion. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Compton-Rickett) mentioned some important points which I am sure had the sympathy of the House. There are many other points. The consequence of this is that we are jeopardising the existence of the Government by all those measures, and by bringing in a huge controversial topic of fifty Clauses at the end of November. I cannot say it is good generalship or good management. I am cue who stays to the last, and as a rule I am first to arrive at the House night after night. I am blessed with good health and strength, and have a keen admiration for the Government in spite of what I say. There are business men of the Labour party who have many anxious problems and duties to attend to apart from this House. There are business men from the North who cannot be expected to give time for such measures. They demand our sympathy, and I appeal to the Government not to proceed with this measure which cannot pass, and which will occupy the time of their supporters in Grand Committee, and which will run the risk of another lamentable defeat on the floor of this House.

I should like to join in the protest against the action of the Government in putting down such a Bill of such far-reaching importance at the fag-end of a Friday, and that Friday being the fag-end of a very strenuous week in this House. One or two very important questions have been raised, such, for instance, as the question of alien pilots. That is an important question both from the national point of view and from the point of view of the livelihood of the pilots themselves. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, whose sympathies I believe are with us on this question, will use his influence in the direction of reducing to a minimum the number of alien pilots that are allowed to work in English waters. Not only is it a national danger, but it adds to the competition amongst our own pilots, and so prevents many of them earning the livelihood which they might otherwise do. When we know, as we do, that foreign nations deny to our pilots the right which we give to theirs, the least we can do is to treat them as they are treating us, and if they shut our pilots out of their waters, shut theirs out of ours. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assist us in this matter.

I wish to associate myself with the protest of the hon. Member for Pontefract, and to express my regret that the Government should have given such short notice of the Second Reading of this Bill. I would make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to see if he cannot possibly give us another day for the discussion. I know the very strong feeling which exists on the question of alien pilots. The situation is viewed with positive alarm, and I think that those concerned would like to have an opportunity of considering the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade on the matter. We believe that my own Constituency, Falmouth, would play a very important part in the case of war, and the people there are greatly interested in this subject. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of giving an opportunity for the further consideration of the matter.