asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to order repayment to the persons on whom the levy was made of the sum of £980,000 unlawfully levied by deduction for Income Tax between 6th April and 7th August, 1912; whether he proposes to introduce a Bill of indemnity for those responsible for making these unlawful deductions; what steps he proposes to take to prevent such unlawful levies in future; and will he now reply to these three questions?

The hon. Member's questions were answered on Monday last.

asked why the income from the charges levied by Imperial officers for lighthouse dues, estimated to amount in 1911–12 to £466,000, and the expenditure therefrom upon lighthouses, are omitted from the Estimates of national expenditure intended to show the aggregate estimated expenditure for the year; and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give directions that in future the lighthouse dues and the lighthouse expenditure shall be inserted in the statement of estimated income and expenditure?

The income and expenditure of the General Lighthouse Fund are not, and never have been, regarded as forming part of the public income and expenditure of the United Kingdom.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state what sum the Government of India realised by the sale of Coopers Hill College?

I have been asked by my hon. Friend to answer this question. After the property had been in the market for nearly five years it was sold for £20,000.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House since when and by virtue of what authority the First Lord of the Treasury has abandoned to the Chancellor of the Exchequer all control over the administrative business of the Treasury; and whether he now holds that in such administrative business the Chancellor of the Exchequer is independent of the First Lord and superior to all the other Lords in the Commission of the Treasury?

The words used by me on the 16th inst. in answer to the hon. Member were that "the administrative business of the Treasury is under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer." I did not say that all control has been abandoned by me to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for such is not the fact. The position still remains what it has been for generations past, namely, that the First Lord of the Treasury takes no part in the ordinary administrative work of the Treasury, unless questions arise upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it right to consult him.

Just one question in order to cure the constitutional delusion. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Gladstone, on the 18th February, 1877, in the House of Commons, speaking with an experience of twelve years as Chancellor of the Exchequer and eleven years as Prime Minister, stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's duties were merely administrative except on the occasion when he stands between the spending department and when the Prime Minister——

The hon. Member is giving information rather than seeking it.

Am I right?

I believe that is the fact.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the answer which Mr. Wilkins made on this very point before the Marconi Committee yesterday?

I am afraid I am not.

I assure the right hon. "Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that it is with extreme reluctance I bring forward this question of the resignation of Sir Francis Bridgeman, of -which I gave notice on Wednesday last. In my judgment all this sort of questions are best if possible kept out of discussion in this House, not that I think that this House is either incompetent to discuss them or that it is an unsuitable place for their discussion, but for the reason that the moment any question, I do not care what that question is, reaches the floor of this House it becomes tainted with the party atmosphere with which this House is inevitably tainted. Most questions are in my judgment best kept outside the possibility of being tainted by the party atmosphere, but none more so than any question connected with the British Navy. My only object in bringing forward this question is, if possible, to get at the facts of the case as to the resignation of Sir Francis Bridge-man, because I can assure the First Lord that there is a considerable section of the public, and, what is even of greater importance, of those in the Service to which Sir Francis Bridgeman belongs, who have an uneasy feeling in their minds as to the fairness of treatment which Sir Francis Bridgeman has received, and the methods by which his resignation has been effected. I do not want to disparage the high office of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but I can assure him that in the Service sailors look upon the First Sea Lord as the head of the Service, and naturally, therefore, if they have any suspicion or idea that he has not been, I do not wish to say anything offensive, fairly treated by his political colleague on the Board, resentment naturally arises among their ranks. Certainly, if that is so, and I am convinced that it is so, it cannot be a good thing, either for the reputation or administration of the Admiralty or for the Naval service itself, that such a feeling should exist. For those reasons, although, as I said before, it is with great reluctance I bring forward this question, I make no excuse for doing so.

Very soon after the resignation of Sir Francis Bridgeman was announced, my Noble Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) asked in this House for the full circumstances affecting the resignation of the First Sea Lord. The right hon. Gentleman answered that it was for reasons of health, and that no difference in view or policy led to any disagreement. Pressed as to whether the cause of ill-health was made with the authority of Sir Francis Bridgeman, the First Lord said no, that he took full responsibility, and that it required no other responsibility. A further question by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth asked on which side the proposal for resignation emanated, and the right hon. Gentleman replied, "The proposal emanated from me." If the reasons of ill-health emanated from the right hon. Gentleman, why did he not say so at once instead of, as it were, having this statement dragged from him by innumerable questions, supplementary questions, from all parts of the House? It makes it appear at once that no consideration of ill-health induced Sir Francis Bridgeman to resign his post, but that the proposal to do so on those grounds was made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I will deal with that a little later. I ask in passing, and I do not want to do so in any offensive, way, does the right hon. Gentleman, as he suggested in his reply to this House, really maintain that he alone, without any other authority, is the judge as to whether the First Sea Lord is or is not in that state of health which enables him to perform his duties. If that were taken as a precedent, there would be very little security for any public official if on any occasion he disagreed with the Minister at the head of the office to which he belongs, that when that disagreement occurred he, the Minister, could remove him from that office by suggesting he did so for reasons of ill-health. Constitutional law is, of course, a very difficult question, but I think I am right in saying that the office which the right hon. Gentleman holds is different from any other office held under the Crown, in that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not a Secretary of State, and that the other members of the Admiralty Board are not his subordinates, but his colleagues.

I think that some misgivings on this point must have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman, because on 12th December an hon. Gentleman on his own side of the House asked a question which had not been put down on the Paper, as to whether there was further information on the subject of the resignation of Sir Francis Bridgeman. The right hon. Gentleman gave an answer of very considerable length to this question, on the health of Sir Francis Bridgeman, which he had derived from personal observation, and that he felt bound, with the concurrence of the Prime Minister, to impart this view of his health to Sir Francis Bridgeman, and that he had done so on the 28th November, during the absence of the First Sea Lord on account of illness. Further, in that statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to the House he said that in consequence of this letter Sir Francis Bridgeman, with great propriety, resigned his post, and he added, possibly having an idea of the way his action might be interpreted, what he had said before in the House that no difference in view or policy had at any time existed between himself and the First Sea Lord. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is strictly accurate to say the First Sea Lord was absent from his office on leave through illness. I am led to believe that Sir Francis Bridgeman did duty at the Admiralty during the months of August, September, and October, when most, if not all, of the other Sea Lords were away, and he did this with a view to obtaining his leave later on in the autumn, and that in no way was Sir Francis Bridgeman absent through ill-health, but that he was asking his leave on the 28th November in the ordinary sense of the word. When the right hon. Gentleman said that on receipt of this letter of 28th November, Sir Francis Bridgeman with great propriety resigned his post, is it not really the fact that Sir Francis replied, saying that he had consulted his doctor who assured him that he was quite fit for duty, and that he pro- posed to retain his post. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether my version of this transaction is not the correct one, and that in reply to Sir Francis Bridge-man's letter to which I have referred, he wrote a second letter saying that his decision as to Sir Francis Bridgeman's resignation was final and that he had received the necessary sanction.

The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman did write a second letter to Sir Francis Bridgeman insisting on his resignation whether he wished to or not, previously having made every arrangement as to his resignation. If my information is correct, and I have every reason to believe it is so, it leads me to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman formed his own conclusions as to the health of Sir Francis Bridgeman on his own responsibility, without in the first place consulting Sir Francis personally on this subject as to whether he was fit for duty or not, and that the right hon. Gentleman had, as a matter of fact, already arranged for Sir Francis's resignation, and had obtained the necessary sanction thereto before he wrote the letter of 28th November suggesting resignation, or, at any rate, before he received Sir Francis Bridgeman's reply. There is one more point, though an important one, to which I should like to refer. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that no difference in view or policy has at any time existed between himself and Sir Francis Bridgeman. May I ask him once more whether, prior to his letter, suggesting resignation, differences had arisen between him and Sir Francis Bridgeman on matters of expert opinion, and, further, whether on one occasion, at any rate, not very long before that letter was written, Sir Francis Bridgeman had threatened that if a course were adopted with which he could not agree he would resign. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty some very plain questions, and I hope he will give me a perfectly straight answer. I believe what I have stated in this transaction is the true account of what has taken place. If it is the true account, it is a transaction wholly unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman himself and of the high office which he holds. You want to get the very best men you can in this country to serve in the Navy, and you expect an immense amount out of them through their career. It is not an inducement to get those best men in the Service, if on reaching the time which Sir Francis Bridgeman has reached, when after a long career in the Service, esteemed and honoured by all who have had the privilege of his acquaintance or of serving with him, he has attained the topmost rung of the ladder, they are to look forward to being cast aside without that consideration which they have earned through a long and honourable career in the State.

I submit that the mere circumstance that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fitzroy) has moved in this matter is a very remarkable fact, and I am intensely surprised at finding myself on my feet. The originator of these charges, the Gentleman who first brought them forward in this House, was the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth——

I made no charge whatever. I simply said in this House that the Service was very interested in the matter. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a fair question, he asked me a fair question, and that is all that happened. There was no charge whatever on either side.

I think it is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that you had to stop the hon. Member from pursuing his questions further. We on this side must really protest, and I hope the protest is shared in every quarter of the House, against a gentleman who has held the high position in His Majesty's Sea Service that the Noble Lord has held, not taking the first opportunity that is given him to prove his charges——

I wanted to hear him first.

The Noble Lord would not have heard me at all if, as I fully expected him to do, he had got on his feet at once. Why he should depute the hon. Member opposite to speak on his behalf I cannot imagine. I do not wish to make any heated or unpleasant speech; but I must say that we expected from the Noble Lord, with his peculiarly close connection with His Majesty's Sea Service, that he would have seized the very first opportunity——[Laughter and "Why?"] Hon. Members may laugh, and ask why. We have been told that there is a scandal, and that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is such a tyrannical person that no one can work with him unless absolutely prepared to be subservient to him. The Noble Lord has inspired newspapers and asked questions day after, day. He was the first person to ask a question on the subjects and now he has to be forced to his feet, if indeed he can be forced to his feet, to substantiate the charges he has made. Those who are interested in the Navy consider that this is a matter of the very gravest importance. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fitzroy) does not realise the seriousness of the charges he makes. Remember, if there is the least truth in them, if there is the least foundation for them, he is easting a slur, not only upon my right hon. Friend, but upon Sir Francis Bridgeman himself, and upon his successor in the high office which he has held. If there really was an attempt by the First Lord of the Admiralty, for his own private ends, to deprive the State of the services of an admiral whose skill every man who has taken the least interest in the Navy admits, I say that it was the duty of Sir Francis Bridgeman to make the most open protest in his power, and it was the duty of his successor not to take office until the matter was cleared up. The Noble Lord knows the gravity of these things. We know that hon. Members opposite make these charges daily. Inspired by their leader, they constantly say that His Majesty's Ministers are influenced by the most corrupt purposes and inspired by the meanest motives which can influence the human mind. But the Noble Lord knows the seriousness of these charges, and some of us who have noticed that he did not get on his feet, are very much influenced by the fear that he has made these charges, found that they are in the nature of a mare's nest, and is afraid to get up in his own proper person to substantiate them when he is opposite my right hon. Friend the First Lord. I hope that when I have finished the few remarks I have to make we shall have the privilege of hearing what the Noble Lord has to say.

No man in this House with a spark of fairness can deny—the Noble Lord may laugh—that ever since he came back from sea he has been raising these questions in connection with the Navy. Every little bit of scandal, everything that could drive a wedge between different officers holding His Majesty's commission, has been seized by the Noble Lord. On several occasions I have had the privilege of hearing him make statements on naval questions. It is not pleasant for those of us who are younger men to make charges against the Noble Lord. Some of our earliest recollections are bound up with his courage on the occasion of the taking of the "Condor" into action. It is to us little less than a tragedy that he who has played such an honourable part in the Navy, who has held almost the highest post it is possible for a naval officer to hold, should in this House for what appear to us after the most careful investigation to be merely party purposes, make charge after charge which he is unable to substantiate. I would not have got on my feet to-day to attack the Noble Lord if it had not been that I felt intensely surprised at his entrusting this duty to the hon. Member who has spoken, and with whom we have no quarrel. He made the usual charges, which are customary with the present Opposition, and he did it in a very inoffensive and pleasant manner. But it was the duty of the Noble Lord himself to make these charges. He cannot deny that he is the moving spirit in this agitation which has been got up; he cannot deny that these charges are being used in the Press. I have not had time to look up the whole of the attacks that are being made in the Tory Press, but I have in my hand the "Morning Post" of today, in which I see a letter headed "The Supersession of Sir Francis Bridgeman," signed by another gentleman who has held His Majesty's commission, Major-General Hugh McCalmont. The Noble Lord knows perfectly well that if he makes these charges other people will exaggerate them—though I do not know that it is possible to exaggerate some of the charges be has made It is his duty here, as a Member of this House, not only to my right hon. Friend, whom he has attacked, but to the House and to the nation as a whole, to take the first opportunity of substantiating those charges.

How can we debate this question when there is nothing to debate? What the hon. Member opposite said was that he was informed, he was informed, he was informed. We do not know who informed him. No one knows what these charges are. If one of His Majesty's Ministers has been guilty of one of the gravest derelictions of duty of which it is possible for a Minister to be guilty, this House wants to know and to take action immediately it is possible to do so. We submit with all respect to the Noble Lord, who perhaps has not thought of all these things, that he cannot go on using these backstair methods. He must come out into the open. If there is anything to be said against the present administration of His Majesty's Navy, let him say it openly and prove it, and let the nation judge between him and His Majesty's Ministers. As it will be impossible for me to speak again on this Motion, I would like to say that, although we have no material to debate, one or two points seem to emerge. One is this: If, as my right hon. Friend says, he has felt it his duty to suggest to Sir Francis Bridgeman that his health was so indifferent that he could not bear the strain of the great office which he held, then I submit that courage amongst Ministers or in any other class of man is not so frequent that it should be censured. It must be obvious, and we all know that it has happened time after time, that the easy and pleasant course is to hold one's tongue and say nothing. It must be remembered that during these last twelve months Europe has been on the verge of war. One of the greatest responsibilities that can fall upon any human being would be cast upon the First Sea Lord in the event of this country being at war. All of us know that, however gallant the courage, however earnest the desire to do one's duty, the mind is always influenced by the body, and that the man who is ill or unwell cannot fulfil to the utmost the duties of a very responsible post.

I would say, further, that in these matters there should be no party. The safety of the State must be the first consideration. Every man must bear in mind that it is better for a Minister to show himself even over anxious, or over eager, to ensure that safety than to sit in his office and let things slide along in the hope that something will turn up. In our history, even our recent history, we have had enough of this method as regards our national defences. We, as Liberals, believe—and I do not think that Liberals alone hold the view; it should be held on all sides of the House—that in regard to a Minister who is responsible to this House for one of the great services of the State, and who, if that service breaks down or fails, has to take the entire responsibility for that failure, that it is part of our constitutional theory that that Minister should be supported in, what he considers the exercise of his duty, unless it can be plainly proved that he has been guilty of favouritism or of a course inspired by unworthy and personal motives. There has been one definite statement in the daily I Press, namely, that the First Lord and Sir Francis Bridgeman differed on three questions; the manning of the Fleet, the pay of the sea service, and the Canadian proposal. I would ask my right hon. Friend when he replies to say whether there is any truth in that statement. In concluding, I appeal once more to the Noble Lord opposite—I am sorry that he again laughs, because it is not a laughing matter—that he should at the earliest possible moment get on his feet and substantiate the charges he has made. It will be an unpleasant conclusion, but if he does not at once, the moment he has the opportunity, substantiate these charges, there can be but one conclusion conveyed to the minds of all fair-minded men, and that is that the charges cannot be substantiated, and that he is unable to bring forward one jot or tittle of evidence to support the back stairs gossip which has been put forward on the floor of the House.

The hon Member, who has just spoken, surely is begging the question. I only want quite briefly, and speaking as one who has never spoken on naval matters, and who takes no special interest in them, but as a Member of this House, to say this in reply to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden: When the question was asked the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the resignation of Sir Francis Bridgeman, the First Lord gave a reply which, at any rate, carried the insinuation or suggestion that Sir Francis Bridgeman had of his own free will resigned. [Hon. Members: "No."]

Oh, no, I carefully used language in an ambiguous form, namely, that reasons of ill-health had led to the resignation.

Yes, but that was none the less misleading to people who, at any rate, were not "in the know" in these matters. To the public of this country, and certainly to innocent Members of this House like myself, the idea that was conveyed by the answer of the First Lord was that Sir Francis Bridgeman had, of his own free will, resigned his position. Somebody, apparently my Noble Friend, I think, happened to know a little more about this matter. The First Lord was further pressed on this subject, and we discovered that a letter was written which apparently left Sir Francis Bridgeman no option whatever but to send in his resignation. That is the idea—that is the impres- sion, at any rate—that has got to the public of this country. That being so, I do feel that the suggestion of the hon. Member that last spoke that my Noble Friend was fomenting trouble in these matters is not justified.

I was very anxious to hear and to see before I troubled the House with my remarks what was to be said; but I must first answer the statement that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden made. He says that I have made statements that have never been proved. If any hon. Member in the House gets up and names a statement that I have made on any point connected with naval efficiency, that I have brought before my country, that has not invariably been done sooner or later, I shall be much obliged to him. The First Lord of the Admiralty laughs. Perhaps he will give to the House any point that I brought before my countrymen in any way on any question connected with the Fleet that has not been carried out afterwards. The hon. Member charged me with being party. I came into this House in 1874, and I have been fighting questions of the Service ever since. If the hon. Member looks back at old records he will find that I was far harder on my own leaders and on my own party than I have ever been on Gentlemen opposite. I have had one single object in view clear of party, which was to get the Navy in as good a position as it can be got into for strength, and with contentment amongst officers and men.

That was Admiral Fisher's view!

I was charged with being party, and I tried to prove that I never was party. It was unworthy of the hon. Member opposite to say that I used backstairs influence. If I have a fault, I believe it is that I have been too blunt in spitting out my mind too clearly, regardless of the consequences to myself. I do not think the hon. Member meant it offensively; still I do not think it was a nice term to use in this House to a man who has done his level best for the Service to which he has long belonged. I think this matter is so important that without acrimony we should have a full and free explanation of what has occurred. So far as I am personally concerned, I beg leave to tell the House that I have had no communication at all with Sir Francis Bridgeman, either by letter or in writing, through any third party. I am saying this in view of the question I put to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

I certainly can corroborate that, because it is a matter of notoriety that the Noble Lord and Sir Francis Bridgeman are not friends.

Well, I will not say we are not friends, but we do not quite agree. It was a question personal to myself. I will tell the House what it is. I want to be perfectly free about everything. I believe my name was submitted to be made an Admiral of the Fleet. I tell the House it was a matter to which I was perfectly indifferent as to whether I was made an Admiral of the Fleet or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I trust the House believes me when I say that. However, I was told that Sir Francis Bridge-man objected to it. I am quite sure if he did not object to it he thought I ought not to be an Admiral of the Fleet. It did not exactly cement our friendship, but there is no ill-will, nor have any remarks passed on one side or the other. I can assure the House that that is all that happened in that way with regard to Sir Francis Bridgeman and myself. The only reason I took this question up at all, and asked the First Lord my original question, was because there was a very anxious feeling in the Fleet in regard to the methods of the First Lord with the Sea Lords. I have got very many letters on that point. I say this question—and the First Lord of the Admiralty will agree with me—this question of the health, capability, and position of the First Sea Lord is vital to the safety of this country. What has happened?

Since the First Lord has been in office there have been five—this is the fifth—Sea Lords that have left the Admiralty. It is notorious that four of them, the four predecessors of Sir Francis Bridgeman—Admiral of the Fleet Sir Arthur Wilson, Vice-Admiral Sir George Egerton, Rear-Admiral Sir Charles Madden—these three —were dismissed from the Admiralty. That is notorious. That is public property. Sir Arthur Wilson got very much the same class of letter, which the First Lord will not think me rude in stating was of an insolent character, as Sir Francis Bridgeman got when he received the second letter which left him nothing to do but to resign. Why I say it was insolent was that Sir Francis Bridgeman was ordered to leave the Board in a few days or a week. Remember, two^* of these Sea Lords out of the five have been dismissed. These officers have had very distinguished careers; immense experience at sea, and in the handling of fleets and men, and had the confidence of the service as administrators. One was Sir Arthur Wilson and the other was Sir Francis Bridgeman. It was not reasons of health that necessitated the dismissal of the three Sea Lords in 1911. As I have already said, the second letter that was sent to Sir Francis Bridgeman necessitated his withdrawal, and really meant that he had no alternative but to resign.

The First Lord of the Admiralty will agree with me, and I think the sense of the House is with me, that the First Lord of the Admiralty said that the reasons of ill-health were those that led the First Sea Lord, Sir Francis Bridgeman, to resign. I put it to the House whether everybody in the House did not think it was a voluntary-resignation? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."], Wait a moment! The First Lord of the Admiralty said that his phrase was ambiguous. The ambiguity of it resulted in the House thinking that Sir Francis Bridgeman had voluntarily resigned on account of ill-health. I am only going to-state what has become public knowledge. There is a lot more behind this that I think we ought to know, but I do not know it as a fact, and I am not going to state it or to make any new insinuation beyond what is public property. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps some hon. Members opposite know more about the thing than I do. I am only going to state what I know, because I consider this affair is most serious to the country. The view that I have taken and looked at the matter from is that which from which the majority of naval officers look at it. There were two letters. One I might describe as an affectionate letter, which insinuated that Sir Francis Bridgeman should go, and contained very nice sentences, but which Sir Francis Bridgeman refused to take as an order of dismissal. He refused to resign. He said he was in very good health. That letter, I believe, contained paragraphs to say that the First Lord knew he was not in good health, and that he thought he had bettor go. I want to know from the First Lord: did he convey to Sir Francis; Bridgeman in the first letter that he had consulted with the Prime Minister and with His Majesty, and that it was all definitely fixed—when he wrote the first letter which I have described as an affectionate letter—that Sir Francis Bridgeman had to go? Will the First Lord of the Admiralty make a note of that because it is a very important point.

The second letter told the First Sea Lord that he had to go; that it was all arranged that he had to go. What I want to ask the First Lord is: did he make the same sort of statement to His Majesty, to the Prime Minister, and to the Cabinet as he made in this House; because I am justified in saying that the statement he made in this House certainly led the majority of Members to believe that Sir Francis Bridgeman had voluntarily resigned owing to ill-health? If the First Lord of the Admiralty did approach the Crown and the Cabinet with the same misleading statement—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I said it was misleading. Hon. Members opposite have rather taken me to task on that point. I said it was misleading. I say it was a misleading statement. Why did the House cheer when the First Lord of the Admiralty said it was he that did it and not Sir Francis Bridgeman, if the original statement was not misleading? I maintain I was perfectly right. I want to know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty misled the Crown, misled the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet, by making the ambiguous statement which he made as he told us he did. In the second letter, I believe—for I do not know what he said—was probably this: "You are ill; you shall be ill; I order you to be ill."—That is really what it amounts to—" then if you keep silent"—I do not say he said this, but it is the inference I draw—if you keep silent I will make you a G.C.B. and an Admiral of the Fleet." I daresay there were all sorts of questions put. I believe Sir Francis Bridgeman did take the position of G.C.B., but he refused the position of Admiral of the Fleet. History repeats itself. Sir Arthur Wilson was offered the position of a peer. He refused it. It is very curious that this, what I may call bribes—it is not too strong a term—[Hon. Members: "Order."] Mr. Speaker will call me to order, if necessary, but I want it to be quite clear as to -what I mean. The First Lord of the Admiralty's policy, as I have explained, is a policy of bribes and threats. It has occurred before. Sir Arthur Wilson was offered to be made a peer.

The Noble Lord said "offer."

Then I made a mistake. The First Lord is quite within his province to say, "I will recommend you to be a peer," or some other honour, I say that that has occurred, and that is the view of a large number of officers in the Service since the First Lord of the Admiralty's tenure of office at the Admiralty. What was the real reason why Sir Francis Bridge-man had to go? Because he did not agree with the autocratic methods of the First Lord, and because he thought on technical questions expert opinion should be taken.

What questions?

The First Lord of the Admiralty has said that Sir Francis Bridgeman never differed from him on questions of policy. He knows perfectly well that Sea Lords have nothing whatever to do with policy, because that is a Cabinet matter. The Cabinet dictates the policy and the Sea Lords only have to do with those technical and expert questions for carrying out the policy.

The Noble Lord has made a statement that there was a difference on technical and expert matters without having stated the particular questions. Surely he is drawing a bow at a venture, and he would not make a statement of that kind unless he had some incident in mind and I want to know what it is.

Does the First Lord think Sir Francis Bridgeman has told me what the question is? I make a definite statement. [An HON. Member: "It is indefinite."] It is a definite statement that there was a question or questions upon which Sir Francis Bridgeman tendered his resignation to the First Lord and on which the First Lord did not agree with Sir Francis Bridgeman.

Then I say it is the duty of the Noble Lord, if he makes that statement, to state specifically and clearly what it is.

Will the First Lord of the Admiralty deny my statement?

What statement?

The statement that Sir Francis Bridgeman threatened to resign his position as First Sea Lord not on a question of policy, which has nothing whatever to do with the matter, because that is the business of the Cabinet, but I on a question of technical and expert opinion upon which he differed from the First Lord of the Admiralty.

What is the technical and expert opinion?

The First Lord of the Admiralty is an extremely clever person. I am simply making a statement, and I want to know if it is a fact. I want to know if it is not a fact that the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty tendered his resignation to the First Lord on a question connected with what he thought was right in regard to the efficiency of the Fleet?

I am going to reply on the whole subject when I get up, and I shall deal with all the points that have been raised. What I ask the Noble Lord to do is to state specifically what he has in his mind, if he has anything in his mind.

The First Lord suggests that my mind is a hollow blank. What I have in mind at this moment is that the First Lord of the Admiralty should answer my definite question. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing at the Admiralty is exactly what he did wherever he has been placed. [An Hon. MEMBER: "It is all supposition."] There is no supposition in my making a definite statement and asking for a reply. [An HON. Member: "It is not definite."] What I want to point out to the First Lord is that the reason so many officers in the Service do not trust his administration is that he will always assume the executive as well as the administrative. This was well exhibited when he was in the office held by the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite in the Sidney Street not. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh, oh!"] Yes, it was. The First Lord was there to adjudicate on the executive work, and if he goes to where the executive is at work he cannot adjudicate because he is the senior officer. He does the same thing at the Admiralty. On many occasions he took charge of the Admiralty, and he took charge during the manœuvres. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] "Taking charge" does not mean that he handled the whole thing, but that he took charge.

That is absolutely untrue. No order, instruction or directions, directly or indirectly, were sent by me. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."]

I do not see why I should withdraw, because "taking charge" is a naval expression, which a landsman would not understand. If a ship's rudder carries away, you say the ship "takes charge." If a man goes and interferes on the forecastle with work that is not his own, and interferes even by his presence, we say he "takes charge." Therefore I am perfectly correct from my point of view. I maintain that the First Lord adds the executive business to the administrative business which is his proper duty. I dare say, when the First Lord gets up, we shall hear a great eulogy and great praise of Sir Francis Bridgeman. That will be his duty. He will probably say, "I thought so much of this officer, and he was so good that, though I did not intend it, I misled the House a little at the beginning, but I did it for the best; I was responsible, and I thought that Sir Francis Bridgeman ought to go." All that is entirely wiped out by what I call the second letter, which was the insolent letter which he sent to Sir Francis Bridgeman demanding his dismissal. I do not say for one moment, and I hope the House will not misunderstand me, that a statesman holding the position of the right hon. Gentleman should not be able to change his First Sea Lord of his Board, but what I object to is the way the right hon. Gentleman has done it; and it has not been done either with Sir Arthur Wilson or Sir Francis Bridgeman in a way that is usually associated with safety, and it could have been done in quite another way. The First Lord is perfectly right to get up and say that this officer does not suit me, but there is a gentlemanly way of doing these things as well as a statesmanlike way. This makes it appear that there was a conspiracy against Sir Francis Bridge-man. As I said before, it is perfectly immaterial whether I am doing Sir Francis Bridgeman harm or good, because I am thinking of the state of the country, which is far superior to any man's position or what his personal feelings may be. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted an unsound principle, and if he goes on doing this he will check confidence, discipline, and, what is more material, good comradeship in the Service. When the right hon. Gentleman went to his present position there was not an officer or man in the Service who did not wish him well, because he succeeded to chaos, and to what I have described as an infamous administration marked by partiality, favouritism, and divided into two. The majority were the best officers, and the others were those who agreed with the First Lord, who got appointments and decorations and other dignities because they agreed with the Powers that be. On this point what does the right hon. Gentleman say?

Nothing.

I am glad to hear it. When the First Lord of the Admiralty went to his present position we thought his method of administration was a very good one, but we have now lost all confidence in his administration because of his method. I say the fact of these five Sea Lords having been dismissed, or having had to resign from their posts during his administration, is fatal to that confidence which we reposed in his authority. I have made my definite statement, and I want to see respect paid to his authority, but respect cannot be paid to authority under circumstances such as I have stated. With regard to the dismissal of Sir Francis Bridgeman, I hope the First Lord will be able to clear the matter up. It will be a very difficult thing for him to do, but, if he does clear it up satisfactorily, I will be the first to say a good word for him. As it is at this moment, I say a system of administration that does affect discipline and confidence and good comradeship in the Navy must end in nothing but fatal disaster if we went to war.

I am very glad that the skilful, but not unnecessary, intervention of my hon. Friend (Mr. Beck) has had the effect of bringing the Noble Lord to his feet. It is his habit in matters of this kind to make a number of insinuations——

That is not true.

Insinuations of a very gross character, some of which transgress the limits of Parliamentary decorum; to cover the Order Paper with leading and fishing questions, designed to give substance and form to any gossip or tittle-tattle he may have been able to scrape together, and then to come down to the House, not to attempt to make good in fact or in detail, or to advance any evidence or any authority for the statements he has made, but to skulk in the background, waiting for an opportunity, after the Minister has spoken and when no further reply is possible, to utter another long string of disconnected statements and assertions which he hopes will confuse the issue and awaken disquietude in the mind of the public. I am very glad, therefore, my hon. Friend was so successful in the delicate Parliamentary operation of drawing him. I have not ever since I became First Lord of the Admiralty made any reply to the Noble Lord's scurrilous and continuous personal attacks, none. I sought no quarrel with him when I took up my new office. On the contrary, I was most anxious that the disagreements which have arisen in former times should not be continued under the new regime, and I was very sorry that he was not made an Admiral of the Fleet, very sorry.

Quite so.

I know how much he has felt it, and I personally was sorry he was not made an Admiral of the Fleet; but, since I have been at the Admiralty, I have come to the conclusion it would be very difficult to get any naval officers who would regard that as a wise or proper step. The Noble Lord has attacked me from within a fortnight of my assuming office. When I was first appointed he said, "Give him a fair chance," but within a fortnight he made a speech in which he said I had betrayed the Navy.

Where?

I have got all these recollections very carefully in mind.

Where?

The facts can very easily be verified.

Give the details.

However, the facts can easily be verified. Within a fortnight of my taking office he attacked me in a violent manner, and ever since he has been going about the country pouring out charges of espionage, favouritism, blackmail, fraud, and inefficiency.

I deny that entirely. I never used the word "blackmail." Give the date and the place.

Espionage, which he not only applied to my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna) but also to me. [Hon. Membeks: "Where?"] Certainly; in the constituency of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Eyres-Monsell)—my memory is very good on these points—he used the great bulk of those offensive expressions, needless to say, unsupported by any facts or arguments behind them. I have never taken these things too seriously. I am not one of those who take the Noble Lord too seriously. I know him too well. He does not mean to be as offensive as he often is when he is speaking on public platforms. He is one of those orators of whom it was well said, "Before they get up, they do not know what they are going to say; when they are speaking, they do not know what they are saying; and when they have sat down, they do not know what they have said." In this country, and I think on both sides of the House, his measure has been taken, not unfairly, but harm is done and has been done often abroad in other countries by the reckless statements which he makes about the Navy and about naval administration, which he has not only made against me and the Board of which I am a member, but which he has made against my predecessors of both parties and of all the Boards, including those under which he has served and of which he was a member. As I say, I do not propose to take the Noble Lord too seriously, but on this occasion I have thought it my duty to reply to him in Debate. Under a genial manner—and I warn the House of this—which is very attractive to the House at large, and which the House very wisely and rightly responds to, the Noble Lord nourishes many bitter animosities on naval matters. He is the last man who ought to make the Navy either a party or a political question, and, as far as I can make out, he is about the only man in the House on either side who does it.

I leave the Noble Lord, and I come to the general charges and the attacks which he has made. First of all, the Noble Lord has sought to excite prejudice in regard to the question now before the House by bringing up the changes which were made in the Board of Admiralty at the close of 1911. I explained those changes very fully to the House at the time, and my explanation was accepted by the House as good and sufficient, and it was also accepted, I think, by public opinion outside. Three officers left the Board when the new Board was constituted, Sir Arthur Wilson, Admiral Egerton, and Admiral Madden. Of those, Admiral Madden had already been ap- pointed by my predecessor to a sea-going command. With regard to Sir Arthur Wilson, he had only a few weeks he could serve before retiring, and the Estimates were coming on and it was much better the new Board should be in a position to deal with them as a whole. The retirement of those two officers meant that the Board must be reconstituted, and consequently it was necessary to put another officer in the place of Admiral Egerton. Those three officers went together, and three others took their places, a perfectly reasonable and proper transaction which was not challenged in this House or in the country, and about which no complaints have been made until to-day by the Noble Lord.

That is not true.

Later in the year, about June, the fourth remaining member of the old Board was appointed to a seagoing command. The reason was again perfectly clear. He was Comptroller of the Navy, and by an elaborate series of changes in the organisation of the Admiralty, more interesting to those acquainted with the technical details of naval administration than to the House or to the public, the office of Comptroller no longer exists and another officer has been called into being. In consequence of that change in the character of the office, it was desirable and reasonable for the smooth and convenient working of the administration that the new officer should begin on the new footing. That is all I have to say about the previous changes on the Board. They arose perfectly naturally; they were fully explained to Parliament at the time, and the policy was considered reasonable and received general approval. I am sorry the Noble Lord should have gone out of his way to insult Sir Arthur Wilson and Sir Francis Bridge-man by saying the one was bribed by an Order of Merit which ho accepted and that the other was bribed by a Grand Cross of the Bath. Such expressions applied to officers who at the end of their service received from the Crown marks of distinction are, I think, very odious.

Having dealt with the general matters by which the Noble Lord sought to impart prejudice into the discussion, let me come to the specific case of the circumstances which led to the retirement of Sir Francis Bridgeman. Let me repeat what I have said in the House before, that Sir Francis Bridgeman's resignation was due to reasons of health and to reasons of health alone. The hon. Gentleman who first brought this topic to our notice this morning (Mr. FitzRoy) has asked me whether differences had arisen between me and Sir Francis Bridgeman on matters of expert opinion. I know of no such differences, apart from the ordinary discussions which take place between colleagues in the transaction of official business. Then he asked me again whether Sir Francis Bridgeman had on one occasion threatened to resign. Neither Sir Francis Bridgeman or any other officer in the Admiralty has ever tended his resignation to me. I do not remember being threatened with his resignation on any occasion, but I say to the hon. Gentleman, who evidently has information at his disposal, What occasion has he in his mind? He says that on some recent occasion Sir Francis Bridgeman threatened to resign. I am not conscious that any such threat was used, and I ask him, "What occasion has he in his mind? [Hon. Members: "Answer."] Surely he would not have made a definite statement like that without having specific information—I am sure he would not, and I make no complaint of his speech—and without knowing exactly what was the subject, which he calls one of technical or expert opinion, on which Sir Francis Bridgeman threatened to resign. I ask him: Has he any definite occasion in his mind? I will endeavour to trace and verify the circumstances, and correct my recollection by that of others with whom I transact business at the Admiralty. I ask him: What is the specific occasion which he has in his mind?

I do not like to refuse the right hon. Gentleman's invitation lo give the specific case to which I refer, but surely he, in his position of First Lord of the Admiralty, must know it is not altogether in the interests of the public service that I should answer a question of that character.

Of course I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has some extremely secret technical matter in his mind. If so, it could be stated in general terms. What is the specific topic? It rests with him to say on what he bases his statement. I am not aware that on any occasion during any discussion I have had Sir Francis Bridgeman threatened to resign, and I certainly should be aware of it, if on this specific matter of serious im- portance, a definite statement of that kind had been made. No disagreement existed between Sir Francis Bridgeman and me or the Board in general which had or was about to lead to his resignation. We were in agreement on all fundamental matters of naval policy—I do not mean general policy, though I do not agree with the Noble Lord that the Sea Lords have no right to express opinions on such matters as the strength or distribution of the Fleets—but on no matter, great or small, am I aware of any disagreement which existed which was likely to lead to his resignation. I was asked specific questions on the increase of the pay of the men which was a matter which I initiated myself, a proposal which was not brought to my notice by Sir Francis Bridgeman, but which I brought forward myself on a general consideration of the wages and labour conditions in the country, and on that question we were in entire agreement, and I hold his written minuted agreement to the scheme as now put forward to the public.

In regard to the question of manning provisions, which has been again said was the cause of difference between us, no difference whatever existeds and Sir Francis Bridgeman fully concurred in the large increase, which I regret to say, I shall feel it my duty to propose in the Estimates for next year. In regard to the distribution and strength of the Fleets no difference of opinion has arisen in any way. I am answering these specific points because they were all used to excite prejudice, and in order to give colour to a stream of malicious insinuations in the Press and out of doors, and I am dealing with specific points. Let me say, as it was suggested in one quarter, no difference existed on any question connected with the policy of Canada. These reckless statements do harm far outside the limits of the party controversy they are intended to influence, and on all these matters which I have mentioned we were in full agreement, and I hold Sir Francis Bridgeman's written assent in the official minutes to every act of naval policy large or small, to every definite act of naval administration requiring the assent of the First Sea Lord, on all these occasions, during the whole time I have been responsible for the administration of the Admiralty. These facts are absolutely incontrovertible. I think it is very necessary to deal with that part of the subject, namely, the suggestion that Sir Francis Bridgeman resigned because of some difference in policy, of some divergence in view, to dispose of that part of the question before I come to the other aspect, namely, the reasons of ill-health.

The duties of the First Sea Lord are of vital importance to the country. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northampton was quite justified in saying that sailors look upon the First Sea Lord as the head of the Naval Services. It is the greatest office which a naval officer can rise to. It is his duty in time of peace to advise on all questions of naval policy, and in time of war the safety of the country, especially in the preliminary period, would be very largely in his hands. Sir, it is essential that the First Sea Lord should be thoroughly fit and capable. He must have full command during business hours of strong energy and active mind. He must be able to transact a mass of detailed business dark by day without being unduly fatigued. He must have good health and strength, not only sufficient to bear the daily strain, but to bear any extra or sudden strain or stress which circumstances may throw upon him. If the First Sea Lord is not thoroughly fit and capable from reasons of health, it is the duty of the First Lord to tell him so, to suggest his resignation of his office, and, if necessary, to supersede him. No claim of individuals, no question of personal consideration, no regard for individual feelings and rights can stand in the way of the public interests in matters so closely connected with the safety of the country. It is no kindness to an officer to retain him in the situation of great responsibility if his health is not equal to the burden thrown upon him. But quite apart altogether from any personal question, the matter is one which affects the lives and honour of thousands of officers and seamen afloat, and that directly concerns the safety of the State. The First Lord of the Admiralty has also the right, to have adequate and responsible professional advice from the Sea Lords, and particularly from the First Sea Lord. Nobody else can take the place of the First Sea Lord; no other member of the Board can wholly or in part discharge his work for him, and unless the First Sea Lord can give this advice in a satisfactory manner, and unless the First Lord can feel full confidence in the advice, then there must be grave risk that the public interest would suffer.

When Sir Francis Bridgeman came to the Admiralty, I knew nothing of the state of his health. I found him, where he shone, in command of a great fleet, and I naturally assumed he was in full strength and vigour. It was with much regret that I quite early discovered that his health was impaired. In the ordinary course of business I see the First Lord every day, sometimes two or three times in the day. I consult him in everything, and not only in these matters which are specifically assigned to the First Sea Lord in the Chart for the distribution of Admiralty business, but generally over the whole range of Admiralty business, and even questions quite indirectly concerned with naval matters. That is my practice. It always has been my practice, and always will be my practice. I do not believe I have taken any step of importance at the Admiralty without first obtaining the full concurrence of my naval colleagues, and particularly of the First Sea Lord. There is no one who has had a better opportunity than I have of judging how far from the point of view of official business—and that is the matter in hand—Sir Francis Bridgeman's health was equal or unequal to the strain imposed upon it. I came to the conclusion gradually and irresistibly that it was not so, and was not equal to the strain. I am not going into details; it is very painful to me to have to discuss this subject. I take full and sole responsibility for the advice I tendered, but of course there are many other persons who shared my opportunities of judging, and shared my regrets at seeing the increased signs of failure of health and strength. I am also responsible for seeing that the work of the Admiralty is properly done. Up to the time I suggested the propriety of the resignation of Sir Francis Bridge-man, he always showed the highest zeal, and exhausted himself day by day in the fulfilment of his duties. The necessary work has been done, and I am here to say that there has been no failure by which disadvantage has occurred to the public interest. But I am bound to say that the performance of this work in the conditions that prevailed threw excessive strain, not only upon the First Sea Lord, but upon me and the Second Sea Lord.

Everything moves eventually to a conclusion. Early in November the First Sea Lord proceeded on, I think, a week's leave, and was immediately laid up with illness. It was three weeks before he was permitted by his doctor to return to London. On the 25th November he wrote to a colleague on the Board saying that he had been very much depressed about his health, that he had had two attacks of bronchitis within a few months, and this, coming on the top of appendicitis, seemed to have weakened his constitution. He sometimes, he said, felt inclined to give up his post, but for the moment he was better and hoped the attack would pass off.

Is that an official letter?

I am speaking briefly. He also said he really ought to go somewhere warmer than England to spend the winter, which was impossible while he remained at the Admiralty.

Is that an official letter?

No, certainly not. On the same day, or the day before, Sir Francis Bridgeman "wrote to my Naval Secretary, who is the officer specially responsible for advising the First Lord on matters of Naval patronage, and of great command. He is the officer who by long tradition is always entrusted with that function. He wrote to him and said he was so very ill the night before that he had actually taken up his pen to write his resignation, but feeling better the next day he had not done so. I am bound to state these facts at least to establish my case when I am challenged, and, of course, there are many other facts by "which I could prove good and substantial reasons on which I thought it my duty to act in this most disagreeable and painful business. I came to the conclusion, not on these letters, but after their arrival and a general review of all the circumstances, that I should not be doing my duty, having regard to all the circumstances of the situation, in continuing to keep Sir Francis Bridgeman at the helm in these serious times. I therefore decided to take action at once. Having formed the opinion that if a great strain came he would not be able to sustain it, I was absolutely bound to act upon it. I was bound to act at once, and to see that my action was carried through swiftly. We could not have an interregnum in the main administrative direction. I consulted the Prime Minister who, of course, was acquainted, and had been for some time acquainted, with the general state of Sir Francis Bridgeman's health, from the point of view of official duty, and I informed the King that I had come to the conclusion it was my duty to suggest to Sir Francis Bridgeman the propriety of resigning his post. I wrote on the 20th November to him in that sense. The letter was intended to give no option. It was, however, expressed in terms of the highest consideration, and I do not know whether there is any form of words I could have used, which would have more suitably expressed the regret I felt at separating from Sir Francis Bridgeman, or which would have more carefully considered his personal dignity and feeling. The letter was, in fact, so considerately expressed that Sir Francis Bridgeman misapprehended its character, and wrote back to the effect that he was now better and felt well enough to go on. I say this not in order to suggest that he wished to continue his office after his chief had suggested his resignation. I am sure that is not the case. But he is a simple man, and thought the letter left him an option. It is quite true that its form and wording would cover such an interpretation. My reason in saying this is not at all to suggest that Sir Francis Bridgeman had any ignoble desire to cling to office; on the contrary, office had been a great burden to him all this year. He has for many years, in the Navy, resisted the temptation to ease and leisure on shore, where he has many things to attract him, and nothing but a sense of duty has led him all these years to discharge these functions—this severe and rigorous duty.

But I am bound to bring this fact to the notice of Parliament because it shows so clearly that the suggestion that Sir Francis Bridgeman wanted to leave the Admiralty because he could not get on with me, or that he resigned on some great question of policy, or was about to resign, or was otherwise dissatisfied with the course of events—it shows how all these suggestions are utterly false, because, so far from being anxious to dissociate himself from me and his other colleagues on the Admiralty Board, he was quite willing, in spite of my letter of the 28th, to return and to continue to do his work. I am sure he had no other feeling than a desire to continue. I was, therefore, forced to write again explicitly, but again in the wording of my letter I observed the highest possible consideration for an officer with such a distinguished record and towards a man for whom I had in a year's hard work contracted a great feeling of respect. That is the whole story.

Of course, the Noble Lord and the House may ask, "Why did you not say this at once?" I did not say it. I should have greatly preferred that the matter should have been left where I put it in my first statement to the House. I chose advisedly an ambiguous form. I said that reasons of health had led to the resignation of the First Sea Lord. I did not choose that ambiguous form in order to shield myself. Why should I be afraid? I hated the discharge of this disagreeable duty. I know I acted only in the public interest. Why, then, should I be afraid to take such an explanation to the House of Commons? No, Sir, I think it would have been much better if the veil of ambiguity had covered from the public eye a transaction which contained some painful features. I have now made a full statement to the House. That I have had to make a fuller and blunter explanation is due to the tact and generosity of the Noble Lord. His is the credit. His warm friendship for Sir Francis Bridge-man, his zeal for the highest interests of the naval service, are, of course, the reasons. If, as some of my critics have alleged, I were desirous of engrossing to myself undue influence and power on the Admiralty Board, and to decide technical and professional matters independently of the opinions of my naval advisers, if I were so desirous I could have chosen no better course than to retain in the first naval station an officer whose health was rapidly reducing him to an invalid's condition. I am satisfied that in taking the step I have done, I have consulted the highest interests of the Navy and of the State. I have only done my duty, and I am confident that the House will not hesitate to approve the course which I have taken on this occasion.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will admit that I have never made the Navy in any sense a party question. I have always desired to regard it precisely as something which should be left outside party politics, and if I say a few words on this point to-day it is with the chief desire and hope of being able to show still more clearly than the right hon. Gentleman has done my appreciation of Sir Francis Bridgeman, whom I have the honour to know. I can assure the House that we all recognise the difficulty of the position in which in a case of this kind the First Lord of the Admiralty is placed, and if his speech had all been in the tone of the latter part I do not think anyone in the House would have found much fault with it. But I can hardly congratulate him on the genial methods which he has ascribed to my Noble Friend in the early part of his speech. He made upon him one of those attacks which I think are most futile. He pretended to treat him with contempt, while at the same time he showed an amount of venom which made the House understand there was no contempt in his feeling. But I am not going to enter into that. The position in which the First Lord of the Admiralty in a case of that kind is placed is difficult. He knows that the First Sea Lord is, as it were, the pivot around which the whole Naval Service must travel, and that at any moment this country may be involved in war. Undoubtedly it is the duty of anyone in his position to consider the fitness of anyone in the place of the First Sea Lord from the point of view of health, as well as from any other point of view. I quite admit also that he has the right not to be guided purely by what anyone in the position of the First Sea Lord thinks in a case of that kind. Therefore, his case is he had opportunities of seeing the state of Sir Francis Bridge-man's health, and for that reason he felt he was not competent to fulfil the great duties which might devolve upon him. That is his responsibility.

I would rather say becoming less competent. I am not prepared to say he was not competent, but I am prepared to say he was becoming less competent.

I prefer the way in which the right hon. Gentleman puts it. But responsibility must be his. If ho thinks that, for that reason, he is not a proper man to be in that position, it is his duty to remove him, and, though I agree with my Noble Friend and my hon. Friend who referred to this subject in a most admirable speech, in a tone which, if it were to be raised at all, could not have been better, though I agree with him that the statement as to the resignation was ambiguous, yet the explanation the right hon. Gentleman has given, that he desired to make it as easy as possible to Sir Francis Bridgeman, seems to be not unreasonable, and with that I find no fault. I admit all that. But there are two points which the right hon. Gentleman has left in doubt. One he referred to in the closing part of his speech. He said the fact that Sir Francis was willing to continue was proof that he did not wish to resign on account of differences with the right hon. Gentleman. But that was not the ground on which this kind of suggestion has been made. My Noble Friend, whether rightly or wrongly, has raised this question from this point of view, that the right hon. Gentleman is a dictator in his Department, and that he cannot stand any interference with his views, and that, for that reason, he was glad to get rid of Sir Francis Bridgernan. That is the ground on which my Noble Friend raised this question. I am at a loss to make what the right hon. Gentleman has said coincide with the information which has reached me. My hon. Friend behind me told me yesterday he was going to raise this question. I asked him to tell me what were the facts on which he based it. He made this statement: That on some question which came within Sir Francis Bridgeman's department he had quite recently said clearly to the First Lord that if he insisted on carrying out his views he would resign his position. I felt that was a most serious thing. I asked my hon. Friend to give me the ground on which he made such a statement. He gave the source of his information, and I was satisfied there was not the slightest doubt about it. What does the right hon. Gentleman do? He asks what was the subject on which there was a difference of opinion. I confess that does not seem to me to be a matter of the smallest importance. It must have been a subject of some importance, or a man like Sir Francis Bridgeman would not have taken up that position. Therefore the whole point, it seemed to me was whether or not it was a fact there had been a difference of opinion sufficiently wide to make him say, that if the right hon. Gentleman carried out his view he would resign.

Sir Francis Bridge-man never made any statement such as that to me.

There is, then, a direct difference of opinion.

If the right hon. Gentleman will state the specific matter, either here or privately, I am quite willing to trace this idea to its source and reduce it to its proper proportion.

The right hon. Gentleman and I differ entirely as to what is important in this matter consider that the important thing is that Sir Francis Bridgeman thought any subject of sufficient gravity to make him say that if a particular course were taken he would resign. All that I cay say is that my hon. Friend behind me told me the sources of his information, and satisfied me that there was no room for mistake. Therefore, there is a difference of view as to whether or not this incident took place. That is the whole thing. I do not say, because I have not the evidence to justify it, that the right hon. Gentleman was influenced in what he has done with Sir Francis Bridgeman by the fact that he disagreed with him, but I do say that is the sole ground on which my Noble Friend has raised the matter, and if it were the case, or if the idea were spread in the Service that it was dangerous for a man in his position to be independent, nothing could be worse for the Service. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman took so much pains to show his respect for Sir Francis Bridgeman, and did everything in his power to convince the House that he was not influenced by a motive of that kind, which, I think, would be fatal to the Service. The other point is not so important, except as regards the individual. That is, did the right hon. Gentleman treat Sir Francis Bridgeman with proper consideration at the time he asked him to leave his post? Here, again, my information comes from my hon. Friend behind me, and it is to this effect—the House will judge of it—the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to Sir Francis Bridgeman which he understood to leave the question of resignation open to him. It was a very nice letter, and he understood it in that sense.

It did apparently leave an option, but it contained a sentence to the effect that I was certain he could not bear the strain should any emergency come upon us. That sentence was intended to be, and I think it ought to have been understood as decisive in the matter, but, of course, I wanted to put the matter to Sir Francis Bridgeman in a way that would make it as easy and dignified as possible for him to sever his connection with the Admiralty Board.

The way it was put to mc was that the first letter seemed to Sir Francis Bridgeman to leave it open to-him whether or not he should resign. He so understood it.

Quite so.

He sent a reply back saying that he thought he could stop on. My information is that the next letter—I do not wish to use the word "insolent" used by my Noble Friend—was one that Sir Francis Bridgeman could not but regard as insulting. That is my information. I do think that it is of the utmost importance that in a case of that kind, where this disagreeable step has to be taken, that every possible consideration should be shown to a man in Sir Francis Bridgeman's position, or, indeed, to any man who is dependent upon a person in the position of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot help thinking, from what I know of Sir Francis Bridgeman, that if instead of sending a second letter the right hon. Gentleman had asked him to see him at the Admiralty, and had gone into it as one would like to do with a gentleman you respect so much, he could have got him to tender his resignation without any feeling of soreness and without leaving the impression that a great and distinguished public servant had been badly treated. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am putting this unfairly—I really do not think he meant to be unfair to Sir Francis Bridgeman—if there is no objection to it, and I cannot think of any, I suggest that he lays upon the Table that correspondence, and enable the House to judge whether or not he did show proper consideration to Sir Francis Bridgeman at the time he was asked to give up his post. All I wish to say in conclusion is this: I do not pretend to be a friend of Sir Francis Bridgeman, but I have known him for some time, and I have formed, rightly or wrongly, a high opinion not only of his zeal and devotion, but also of his ability, and I desire it to be clearly understood——

I should be quite willing to read now, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt his speech, the letters which passed between Sir Francis Bridgeman and myself up to the date of his resignation:—

Hon. Gentlemen opposite take a very different view of these letters from what I do. I do not want to use strong language, but I am bound to say that if anyone had sent me that second letter following the first, I should have considered I was brutally ill-used. It all comes to this: Suppose any of us were in that position, and our resignation was decided upon, a letter is written leaving you to think it is not decided upon, and you think that it depends upon you. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is the position. You give an answer saying you are fit for your work, and then the second letter comes saying, "My decision is final," although no decision had been announced. The first letter contained no decision.

The conclusion at which I did arrive, namely, "The conclusion at which I have arrived is necessarily final"—what is that conclusion? The conclusion was: "That if, by any misadventure, we should be involved in war, I feel that the burden might be more than you could bear."

That does not alter the position. The First Lord left upon Sir Francis Bridgeman the impression—I do not want to exaggerate this—that it depended upon him whether or not he resigned. He replied that he did not think it was necessary to resign. The right hon. Gentleman then, instead of what most of us would have done, I think, trying to see Sir Francis Bridgeman and talk it over with him, writes him that his conclusion is final. But before he had sent that letter "he had already decided he must leave. I think that is brutal treatment for anyone in the position of Sir Francis Bridgeman.

I do not rise continue this discussion, because although perhaps I know something about it, I do not think it would be right for me to take part in it, as it obviously might lead to misapprehension. I rise to call attention to the great dissatisfaction that prevails among the ratepayers of the country at the way in which the Road Board is discharging its duties. The matter is of great importance to those who, like myself, represent rural constituencies and very heavily burdened ratepayers. I should like to say at once that I do not complain in any way of the zeal or the energy of the eminent gentlemen who form the Road Board, still less of the staff that works under them, but it is the policy of the Road Board of which I wish to complain. The ratepayers were led to expect great things. In the famous Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1909, the right hon. Gentleman said:—

"He (the local ratepayer) is entitled to consideration in respect of the increased expenditure imposed upon him. … It has almost become a great social question; for the municipalities are at the end of their resources, and their work is almost at a standstill in many of these areas because they cannot afford to spend what is absolutely necessary on their own development. The local ratepayer has been promised consideration by successive Governments and he is surely entitled to get it. I think I can safely say more: the financial proposals which I shall lay before the House will enable me to make good that promise."

When we were discussing this question a little later on, 1909, the Chancellor said the amount which this Road Board Fund was going to give to the rural ratepayers would be as much as 4d. in the £. I am sure he will agree that anyone who heard his speech would have drawn the inference which I drew from it. He said:—

"We are raising £600,000 to improve roads. All that involves great relief to agricultural land and what is the amount of that relief? I have reckoned it up and I am prepared to substantiate the figures. It is a moderate estimate to say that there will be a relief of at least 4d. in the £ on the rates on agricultural land."

About a week afterwards, I think in answer to Lord Morpeth, he said that that speech was meant to include relief from old age pensions. Immediately after the quotation I have just read he said:—

"In addition to that the pensions at present borne by the rural landowners are either being taken oft altogether or partly taken off in consequence of the five shillings,"

and so on. Then, "besides that there will be the agricultural development." So that I think anyone who heard his speech or reads it now in the Official Report would have understood that he meant to say that the Road Board Fund alone would relieve the ratepayer by 4d. He explained afterwards that what he meant, whether he said it or not, was that all these various kinds of relief—the old age pensions and the Road Board—would relieve the rural ratepayer by 4d. in the £. I have put two or three questions to him during the course of this Session, and he has not been able to show that even these figures are correct. I have the answers which were given on these particular points. He said the assessable value of all extra Metropolitan areas in England was £106,000,000. Therefore he is assuming that these road improvements have only been beneficial to the people in the agricultural districts. That I entirely deny. In fact, it would have been much more beneficial to the people who live in the towns than to those who live in the country, and therefore the rateable value of the whole country ought to have been taken in making this calculation, and not only the rateable value of the rural districts through which the roads run. These roads are used by people who go from town to town very much more than by the local farmers and other people, and if they were only used by the local farmers it would not require this enormous amount of expense. Then he said, to try and justify this fourpence—

"If the average value of the total Grants, namely £426,000, made by the Road Board, or awaiting further details for completion, is spread over the whole area represented by the above assessable value,"

that would mean 1d. in the £. That would be 1d. instead of 4d. It ought not to be spread over that minor area but over the whole country, in which case it would only amount to Ml. The money actually spent by the Road Board in the two years of which we have any record, and of which I have the report here, is only about £254,000, that is, up to the end of March, 1912, so that what you have actually spent in the only two years of which we have any official record is £254,000, or £127,000 per year, and this on his own calculation reduces the benefit to the rates, if there was any at all, to a third of a penny, even if we only take the rural districts into consideration. As regards the old age pension relief, which is not part of my point to-day, instead of the 4d. produced by these two, with this 1d., which ought to be a third of a id., it only brought the whole thing up to 2½d. What I want to know is, first of all, why has the Road Board been bottling up their money in this extraordinary way. They had two years to work, and all they have actually spent at the end of two years out of a total income of £2,000,000—all they have given in Grants to the local authorities has been £250,000, and they have kept in hand something like £1,800,000. What is the advantage of piling up all this money? It is true they have indicated, as it is called, Grants amounting, I think, to £1,051,648, but indicating Grants does not mean that they are likely to have to be spent in a particular year, and by the end of this financial year they would have an additional £1,100,000 of income with which to meet requirements which have been passed, and in fact they would have a large amount of money to spare. What is the advantage of this policy of piling up money instead of spending it as everyone hoped it would be spent for the benefit of the poorer districts where it is hard to raise a highway rate, and where the roads required a good deal more attention than they do in the richer districts?

Then again, a very great reason for compliant is that this Grant has never been made except on condition that the local ratepayers spend a lot more themselves to meet it. It has never been given, except in very rare occasions, unless subject to that condition. I know in my own county it was decided last year by the Road Board, apart from other expenditure on roads in the county, that £22,000 odd was necessary. Of this £10,000 was computed to be the net cost of the extra improvements which would not have been done except by the orders of the Road Board, as a condition of their Grant. Over £10,000 had to be spent, and the Grant received was £7,500. Next year I think the similar figures were £7,820 for the net cost of the extra improvements, and the Grant was £3,800—rather less than half. That is not a saving to the ratepayers. That is causing the ratepayers to spend more money. You say, "you may have £7,500 if you will spend £2,500 more." You say, "you may have £3,800 if you will spend £4,000 yourself." I do not call that saving to the ratepayers. You might just as well say to your wife that you would give her £2 for a new hat and therefore she would save whatever she would otherwise have spent on that hat. But when she went to choose that hat, you would say, "You must not have this £2 hat, you have to buy a hat which will cost £4 in order to please us, and you will have to spend the other £2 out of your own money, because the only hat you can have is a £4 hat." That is the kind of generosity to the ratepayers which you have carried out by the policy of the Road Board. It is very much resented, because it was always supposed that at any rate the poorer counties would be given Grants for the improvement of their roads without being required to spend at any rate extra money themselves beyond what they would naturally have done. I admit that when the Road Board was instituted it was said that most of the improvements should be done for the benefit of motorists from whom the money was largely, almost entirely, derived. Because I am too poor to own a motor myself, I have no fault to find with those who are better off and are able to use them. I do not mind their having better roads if they are prepared to pay anything like a proper proportion of the cost which they entail. But not only are you spending, by this policy, the motorists' money on the roads, but you are making the ratepayers spend money, not for what they want, but for what the motorists want, and the motorists are getting it both ways.

Supposing this Road Board had never been formed, the local authorities would have had in the ordinary course of events the additional motor and carriage licences. That I understand in these two years amounts to £834,000. The Board have spent £250,000 in Grants during that period. Therefore the local authorities are over £500,000 worse off by the formation of the Road Board, at present at any rate, than they would have been if you had allowed them to go on taking the whole of the motor and carriage licences and spending it in the way that they thought most useful. Therefore it seems to me perfectly clear that the local authorities have very great ground for complaint. They would have been better off, so far at any rate, if this Road Board Fund had never been formed. They would have had the money spent in their own area, they would not have been subject to the dictation of people from London, and they would not have been obliged to put forward extra money themselves to meet these required improvements. I hope the Government will seriously take into consideration the very great dissatisfaction that is being felt. In looking through the Reports of the Road Board, which I have read very carefully, it appears to me that a large amount of Grants have been spent on the main roads connecting town and town—largely roads near great centres.

dissented.

You only have to look at the Report to see some of these great main roads out of London. The Bath Road, for instance, the great North Road, and other roads which lead from London to the other great towns in the country, have been the ones which have received the largest amount of Grant. What has happened is that that benefit is to motorists only and not, as we were led to suppose, to the poor districts, which can only levy small rates and whose roads as a rule are very much more difficult to keep in order than the roads in other parts of the country. There is a Departmental Committee now sitting upon the question of local taxation, and I hope the Government will ask them to take into consideration what is a very widespread feeling about the expenditure of the Road Board, and to see whether it is not possible to spend this money, not so much in the interest of the scorchers who go along the main roads—I mean the great trunk roads—as in the interest of those who have to find the money, who use the local roads, and who were led to expect that they would get very considerable relief by the institution of the Road Board. They have got accustomed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures, and perhaps now they would not think so much about a promise of relief to the rates which has never been fulfilled. At the time it was made they had expectations, and they were not so much accustomed to being disappointed. I am certain that there is a very great feeling in the country about it, and I beg the Government, not only in their own interest, but in the interest of the country at large and of the great county councils, to seriously take this matter into consideration and realise the amount of feeling that exists.

I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridge-man) for raising in the House what I conceive to be a most important subject. I wish my right hon. Friend had been present the other day when a very influential deputation came down from Scotland representing all the counties in the North to make representations to Sir George Gibb and the Road Board on this subject. I need hardly say that the Road Board received the deputation very cordially, but that was really all the distance we got. I speak for one of the poorest counties in Scotland, Ross and Cromarty, and I think I am voicing the sentiment of the deputies from all the other counties in the North. We all expected that the Road Board would give Grants to help the rates in the poorer counties in the North and other parts of the country. What are the facts? As the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division pointed out, instead of helping us, it seemed to militate against us. The only condition on which we can get money from the Road Board is that we expend money ourselves. What are the-facts? There are some districts in my own Constituency where the rates are over 20s. in the £, and now, because of the enormous increase of motor traffic from England, attracted by the scenery, by sport, and by the air, what do we find? We find that the roads up there need an enormous amount to keep them in a proper state of repair, otherwise motorists, tourists, and people with sporting tendencies, will not be attracted into any of those constituencies. I do say that the Road Board ought to revise its method of distributing the fund at its disposal. The Highland counties of Scotland have always been treated, so far as Government Grants are concerned, with special consideration, and we think the reason for treating them in that way is that the people up there are very poor indeed.

The road rate in all the counties in the north is going up by leaps and bounds, and if this sort of thing continues, it will be impossible for the people to improve the roads or do anything to make life pleasanter so far as tourists and others are concerned. The roads there were formed in the old days for the convenience of the native people. They were formed to be suitable and convenient for the carriage of cattle, and to allow the farmer's gig or pony trap to travel comfortably from his farm into the neighbouring town. What happens now? These roads are used for two months in the year by all sorts of motor vehicles from the south. I believe the percentage increase bas been enormous in the last two or three years, and it turns out that the poor people who built these roads for themselves to suit themselves now find that the roads are being used for vehicles they did not contemplate when the roads were built. They have got to bear the increase in the cost of repairing the roads in order to keep them up. I do say that the time has now come—and I feel sure that I am speaking for all the counties in the North—for my right hon. Friend to give the attitude I adopt every possible consideration. There may be difficulties in connection with the distribution of the fund, but they must be got over, for things cannot go on as they are doing now. I appeal for special consideration for the Highland counties, and I feel that T shall not appeal in vain. T ask him now to promise on behalf of the Government that he will give instructions to the Road Board to take into consideration the special case of the Highlands of Scotland.

The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, in particular, and in part the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bridgeman), I think depend upon a mis- apprehension which it is important that I should clear up. I am speaking at this moment for an individual and a body over whom I have no authority, and for whose policy I have no right to speak. The hon. Gentleman opposite attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for certain estimates and figures which he had given in the course of debate, and in question and answer. It is a necessity under which Debate is conducted on such a day as this that my right hon. Friend is prevented from giving the courtesy of a direct reply to such a direct challenge. I think he will understand that, and recognise the necessity that when another subject comes up later on in the day the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be compelled to speak upon it. He is unable, therefore, owing to the Rules of Order, to trespass against these rules by addressing the House now. I will not deal in detail with the figures given by the hon. Gentleman opposite. What is more important is the misapprehension underlying the appeal—the very moderate and reasonable appeal—made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. When this House constructed the Development and Road Board Act the House definitely established the principle that money which could only be liberated by Grants of the Development Commissioners or the Road Board should not be under the control either of the Treasury or anyone responsible to this House. They deliberately established that principle just in order that such appeals should not be made as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty. They recognised and very carefully emphasised—and this was specially done by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) in Committee—that it was a very difficult position when Grants of public money were being given, and when there was a possibility under this new system of pressure being put upon a Minister or upon the Government, to give these Grants to specific areas. They therefore established, and this House endorsed, the principle which is now embodied in the Act itself, that so far as the giving or the recommendation of Grants from the Road Board was concerned the responsibility should be on the Road Board, and not on the Government. In consequence of that it would be altogether outside the intention of Parliament, as embodied in that Act, if I made any kind of representation, either to Sir George Gibb or the Road Board, as to the policy with respect to these special Grants.

On the other hand, I fully recognise that such questions as have now been brought before the House are undoubtedly questions which should be brought before the House, and although I cannot justify the policy of the Road Board, because it is not my duty to do so, I think there is nothing in the policy of the Board I would not be prepared to justify if I were responsible. Still I can make one or two statements in reply to the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman opposite in connection with their work. The hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate, first, that the Road Board was solely confining its Grants to the doing of work, or the giving of money for doing work, which would not have been done by the ordinary road authorities under any circumstances; and, secondly, that the Eoad Board was only using money which, if it had not possessed it, would be possessed by the local authorities for use in connection with the roads. Both of these statements, if I may say so, are not correct.

I did not say so.

I come first to the point that the Road Board Grants—I mean the bulk of the Grants—given, and those indicated, or those now under negotiation, are dealing not so much with improvements in connection with new construction, or with what was emphasised a good deal in the Debates on the Road Board, the widening and improvement of curves and corners, especially in the interest of motorists, but with actual improvements of the road crusts themselves. When the hon. Gentleman says that if there was no Road Board, no money would have to be spent by the local authorities on these improvements, he is surely not speaking with considered judgment on the matter.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has properly apprehended what I said. What I was referring to was the additional cost entirely—the additional cost in respect of the composition of the material put on the roads which is required by the Road Board, and which is not required by the local authorities. The money that is being granted by the Road Board is being granted for the road crusts on the condition that the roads are made of certain material, which is much more expensive than that which was used before, and therefore I say the Board re- quire additional expenditure on the part of the local authorities which otherwise would not have been incurred.

That is just where I venture to join issue with the hon. Gentleman. The requirement for this additional expenditure was not owing to any exalted standard of efficiency laid down by the Road Board. It is a requirement of the new traffic which would have to be met by the local authorities if no Road Board existed. The condition of the traffic is the same, and the Road Board was called in to assist in the transition from one kind of traffic to the other, and I assert that at least a very large proportion of these improvements would have to be carried out in order to meet the requirements of the new traffic if there had been no Road Board at all.

In my own county £22,000 is the general cost, £10,000 of which is what is required for additional improvement. It was only the £10,000 that I was talking about. The other £12,000 would naturally have been spent if the county had been left alone.

I submit that either now or in the immediate future that £10,000 would have had to be spent if the county roads were to be kept up in connection with this new vehicular traffic. In those circumstances it is not fair to say that the Road Board is forcing the county to do work which otherwise it would not do. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting comparison in connection with the purchase of a new hat for his wife, that if he gave £2 for the purchase of a new hat and then he insisted on her purchasing a £4 hat, that it was not a lucrative transaction as far as she was concerned. Surely that depends on whether the hat was needed or not.

If she did not want a £2 hat.

There is not the slightest doubt—I will not say always at the exact moment when the work is being done—but sooner or later the work for which the Road Board now are giving Grants to the local authorities would have to be dealt with by the local authorities themselves. In that way without the slightest doubt the money is being given for saving the rates, unless they kept the roads in their own districts so completely fallen into decay as to be behind any possible standard at which they main- tained them for so many years. Then the hon. Gentleman asked why the money has not been spent. I have certain figures on this which may interest him. The total amount received by the Road Board up to last month was £2,748,000; of that £1,200,000 has been practically allocated in Grants. £459,000 has been allocated in loans, and in addition to that amount the Board have intimated by general circulars their readiness to make Grants to the aggregate amount of £1,050,000; and now they will consider applications to enable them to settle in detail the work to which this money should be applied.

That is in addition to what is already indicated?

Yes, in addition. The total commitments amount to £2,347,000 in Grants and £459,000 in loans. Those are the total commitments, either of money which has been promised and accepted by local authorities for work in hand or money for which negotiations have been opened by the local authority for work for which the Road Board offers to make a Grant under certain conditions, and for which therefore, if the Grant is accepted, the money is applicable. The hon. Member asks why more money has not been spent. There are two main reasons. First, the schemes have not gone through with the rapidity which was expected, and there has been a great deal of negotiation even as to the schemes that have gone through. Money is being advanced as the schemes progress, and money will not be advanced until the schemes have progressed from time to time by agreement with the local authorities. The second reason is of some importance, and I am glad to have the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to it. The Act which constituted the Road Board and the Development Fund very definitely gave instructions as to the method by which money should be advanced. Section 18 of the Act of 1909, which was welcomed, I think, at the time as one of the most important of all the new suggestions with which these funds were established, provided that the Grants given by the Development Commissioners and the Road Board should be used, except in cases of great urgency, in helping to standardise the ordinary demand for employment outside. There is a very great demand that Government work, as far as it can be, should be used to standardise outside employment, not to advance Government work, which has not great urgency behind it, in times of great trade booms where-workers can find plenty of work outside and, on the other hand, to put Government work in hand when the outside market shrinks and a large number of persons would have been thrown out of work but for the Government work. The Road Board have all through decided to work in conformity with that decision of Parliament. We have been passing through a time of enormous boom in trade. During the last few months there have been practically no unemployed at all. They anticipated, as we all have to anticipate, a time when the number of employed in outside trade will diminish, and when there will be a demand for employment by this particular kind of more or less unskilled work which the Road Board and the local authorities can meet, and they hope to be able, partly in accumulations and partly in short term loans which will be repaid, to accumulate before the bad time comes a reserve of something like £1,000,000, which they can then use to standardise the outside market under conditions laid down by Parliament in Clause 18. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a sound and sensible policy.

It is not made a condition.

No condition is made in the Grants which are given at present. This is short term loans, and the money is not yet allocated, but where the money is allocated the local authority, I understand, go forward with the work without that condition. That is a partial explanation of what the hon. Member called bottling up the money. The hon. Gentlemen behind me and-the hon. Gentlemen opposite protested against the demand from the local authority for some contribution towards this work of improvement. The Road Board, whether rightly or wrongly it is not for me to say, personally I think rightly, but on their own responsibility and not on Government responsibility, have not given Grants except with some contribution from the local authorities themselves, but they give a very large proportion of the Grant—I think in ordinary cases 75 per cent., and in some cases higher.

Fifty per sent, in ordinary cases and sometimes 75 per cent.

The information which I have is to the effect that it is generally about 75 per cent., and the figure which the hon. Gentleman gave me for his own county was 75 per cent.

For one year, then 50 per cent, another.

The House will probably consider that they have rightly determined that it is a very bad plan to give Grants to be administered and paid out by other persons over whom you have only indirect control without giving them some responsibility for it. Every system which has hitherto been adopted in giving Grants from a central to a local authority has always asked for contributions from the local authority in order that they might see that the work was necessary and was done as economically as possible. Beyond that there is also the very great demand, which there is and will be in the immediate future, for work in the improvement of the roads which, until the Road Board was introduced, would have fallen entirely on the local authorities. I think, therefore, that it is only right that the local authorities should pay at least one-fourth o£ that amount, as otherwise they might have had to pay the whole of it. As far as the agricultural districts are concerned, when we get the analysis in connection with the amount which has been allocated from time to time, I think the saving will be found to be very much more than fourpence in the £, because, although the hon. Gentleman declared that the roads were mainly for the use of motor traffic passing through the county area, until the Road Board was established the full responsibility for those roads was on the county areas themselves, and this was one of the facts which induced the Government to institute this Road Board Fund. The last point which I have to answer is in reference to the income of the Road Board. The hon. Member gave us to understand that he thought the county authorities were really no better off since the Road Board was established, because all the money or the greater part of it would have come to them if no Road Board had been constructed.

The increase due to motor traffic.

That increase would not have come to the people who really need it. One of the reasons that the fund was necessary was because of the continued diminution of the carriage licences. Those local authorities were feeling the pressure for the upkeep of the roads used by motorists from other districts owing to the increase of motor traffic due to the growing of the motor industry, but as regards the income of the Road Board, even supposing the local authorities obtained the whole of the carriage and motor licences, including the increase in motor licences, it would have amounted to not much more than one-third of the total income which is reecived by the Road Board, and is being spent or will be spent on the roads themselves. The income received from carriage licences is £977,000 in the aggregate since the Road Board was established, and from Motor Spirit Duty, which is a new duty, which the local authority never got, it is £1,700,000. Therefore, the great bulk, as the hon. Gentleman will see, is due to new taxation, which will now be given very largely to the relief of the work which otherwise the local authorities would have had to perform. Lastly, I have been asked whether the Departmental Committee on Local and Imperial Taxation has taken this subject into account. The reference to the Departmental Committee was settled several months ago. I do not think that the hon. Member would desire any alterations to be made in that reference, but it may encourage him to know that I do happen to know that this is one of the subjects which they consider very vital, especially in connection with the main roads, in connection with the whole controversy as to local and Imperial taxation, and I hope that when the Report is published the hon. Member will see that full consideration has been given to the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the House whether there is any change in the policy as regards Grants to London, and, if so, whether the Grants are to be to the London County Council or to the borough councils for road improvements or road making?

If my hon. Friend would be good enough to put down a question after the Recess, I shall be able to give a more satisfactory answer than I can give at present.

I rise to a point of Order. I understood that the hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) intended to raise the subject of Persia. He has informed me that owing to the fact that he himself gave notice to call attention to the state of Persia he would be unable to deal with it in this Debate. As I understand that the object of what is called the Blocking Motion was to prevent anyone else from forestalling a Member who had given such a notice by raising the question before he had time to do so, therefore I want respectfully to ask your ruling, whether a Member is blocked by his own Motion and prevented from dealing with the question which he has given notice of his intention to discuss at the first opportunity that arises. I understand that the hon. Member is still willing and anxious to discuss Persia, if allowed to do so.

I ask if this point has not been before the House before? I remember a case in which it was held that a Member was blocked by his own Motion, whether that would be or not in my favour.

I think it is a case of the engineer hoist by his own petard.

The question I wish to raise is not one of policy, but has reference to the opium traffic in connection with India and China. The question is whether the British India Government or the British Government are not bound to carry out plain business and honourable pledges. I may say, by way of recital, that it was settled first of all that the opium trade in India and China should be extinguished in ten years by annual reductions, and that subsequently, in May, 1911, the extinguishing of the trade should be accelerated by the British Government, which—with its usual complacence with the funds of other people—undertook the earlier extinction of the trade upon its being proved that there was a contemporary reduction in China. When the revolution took place in China the new Government in that country proved itself absolutely unable to carry out the pledge to extinguish the opium trade in China. Every opium-producing province in China was immediately aflame with the poppy. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs the other day, when I put a question to him, took the point that it was a question of time; but it is not a matter of any doubt that a very large opium crop was har-Tested throughout China in the spring and summer of last year. The Chinese Government are either unwilling or unable to extinguish the growth of the poppy in China, and in spite of all reports that are made in regard to this traffic, and of humanitarian considerations, the Chinese are proceeding with the planting of the poppy. As I said, the whole poppy producing provinces are now aflame with it, and the Chinese Government, in face of the express stipulations prevent the sale of the opium imported from India to Shanghai, and is most improperly growing opium to supply the wants of its own people.

The net result of this policy is that the people in the Far East are driven to take cocaine and morphia, which are far more noxious drugs, supplied to them by Europeans, instead of indulging, very often to a regrettable excess I admit, in opium. Another result is that while the Indian taxpayer is being deprived of the revenue which is annually received from opium, nobody is any better off, and trade is merely transferred from British to other hands. That is so usual a result of humanitarian diplomacy, agitation and legislation, that it would not in itself call for any particular notice except that it has this result, that at the present moment the growers of opium, to the extent of nearly £10,000,000 sterling—a very considerable matter—are not only pursuing a lawful trade, but, under express stipulations with Great Britain, have exported this amount of opium from India to Shanghai. They are being kept out of their rights, and while opium is being bottled up in Shanghai, the Chinese are growing and using, and always will grow and use, opium, and to think that you will cut off that vast population from the use of it is really a large order. I am not dealing with the humanitarian or altruistic attitude in this matter, but I submit that certain arrangements have been made which are not being carried out, yet we, the British, with our usual folly, carry out an agreement in order to please certain interests, powerful interests I dare say, to our own detriment, and with immediate wrong to the British India merchant—an arrangement at which the Chinese are snapping their fingers. It appears to me to be a fair statement of the case, that either the export of opium to China should be suppressed of that the British Government should brine to bear the necessary pressure upon the Government of China to carry out their pledges.

I have frequently addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs questions on the subject, and I realise the difficulties under which he labours, and he has as a strong supporter in myself, I may say, as in any Member on the opposite side of the House, and a great deal stronger than a large number of those who sit behind him. At the same time, I wish to say, without taking up the Civis Romanus sum attitude so familiar long ago to the Foreign Office, that the British nation is based on trade, and you must take effective steps to see that British merchants are not placed at a disadvantage by treaties made for humanitarian or other reasons, and that they have perfect justice done to them. The Government of India have received a large sum of money in the extra prices lately realised. I submit that the hon. Gentleman and his Friends are not entitled to set that off in any way as money of the British taxpayer. If it is believed that the Indian revenue can do without this money, I would point out that it is extremely easy to be generous at the expense of other people; and I, as an old Indian official, would remind those who take that view that it would be as difficult as dangerous to attempt to increase the number of sources of revenue in India, in accelerating the extinction of the opium trade, and omitting to alleviate the hardships which occur incidentally, as in the case of the stocks at Shanghai. Though hon. Members opposite condemn the opium traffic, I would point out that opium rightly used is an extremely beneficial drug, and is a necessary medicine, used to a very great extent for very proper purposes all over India and the East, and it has never had proper recognition in this House, because of the prejudiced manner in which it is always treated.

The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs told me in August that His Majesty's Ministers had made repeated protests against the restrictions imposed on the trade in Indian opium, and further steps would be taken if necessary. When necessary, if not now? The House is now about to rise for Christmas, and the position is not better but absolutely worse. I realise the Foreign Secretary's difficulty, but, in common justice, some action ought to be taken. On another occasion he told me repeated assurances were received from China as regards the restriction of smoking and so on, and which I am afraid I do not seriously regard, and that China meant to carry out their policy and restrict the cultivation. On another occasion, also, I was informed that this particular point was under consideration, but nothing is done. I want to know what the Foreign Office are prepared to do. I wish to quote a word or two from the Finance Minister in India, Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, well known to be not only an able financier, but a man set against cant and hypocrisy, or anything covering up the real motives under any specious or high-sounding names. I find that that gentleman said in his own Council:—

"We cannot consent, under the guise of reform, that revenue shall be transferred from India to China without in any way benefiting China."

I thoroughly agree with that if we were benefiting the people of China, but I say let those who ask it pay for it out of their own pockets, and do not take it out of the coolie, who is too poor to have a pocket and has only a rag around him, and cannot afford to pay any more taxes. I do protest against the assumption, the easy assumption, which the hon. Gentleman opposite me makes, that it is quite easy to settle this matter in the Indian revenues. It is not easy, but it is extremely difficult, and I refer to the words of Sir Fleetwood Wilson. I think a solution of the difficulty, which would be fair and reasonable, would be, if the Foreign Office would bring pressure to bear on the Chinese Government, to get them to take over those stocks in China, which have accumulated owing to their failure to carry out their engagements. Had China not prevented the sale, those would not have been sold, and our countrymen would have been out of pocket. Therefore I submit it would be quite a proper thing for China to take them over. The only difficulty is that China cannot afford to do so, but neither can our countrymen afford to be out of pocket. However difficult and unpalatable it may be, I do urge that the Foreign Office ought to take some steps to do justice to our people. China under the revised Regulations of 1911 cannot refuse the right to sell opium and to trade in it under existing circumstances. It is true that a predecessor of Sir Fleetwood Wilson's professed in the Council there to think that this matter could easily be arranged, but subsequent experience has proved that he was wrong, and there can be no doubt that Sir Fleetwood Wilson is correct in what he said. The Government of China, as I think the Foreign Secretary himself and hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit, at present is notoriously either unable or unwilling, and if we are to be satisfied with the answer that further steps are going to be taken, this matter will go on from day to day and from month to month, and from year to year, and our innocent fellow countrymen will probably be ruined.

I think myself that the Under-Secretary of State for India should himself be here to-day and not his representative at the War Office. The affairs of India are of sufficient importance to require the presence of the Under-Secretary on the Treasury Bench, whenever matters like this are brought before the House. It is no answer to say he is usefully occupied in visiting India. He may be, but he would be more usefully occupied here, and I make my protest again against his absence on an occasion like this, and against the fact that there is no one here, and indeed no one in this country except the Secretary of State, who is in another place, to answer a matter like this when it is brought forward. Although there is no Indian Minister present I believe that the representative from the War Office of the India Office is coming later, and I cannot refrain from referring to another matter which I hope will be reported to him. I had occasion on several occasions in this House to raise objections, which indeed were strongly backed in India, to the appointment to the Public Services Commission of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). I am aware that no Commission is complete in this country without that hon. Member and that he must be a member of every Commission, but I wish to say, whatever may be behind that induces the Government to take that view, it has no validity with people in India, and they think you might search the whole House of Commons before you could find any one Member in any one quarter who had taken pains to make himself thoroughly unfit for that office like the hon. Member for Leicester. As he is absent, I do not propose to refer at any greater length to that, but I want to deal with statements of a body in India called the Indian Civil Servants' Association. This Commission has gone out to renew, reconstitute, and reform the existing public services. The Indian Civil Servants' Association met quite recently, and I received this document by the last post from India from the members of the association, and I will give it to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. At a meeting of that association the members present, while—

"disclaiming any idea of arrogating to themselves the right to dictate to the Government as to the composition of the Public Services Commission, desired to enter a respectful but an emphatic protest against the inclusion in the Commission of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, on the ground that he has already disclosed bias against the serviees."

I heartily agree that the hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of India and its services, and has displayed a bias against the latter and ignorance concerning the former which disqualify him for such an appointment.

"They feel that the bias Mr. Macdonald has shown prevents him from approaching many of the subjects which must come before the Commission—"

I would mend that by saying "all"—

"with that open mind and absence of prejudice which alone can command the confidence of the Services."

The composition of this Commission has given great dissatisfaction in India. A Commission dealt with a similar subject before, to not one of whom anywhere in the Indian Empire could any objection be taken. Serious objection is taken to this Commission, which seems to have a political, rather than an administrative complexion. These members of the Indian Civil Servants' Association continue:—

"The members present also feel that in view of the great difference in the problems of administration that arise in Northern and in Southern India the absence from the Commission of any member of the service representing any of the Northern Provinces, Bombay or Bengal, must impair the value of the conclusions of the Commission. They do not consider that this defect will be removed by the co-option of members who are not empowered to sign the lteport or to append their views thereto."

I wish to associate myself with what is recorded in this Paper, and I would like the representative of the India Office to refer to the matter when he comes in. I understand that another Indian question is to be raised by the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King). I do not intend to enter into the merits, but there has been an important development of the question of the building of the new capital. I am not talking of the policy, but of how that capital should be built. I must refer to the question, as I was chairman of the meeting at which a paper was read on the subject by Sir Bradford Leslie. This very eminent engineer, architect, and sanitarian, whose works speak for him all over India, and whose capacity is equalled only by his modesty, has made certain proposals on this subject, in which he has co-ordinated all the requirements of the situation from the administrative, sanitary, and economic points of view. I want the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, through his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for War and all the circumlocution that this involves, gradually to approach the India Office and urge the Secretary of State not to take into account the opinions of individuals who too often are led away by their own views and by what they have read on a particular subject—I am not now referring to the hon. Member for Somerset—but to take into account the lecture of Sir Bradford Leslie, delivered before a very large and distinguished company of gentlemen peculiarly well qualified to express opinions upon this subject, every one of whom thoroughly agree that it would be no satisfactory disposal of the matter to say that it is an impracticable scheme, but that Anglo-Indian and Indian public opinion will expect the Secretary of State to give the suggestions of this eminent engineer that full and careful consideration which they so thoroughly deserve. In so doing he will be repaid by the gratitude which will be evinced for such action by all those who are interested—of whom I indeed am one—in making this new capital, which I wish had never to be made, as good a capital as possible for the people of India, at as cheap a rate for the Indian taxpayer as it can possibly be accomplished.

I congratulate the hon. Member opposite (Sir J. D. Rees) on his acquisition of knowledge. It has taken him a good while to find out the facts, but I am glad that he acknowledges that the revenue argument from the Indian point of view is absolutely gone. I am interested to observe also that the hon. Member deprecates raising the general question of the opium policy. I should think that he knows the weakness of it, for this House has twice unanimously affirmed that the traffic is morally indefensible. The hon. Member said that the new Government in China was either unable or unwilling to carry out its undertaking—he did not care a pin which it was.

I did not say that I did not care. I said that it was immaterial to my argument, but I should prefer that they were virtuous.

Then I misunderstood the hon. Member. There is a great principle at the bottom of this matter. If the Government were unwilling and able they would be to blame. But, so far from it being a fact that China is now aflame with poppy growing in every province, it is absolutely contrary to the fact. The hon. Member opposite cannot be omniscient on every topic. Some of us specialise. I specialise in this matter, and I have in my hand newspaper cuttings showing that in October and November of this year poppy production as well as smoking was being rigorously suppressed.

I shall have much pleasure in producing an equal number of extracts on the other side.

I wish the hon. Gentleman had produced his corroboration when he made his statement, as it is extremely wide of the truth. I state without hesitation that there is being produced in China to-day not 50 per cent, of the opium that there was five or six years ago. I believe that that is very much understated, my own conviction being that not 30 per cent, of the amount is being produced. Since the arrangement was made in 1907 between our Government as representing India and the Government of China that there should be a pari passu reduction for the next nine years, and that the sending of opium to China should entirely cease after 1916, we have performed our part of the bargain, and every year less opium has been sold to China than before. But China herself, not being able to carry out under the late Government what might be called half-measures, reduced the growth of the poppy to the extent of 70 per cent, or 80 per cent., at a great loss of revenue and against the grain of the people who wanted to make money out of it; so that two years ago, before the revohraon, China was growing only 20 per cent, or 30 per cent, of the amount she had produced before. Are we, then, to be told to-day that it is a matter of no importance, in considering the right or wrong of this matter—because it is a matter of right or wrong—whether it is China's ability or her good will? I cannot share the hon. Member's indifference, or apparent indifference, whether it is China's power or China's will that is lacking. The Republican Government in China is only just getting into the saddle. Our Government and everybody else have recognised the difficulty of China's enforcing in her more remote provinces the stoppage of opium poppy growing at a time when it paid the grower so much. I have a few newspaper extracts from missionaries in different parts of China, whose evidence is taken by Sir John Jordan in Pekin and by our Consuls all over China, as some of the best and most reliable they can get of what is going on all over China in regard to this and every other subject. Here is a sentence from a letter from a Scandinavian missionary at Kweihwacheng, in Shansi. He says—

"After the revolution the new mandarins did not come early enough to keep the farmers from sowing opium and so a great deal of poppy was planted. But as soon as the mandarins reached here it was almost all destroyed and the farmers greatly punished. We do believe next year no one will dare to plant opium."

Here is a rather different story. I will read all the evidence I have. This is from a China Inland missionary at Kiemping, Anhwei, who says that the situation with regard to opium planting

"is very little altered so far as I can hear. A fews seem to be growing a little for their own use, and a very few with the idea of selling it."

That is not so strong. Here is another from the China' Inland missionary at Nanchowling, in the province of Hunan:—

"Re opium growing. There is none grown in the hundred miles between here and Changteh, nor to east, north, and west, of this town, as far as our district extends."

Here is another from the province of Kiangsi: —

"Here, in our Hsien district, is no opium crop planting. Our neighbour, Hsien district, Lotan, as I have heard from natives, has still poppy plants. They have never stopped planting."

From the province of Chekiang the letter says:—

"The growth of opium was forbidden by the Manchu Dynasty after the Opium Agreement, and its growth was greatly reduced. Since the devolution the new Government has been more determined than ever to prevent cultivation, so that now the growth of the drug in the district is almost impossible. … The gentry of the different districts have been made to sign an agreement whereby the responsibility of opium planting is put on their shoulders. They have to see that none is planted. If any dare to disobey their orders, soldiers will be sent to enforce the law, and anyone daring to plant is liable to be shot. … Opium smoking is strictly forbidden, and anyone found out is thrown into prison and fined, or sent to sweep the streets. There is no respect to rank, and a few days ago a M.A. was caught smoking and is now in prison."

Here is yet another testimony from the province of Anhwei:—

"The poppy has not been recultivated."

There is a large amount of evidence to show, as one would have expected, that the Republican (reformed) Government in China is far more earnest in this matter than was the old Government. The head of the Government, the President, is a great force. I do not say that he is acting altogether from altruistic motives. He is acting from the point of view of making his country strong, and he was the great instigator of the anti-opium law. All the native newspapers in the country are against the traffic; possibly the only paper in favour of it is an English newspaper. The hon. Member who has just sat down has told us that the Indian taxpayer is losing, that China is growing her opium, and that the Chinese themselves are snapping their fingers. I will tell the hon. Member how the Chinese are snapping their fingers. It is not a month since the Government of the Province of Hunan cut off the heads of five of its subjects for producing that very article which the hon. Member wants us to keep on sending there. No wonder that the people in China are not able to understand why their own Government compels them to admit this article into their country and at the same time prevents their own citizens producing it. We have heard a good deal—and much is said in favour of the policy, but I am only using this by way of illustration—a great deal has been said in this and other countries—and many intelligent people believe it and are quite convinced that it is good national policy—to help the home producer by putting a duty on the article which conies into this country produced by the foreign producer so as to give a bias in favour of the home producer, even if it costs the home consumer a little more. That looks an unanswerable argument. Then I wonder what the Chinese think of the action of their own Government? What are the Chinese doing? Their Government are not encouraging the growth of opium; they are doing all they can to put it down. I say that without fear of contradiction.

They are not perhaps doing all they might to prevent their dealers buying this article, but they have certainly done all they can to prevent their own producers from producing the home article. What is the state of things in China? Let us put ourselves in the Chinaman's skin. What does this look like to him? Here he has his own Government cutting off the heads of their own people for producing an article. That is the way the home producer is protected! The business of damning the home consumer is preserved as a close monopoly for the foreign producer. Can we wonder that there has arisen a strong feeling in China? The American Anti-Opium Commission, in their Report in 1904, said there was a Chinese race, but no Chinese nation. There is a Chinese nation being born. Everybody who knows anything of the circumstances knows that this great Chinese nation, and the great power behind it, will have to be reckoned with some day. Are we treating it fairly or not? As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, they have large stocks in Shanghai and also stocks in Hong Kong. The greater portion of the stocks are in Shanghai) which is an open port. The drug has been sent there by Indo-Chinese speculators to be sold to the Chinese.

I will admit that the Chinese Government seems to be lax in enforcing admission of opium upon its people. The hon. Member says that some of his fellow countrymen who carry on this business are going to be ruined. Telegrams I saw in the newspaper about a week ago from Bombay set forth the fact, that there was this large stock of opium in Shanghai, and that there were two alternatives. I am very glad alternatives were mentioned. They were to compel the Chinese Government to take the opium or to suspend for a time the sales of opium in India. The Indian Government should stop granting licences to grow any more of the poppy, and I would suggest that no more sales should take place for some months or so. It may be said that the Indian Government would lose. That method would help the Government out of a difficulty, and also those who have been referred to as our innocent fellow countrymen, who are carrying on this trade of selling to China this article. That would save any question of compensation. In a telegram in the "Times" last Tuesday from its Peking correspondent there is the assertion made that we must make the Chinese take the ten millions worth of opium, or we may have to pay a fine, or that the Indian Government may claim a fine, of ten millions; as ff this opium were not worth anything apart from the Chinese market. There is a very large market still continuing, I regret to say, outside China for the production of the opium of India. We have only a small stock at present in Calcutta. If we stopped the sale for a while these gentlemen would get off their stocks by degrees, and there would be no claim upon the Government for compensation. Why? Because the agreement, which the hon. Gentleman has alluded to just now, of eighteen months ago made with China, had, as one of its conditions, that if China had been able to stop the production and consumption of the native article by the end of last year we should not have been able to send them a single ounce. I am very glad to be able to quote a very high authority for what no doubt will not happen. We shall not make war upon China. In this House twenty-one years ago a Conservative Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir James Fergusson, used these words in an opium debate:—

"If the Chinese Government think proper to raise the duty to a prohibitive extent or shut out the article altogether, this country would not expend £1 in powder or shot, or lose the life of a soldier in an attempt to force the opium upon the Chinese."

Things have moved forward since then. No one would believe that our Government are going to make an opium war upon China. What is the alternative? The alternative, it seems to me, is graciously (or we may have to yield the point ungraciously) to say to China, although you are under this obligation, and we have a treaty right binding you to receive this opium which is the curse of your people, we will forego that right and will not attempt to make you take this opium. Our relations of late with China have been a little bit strained, but as I happen to know the opinions of some of China's leading statesmen, I know they believe in this country to-day, but they cannot understand why we should weaken the hands of their Government by adding to their difficulties in extirpating this thing. A great act of reparation is due from this country as a whole. We have been forcing this thing upon them all these years. We have done a great wrong. True, there is a bond, but it is of the same type as the bond Shylock held. It is a bond in name and not in justice. It is a wicked bargain, not made by us to-day, and we are not obliged to enforce it. If we want to help China in its struggle to be free, if we really care for our own good name abroad, and for our moral influence amongst the nations of the world, we should at once say, as I hope the Government will, if they do believe that the Chinese are endeavouring to free themselves, that the least we can do is to take our share in freeing her from this hateful bondage.

I was as sorry as anyone else that the hon. Member was not able to raise the subject of Persia. I thought and hoped he would have been able to raise it, and I thought and hoped that hon. Members on this side of the House would take a different view of the matter from him, and would continue to discuss it, and I am bound to confess I had hoped to have an opportunity of replying in a prepared speech, and in an interesting speech, if not in a good speech, whereas I have not prepared a speech at all on the subject actually raised. Permission being barred on the question of Persia, I want to refer, before coming to such a statement as I can make about the present position in China, to one statement only in the speech of my hon. Friend who has just spoken. He suggested that the feeling of the enlightened section of the Chinese people is strongly and bitterly against us because we still try to send into China large quantities of Indian opium. I rejoice with him at the growth and development of that enlightened public opinion, but I am bound to say that if such feeling exists, I feel certain that they will understand the true position in regard to it. Surely the outstanding fact is not properly stated if you say that we are sending in large quantities of opium unless you add—and this is the leading feature of the position—that our sending in opium at all, if opium is to be stamped out in China, must come to an end automatically in 1917, and that it can be brought to an end automatically at any time before that if the Chinese Government promises to see that it is not being cultivated in their own country. I feel sure that educated Chinese opinion does understand the position in that way and realises that we have made a very definite step, and have a definite treaty under which the large importations of opium into China in a short period of years will cease, and I think that that ought to be kept in mind as one of the leading aspects in the matter.

In order to understand the present position one has to bear in mind the actual course of events. Time is the essence of this matter. No doubt last winter there was a very considerable amount of opium grown in different provinces of China, including some provinces where it was stamped out before that date. Without doubt a considerable opium crop was gathered in the summer of this year, but that can be reasonably considered as having been due to the chaotic conditions the country was in at the time owing to the revolution. Where it was not chaotic there was great unsettlement and disturbance, as to who the authorities were and what the policy would be which must inevitably follow upon the revolution. And, apart from the chaos, I believe it is true to say that the authorities of the revolution at one time were so much in need of money to see their revolution through that they selected officials, whom they put in charge of the different provinces, with a view to the amount of ready money they could provide for the revolutionary business rather than from the point of view of their future efficiency as governors, and, therefore, for some months after the revolution came to an end governors were settled in some districts, who would never have been chosen if the Government were perfectly free to choose men for those posts, without regard to the contributions toward the revolution, which they were able to make at a time when money was so much needed. Therefore, in theory, we were bound to give the new Government time, first of all, to establish order out of chaos; and secondly, in cases where they are changing their officials, time enough for the selected officials of the new authority to get into power and make their weight felt. It surely would have been utterly unfair for us looking simply at the letter of the bond, to say opium growing is increasing in China, and that that absolves us of the obligations of the Treaty which we were thereupon going to tear up. We were surely bound not to do that, and to give the new authority a reasonable time to get into the saddle and not to regard as conditions justifying us in tearing up the Treaty the fact that, in the absence of the control, which we were bound to expect during the revolution, large importations of opium had inevitably taken place.

Therefore, to consider the position now, what we must realise and know about is this is not that the fields of China were ablaze with opium some months ago, before the crops sold by the revolutionary party was gathered in, but what has been done during the last few weeks of October and November of this year, when the new crop would be planted, and if planting is now going on. We could regard the new Government as responsible for that, and by the result of our inquiries as to new planting that is attempted we must judge our policy in the future. In reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, I am bound to state that the attempt to sell opium to China now must be regarded as more than the speculative business he seemed to suggest it was. We cannot possibly accept any obligation to force, opium into China to secure profitable markets for Indian opium growers. There is no obligation of that kind at all. In the first place, the Chinese are able to act under the Treaty and as soon as they can show that any or all of their provinces are clear, we are bound to stop importation into those provinces, or rather they are entitled to refuse importations. If by moral or by physical persuasion over their Own people, they can secure the cessation of opium smoking, and consequently a cessation of the demand for opium, then also there would be no sale for what is produced in India, and in either of those cases the Government could do nothing to secure to those merchants a successful market for what they want to send in. The speculative aspect of this sale must have been clear to those merchants as soon as the agreement of 1911 was entered into, and one cannot therefore regard their trade as being a trade for which the British Government is bound to secure a profitable sale.

I have only to go through present events so far as they are known to us with reference to the provisions of the Treaty as they now exist. It is no doubt true that provincial Governments have been putting all sorts of restrictions in the way of wholesale trade in opium at the ports which they control, and it is also true that under the Treaty they have no right whatever to do that. The provincial Governments according to the Treaty must not restrict the sale of opium, and I think undoubtedly they have been trying to restrict the wholesale trade in opium. It can be argued by the central Government that they have not yet had time to establish proper control over the provincial Governments in that matter, and the Government are bound to give that argument a certain amount of attention at any rate. In the next place there is the point that the provincial Governments, according to the Treaty, may not regulate the retail sale of opium, whereas the central Government may. There, again, you have questions which are likely to comedic and have come up, as to what is or what is not a legitimate regulation of the retail sale of this drug. It might be argued by the Chinese Government that the regulations included power to prohibit the retail sale altogether, but I could not say that that would be an argument which we could altogether accept because surely the word "regulate" means that the trade, regulated, will be allowed to continue. That is a matter on which we need more information and careful investigation is being made.

Thirdly, the point we have to find out most carefully and completely before we can finally settle our policy is the amount which has lately been grown during the autumn in the different provinces of China. The Treaty gives us the right to Inquire and to investigate, and directions have been given that that right shall be exercised, and we are awaiting for our Consuls and Ministers at Pekin to supply us with the facts of the case. Therefore I am not now able to make a full statement of the policy of the British Government on the question of opium or of the measures which will be taken to secure that the opium now being held up at Shanghai shall be taken by China. It all depends on the result of the inquiries now being made. If we find that as much planting is going on this autumn as last autumn, if we find that there has been a great deal of consumption of native opium, and a real and consistent obstruction to the sale of opium, not only by the provincial Governments but by the central Government, then the position will be an extremely serious-one, because it would be clear that the central Government are not carrying out their side of the Treaty. If we find there is no doubt that strong measures have been taken to suppress planting and the purchase and consumption of native opium, and if we find that the obstructive measures of the provincial authorities have been checked, then clearly we should not feel bound to secure for these merchants who have these stocks that favourable market and that right and profitable market which the hon. Member suggested we ought to secure. In any case, I can undertake to make a statement as to the facts as soon as we have had a reasonable time to carry these investigations out, and I can only add that the facts, so far as we have any indication of them, show that real endeavours are being made, and have been made, by the central Government and public opinion all over China to enormously restrict both the growth, consumption, and trade in this extremely harmful drug.

The matter which I wish to bring before the House is one of very considerable hardship to a member of the Midland Railway Friendly Society. I am sorry the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) is not present, because this man is one of his constituents. The case is as follows:—Number 32,577 on the Friendly Society List, of 18, Camber-well Road, Stoke-on-Trent, was thirty years a servant of the Midland Railway. Twelve years ago he gave up the position of signalman at the place in my Division. For forty-two years he subscribed to the Midland Railway Friendly Society which gives medical benefits and has an insurance fund. On page 17 of the Book of Rules, clause 7, sub-section (3), after the age of sixty-five, this member would have been entitled to superannuation at 5s. a week as an old subscriber, when he ceased to be a servant of the Midland Railway. All this time he has been subscribing 2s. 6d. a month to this friendly society. He became sixty-five on the 13th of August last. When he sent his last three months' subscription of 7s. 6d. in July, he asked when his superannuation money would be paid him and in what manner. He then had 2s. 6d. returned to him of his last month's subscription, and he was informed that the society was reorganised on the 18th of July, and he would not be able to receive benefit, as he supposed, from that fund. Thereupon he returned his 2s. 6d. in protest, but it was sent back to him again. Had he been sixty-five by the 18th July, there would have been no question of his receiving a pension of 5s. per week, but because unfortunately his birthday did not come till the 13th August there was trouble about it. Under the new rules instead of 5s. per week he is only to receive 1s. 3d. per week up to the age of seventy, and 7d. per week afterwards. I was asked to interest myself in the case, and I have written several letters to the railway company about it. Had he remained an employé of the Midland Railway Company, the 5s. would have been made up partly out of the funds of the society and partly out of the funds of the railway company. This morning I received a reply from the Midland Railway Company regretting that they had not answered by letter sooner owing to the illness which we shall always regret of Sir Guy Granet of the Midland Railway Company. The letter then proceeds as follows:—

"Under Clause 72 of the Insurance Act the Midland Railway Society was called upon to prepare a scheme for the disposal of its existing funds and the scheme for the reduced benefits was allowed."

I do not wish in any way to criticise the Midland Railway Company or the society; it is not my business to do so; but I may mention, as was pointed out in my letter, that the majority of the committee who manage this society are employés of the Midland Railway Company and are elected by the men, the rest being appointed by the railway company. It was also pointed out to me that this man during the forty-two years he had been a subscriber had received great benefits, but I complain that any Government Department should have been found to consent to a reorganisation of the scheme of a friendly society which was, to my mind, an absolute breach of faith to people who had subscribed for so many years on the strength of receiving certain benefits.

I understand the hon. Member says the reorganisation of the friendly society was effected under the Insurance Act. There is-a blocking Motion on the Paper entirely covering all references to the Insurance Act, and I must therefore ask the hon. Member to discontinue his references to that Act.

I will certainly bow to your ruling, but here is a man who has been subscribing all these years to this society on the understanding that at sixty-five he would receive 5s. per week, and for some reason or other some Government Department has allowed this benefit to be reduced.

On a point of Order. If this is brought home to a Government Department it can only be the Department administering the Insurance Act, and therefore it is clearly out of order under your ruling.

I sent these facts to the President of the Board of Trade, and, if I have been out of order in bringing this case before the House, I suppose some communication would have been sent to me to-that effect. It is a great hardship, and I do ask the Government to see that justice is done to a working man who, owing to his thrift and foresight, subscribed all his life to this society. This man, when he gave up being an employé of the Midland Railway Company, could, if he had chosen, have received a lump sum down instead of any benefits he would have received under the society's regulations. He was, however, persuaded to remain a member of the society, and now he has reached the age of sixty-five, instead of receiving 5s. per week, he is to be put off with 1s. 3d. till he is seventy, and then only 7d. per week for the remainder of his life. It is perfectly scandalous and unjust, and I most earnestly hope the representative of the Board of Trade will see that justice is done to this man.

The hon. Member opposite has raised this question on behalf of the father of one of his constituents, but. there is a far more important principle underlying it than would appear from his statement, and my difficulty is to know in what way the Government is responsible. Under what I always contended was a most unfair and unfortunate system, railway employés were compelled to join the friendly societies attached to the particular railway company that employed them, and since the Insurance Act became law it has been clearly proved these societies in the main were hopelessly insolvent.

It is quite evident if I allow any references such as the hon. Member is making to the Insurance Act the Debate will become widely extended, and I must ask the hon. Member not to make any reference, direct or indirect, to that Act.

My difficulty is to find out in what way the Government are responsible. This man with thousands of others relied upon the good faith of his employer. He said: "Never mind what is the financial position of this society. I do not mind whether it can pay the benefits it proposes to pay; I am an employé of the company; this is the company's friendly society, and they will guarantee me the benefits if I require them. This man and thousands of others paid into the society on the understanding that at sixty-five years of age they would get a pension of 5s. per week. He has just discovered, as have hundreds of others, that, owing to the re-organisation of this society, instead of obtaining the 5s. per week, which it was understood they were paying for, and which they were led to believe they would receive, they are only to get 1s. 3d. in the future. That clearly is an injustice to these men. It is not merely an injustice to the men on behalf of whom the hon. Member opposite has spoken. It is an injustice to thousands of men, for the same principle applies to some of the other railway companies. But I come back to the question: How can this House enforce upon the railway company its? It may be true that, as a result of this case being mentioned here to-day—although my own experience, having mentioned many cases, is that the mention has not had the desired effect—it may be that the Midland Railway Company, being made acquainted with these facts, and realising that they are accused "by their employés of an absolute breach of faith, may take up a different attitude. But the fact remains that, in spite of the many protests they have received from those who are suffering, no remedy has, up to the present, been applied. I associate myself entirely with the facts presented by the hon. Member, but I would remind him that this is a general and not merely an individual case, and if, as a result of this discussion, the Midland Railway Company and other railway companies are aroused to a sense of their responsibility, I shall be well-satisfied. But I fail entirely to understand how the Government can be held responsible, or how they can alter the situation.

I also am at a loss to know how the hon. Member for Tamworth seeks to hold the Government responsible——

I was not allowed to give my explanation. It was that the Government ought not to allow new schemes which cause injustice like this to men who have subscribed their money on a certain understanding. But I was called to order when I tried to make that suggestion.

The hon. Member no doubt made the suggestion, but he did not say why he attached responsibility to the Board of Trade. At a late hour last night he communicated with the Board of Trade his intention to raise this matter.

I am sorry, but I could not get the information earlier from the railway company, owing to the illness of Sir Guy Granet. I only got it yesterday, and when I sent the information to the Board of Trade, I apologised for its being so late. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman who represents that Department is quite as anxious as I am to see justice done.

It is absolutely impossible for a Government Department getting notice after the office is closed for the night to obtain all the necessary information in time for a discussion the next day. It appears to mc that this is a case of criticism not of the Board of Trade, or even of the railway company. This is a friendly society connected with the Midland Railway Company. It is, apparently, a regularly managed society. It had a committee of management, consisting of three officers, appointed by the company, and sixteen members elected from the various departments of the railway. That was its constitution until 1910, when the reorganisation took place. That reorganisation appeared to have been agreed to by a majority of the members. [Hon. Members: "No, no!"] I say that it appears to have been agreed to. I can go no further.

This particular man knew nothing about it. The proposal was never put before him. I believe it was never put before any of the members.

The statement of the hon. Member that this man knew nothing about the matter is not a negation of my statement that the reorganisation appears to have been approved by a majority of the members.

Surely, if anything of the kind is done which concerns the people who pay subscriptions to a friendly society it ought to be put before the subscribers to ascertain whether they are prepared to consent to an alteration which would involve their receiving a smaller benefit.

That depends wholly on the rules. It is a question as between the members of the society. I do not see, after all, how the hon. Member attaches any responsibility to the Board of Trade, but, if he wishes, the Board of Trade will make inquiries into the matter, so far as ho has disclosed any facts. The question appears to me to be one to be discussed by those concerned in the administration of insurance or friendly societies, but though the Board of Trade has supervision over the action of the railway companies, it has really no responsibility in this matter.

But if the Registrar of Friendly Societies approved the alteration, surely that carries with it responsibility on the part of the Board of Trade. I am sorry I could not give longer notice.

I am not blaming the hon. Member for that. I only ask bow can he expect me to say anything as to the facts of the case when there has been absolutely no time to make any inquiry? How can we know what has happened in this particular case?

The Government must know that the provisions of a scheme can only be altered with the consent of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and they therefore ought, at any rate, to be in a position to answer a question on that point.

How can the Government be expected to answer a question with regard to a particular matter of which notice was only given last night, after the office had been closed?

I have already called attention to the fact that the discussion of this matter must be kept within very narrow grounds, and that hon. Members are not entitled to discuss the National Insurance Act.

The hon. Member for Tamworth sent a communication to the Board of Trade last night. The matter has been before him since July last. We have had absolutely no time to inquire into this particular case. It all depends upon the constitution of the society. But I repeat that the Board of Trade will make any investigation the hon. Member desires. It, however, admits no responsibility in the matter, and I do not think the hon. Member should have insinuated a charge, as he has done, without giving us an opportunity of full inquiry.

I never insinuated anything.

I desire to take this opportunity of asking the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he can explain a little more fully than he was able to in reply to a question I put to him the exact position of the experiments in Ireland in connection with the growing of tobacco. The other day I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman as to the arrangements which had been made under the scheme. He gave me a full answer, but I think he might now amplify it and give us some further details. I understand the Development Commissioners have expressed themselves as willing to vote a sum of £70,000, to be spread over ten years, for the experiment of growing tobacco in Ireland. One-half of that has already been allocated, but I understand the other half has not been allocated because a second experimenter has not been forthcoming. The right hon. Gentleman said that so far Sir Nugent Everard, who is deeply interested in this matter, is the only experimenter. Is it not possible to take advantage of the offer of the Development Commissioners in this matter by getting another experimenter to carry out the second experiment? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that matter. There is another point into which I do not wish to go, be-because my hon. Friend the Member for South Wexford (Mr. Ffrench) intends to do so—that is the particular position of the pioneer growers of tobacco in the south of Wexford. I can only say that the Wexford growers were some of the first in Ireland, and their position is such that it deserves consideration. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, when my hon. Friend has spoken for the Wexford growers, to let us know exactly the position of this promising industry in Ireland.

I desire to say a word on the new scheme of tobacco growing, as some of my Constituents were among the first people in Ireland to attempt to reintroduce tobacco growing into that country. They have produced splendid crops of tobacco, and have cured them and disposed of them satisfactorily. Up to the present they have been cultivating twelve acres, and under the new scheme they have been allotted twenty-five acres, but somehow difficulties seem to blockthe way under the new arrangement. The experimenter is himself allowed £25 an acre as a bonus under the new scheme for cultivating an area of not more than 150 acres. Those 150 acres include the Wexford growers. The present scheme allows them twenty-five acres, but the experimenter proposes to allow them £15 out of the £25 bonus on only twelve acres, together with the market value of the leaf. Under this scheme the experimenter is to provide drying houses, but the Wexford growers have drying houses already provided by the Department of Agriculture, and I understand that the growers have provided other means of drying the tobacco. I have no doubt whatever that they will be able to deal with the crops grown on the twenty-five acres. They consider that they are entitled, taking all the circumstances into account, to £15 per acre on the full twenty-five acres. The Wexford growers are nearly all small farmers, and they ought to be encouraged, because this class of farmers are the only people who could make tobacco growing a success in Ireland. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see that the Wexford growers get fair play under the new scheme.

I explained in answer to a question the other day how matters stood in regard to this question. The Treasury first of all gave a Grant of £6,000 a year for five years. Sir Nugent Everard, the Wexford growers, and a colony in county Louth, carried on the industry under that scheme. It will come to an end next year. The object was to find out whether tobacco could be grown on a commercial basis in that country, and not being certain that the experiment had been fully tried, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to continue the Grant and sent us to a body called the Development Commissioners. The Development Commissioners expressed their willingness to give a Grant of £70,000, to be spread over a period of ten years, but they attached this condition to the Grant, that there should be two experimentors, one in the Midlands and the other, if possible, in the South of Ireland. There is no difficulty about the first experimenter. Sir Nugent Everard has been carrying on this work more or less successfully for some time, and naturally the Department requested him to take part in this experiment. He complied. The result is that the agreement between Sir Nugent Everard and the Department is now ready for signature. What stands in the way is the position taken up by the Wexford growers, whom the hon. Member for South Wexford (Mr. Ffrench) represents. What the Treasury gave was £50 an acre, but we are giving £25 an acre. We are not giving it to the individual growers, but to the experimenter, who has to arrange the whole proceeding, and meet whatever expense is connected with it. The Wexford growers are not satisfied with Sir Nugent Everard's terms of £10 an acre. The Department thought that was too little, and to put it in ordinary-language, we screwed him up to £15 an acre. Beyond that he is not inclined to go. The Wexford growers had twelve acres last time and they have twenty-five acres now. Sir Nugent Everard is willing to give £15 for twelve acres, but refuses to give it on the twenty-five acres. That is the position between the Wexford growers and Sir Nugent Everard at the present time.

Will Sir Nugent Everard give £10 per acre on the remainder?

I do not think there would be any difficulty about that. What he objects to is giving £15 on the twenty-five acres. Inquiries are now being made. The hon. Member communicated with me the other day, and sent me what looked very much like an ultimatum from the Wexford growers. That has been sent on to Sir Nugent Everard, and correspondence is now proceeding between the Department and Sir Nugent Everard. I think that in a few days we shall get to business on that matter. As to the second experimenter, I had the misfortune to refer to fact in the House the other day that £.35,000 was going begging, looking for a man to take charge of it in the South of Ireland. I have received since then numerous offers of assistance. There are plenty of men in the South of Ireland willing to take charge of the £35,000, but I have not yet met the man who has the necessary qualification, the necessary capital, and the necessary knowledge to take it up, and until the Department is certain that a second experimentor and re-handler can be got from the South of Ireland we must hold that £35,000. We shall be very glad if we can get the proper medium for carrying the matter through.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is ready to assure us that the Department bear in mind the advisability of having the second scheme carried out and that he is keeping in view the fact that there are a great many experienced tobacco growers in the South of Ireland.

Of course, I am as anxious to get the £35,000 out of the Development Commissioners as any hon. Member there, but there is a responsibility placed upon me, and we must be careful what we do when we are dealing with public money.

I quite agree with every word you say.

I invite the House to make a complete change of atmosphere and subject, and from the tobacco fields of Ireland to proceed with me to the site of the new Delhi. It is a proud thought to remember that it is a year and four days ago that His Majesty, the King Emperor, laid the foundation stone of the great new capital which those of us who live long enough and have the money to go out there hope to witness one day. On the same day that the great announcement of this change was made by the King himself in Delhi it was announced here in the House by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition at once stated that this must obviously be a matter to be fully discussed, whereon, with his usual courtesy and decision, the Prime Minister said obviously this must be the subject of Parliamentary discussion. I propose to give the House the leading questions connected with this great Imperial question. The King Emperor himself, in the course of his speech, said that the new creation must be a city in every way worthy of this beautiful ancient city of Delhi, and a little later the Viceroy in Council announced his strong personal interest in the subject, stated that he had given a great deal of personal attention to the question of this new Delhi, and expressed the opinion that the buildings should be in Indian style and should be carried out by Indian craftsmen. In doing so, he was understood at the time to speak as Viceroy, and to convey the opinion and considered judgment of the very highest authority in the land. What has happened since? The Government of India sent out a Town Planning Committee. It was stated that this Committee should be one of the very highest authority. It was to consist, we were told, of a sanitary engineer, a town planner, and architect, and a landscape gardener. The three gentlemen who were sent out were Mr. Brodie, an engineer, against whom I have not a word to say, and a most eminent man in his profession. Then there was Captain Swinton, a man very well known as Whip of the Moderate party on the London County Council, a former aide-de-camp of the Viceroy of India and no doubt a man of the world, who knew his way well about India, but I contend not cither an expert in town planning architecture or landscape gardening. The third member of this Town Planning Committee was Mr. Lutyens, an excellent architect, a gentleman who has built country houses and work of that description for people who can appreciate artistic architecture, but who has had no experience whatever of large public buildings or town planning.

Some criticism was naturally directed to the composition of this Committee, and it was promised to us again and again, both by question and answer across the Floor of the House, and also on the occasion of the Indian Budget last year, I hat their report should be published with all expedition and that their plans should be ex- hibited in the Tea Room. Whatever we may have seen in the Tea Room, we have not seen their plans, and whatever we have been able to get in the Vote Office, we have not yet got their report, and this is all the more remarkable because, as soon as this Town Planning Conimittee returned after its first visit to India in July last, what purported to be a summary of their Report appeared in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of 24th July. It was never denied as reflecting, at any rate, the views of the Town Planning Committee. Though when this announcement was made by the Prime Minister, the fullest publicity was promised us in order that the public generally, and those who took a special interest and had special knowledge, might be always well informed as to what was going forward, it was with the very greatest difficulty that we got any information at all. That is very unsatisfactory, and I hope in future the India Office will turn over a new leaf and begin with the New Year a reformed record.

There is another point in connection with this Town Planning Committee which is very remarkable. No sooner had they sent out this Town Planning Committee than the Viceroy himself requested the India Office to send out another gentleman to give an independent judgment, and the India Office sent out Mr. Lanchester, one of the most eminent architects in large public affairs, and Mr. Lanchester has made a Report to the Viceroy on the very same questions and subjects which were remitted to the Town Planning Committee, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harold Baker), with his great stores of learning and sources of information, why was it necessary to send out Mr. Lanchester at all if this Town Planning Committee was adequate, and what was the difference in the questions submitted to him and those submitted to the Town Planning Committee, and if we are going to have the Report of the Town Planning Committee, may we also be privileged to see the Report of Mr. Lanchester, so that we can see what different points of view there are? I am omitting a great number of very important matters, but I am sure this is a great Imperial question. I believe the warning note I strike to-day may possibly save the India Office from confusion and further hesitation, and if there are struggling interests behind the scenes, it may induce the India Office to exercise a strong influence and bring things out into the light of publicity and let the public be informed about it—the interested and artistic public. Let me point out how many most important considerations there are which hang upon this question of the building of our new great capital in our Indian Empire.

There is also a great sanitary question. Only the other day a very eminent engineer delivered a lecture in London at a meeting very largely attended by high authorities in which he showed that the health of Delhi might be immensely improved by damming up the river Jumna. It is a dry bed during part of the year, and if the river was dammed there could be formed a beautiful lake on the confines of the city. I will not enlarge upon that, but I hope it will be taken into consideration by the Town Planning Committee. Another question which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray), namely, the question whether the new Council Chamber is to be a mere annexe of Government House. In the summary of the Report published in a London evening paper it is said that the Council chamber in which the India Council is to sit is to be a mere annexe or wing of Government House. I object to that altogether. If it is in any sense to represent in future a popular or representative body, it ought at once to have buildings of its own, and I am sure that is another point on which we should like some information. Certainly, I hope that the summary of the Committee's Report which has been piratically printed will prove to be inaccurate, as no doubt it may well prove to be in this respect. I wish to refer to the question whether Indian craftsmen and artists are to have their chance. I ask that question because in the summary of the Report it is stated that it has been decided to throw Indian architecture aside and to go in for Italian Renaissance. Since then there has been a crusade undertaken in the congenial columns of the "Times" in favour of that movement. The "Times" stated, in its sententious way, that Italian Renaissance is the style of the modern civilised world, an opinion I strongly differ from if I look around me at the beautiful Gothic buildings in which we are assembled here.

I wish to utter my protest against a decision being taken thus early, and in this manner, against Indian art and architecture. If anyone would wish to know what Indian art and architecture can do, let them go to South Kensington in the holidays—they can take their wives and families or anybody else with them—and see the magnificent architectural examples exhibited there, and the beautiful work which is being done in perfect tradition with the best old times of India. I wish also to call the attention of the House to the fact that we are going to set up in Delhi buildings which might as well be set up in New York or Rio de Janeiro. We shall be giving no national expression to the great nation of India, but really be slighting the national art, architecture, and craftsmen in our great Empire. There is another most important point, namely, that after all we are governing India as trustees for the Indians, not on our own account, but because we believe we have a great Imperial mission. The bill is to be paid by the Indians. The whole cost of the new Delhi is to be paid entirely out of the revenues of India. I want emphatically to protest against the revenues of India being made the servants of British or Italian art. I want the Indians to have a chance of working out the splendid craftsmanship and the splendid genius they possess, very different from our own—a genius that cannot be denied.

If hon. Members will take the trouble to look into the current number of the "Sphere," they will see a magnificent set of illustrations of modern Indian works of architecture—buildings erected recently throughout the Indian Empire. I venture to say that for beauty, skill, craftsmanship, and magnificence of design, totally alien as they are to our art, and totally inappropriate as they would be for buildings to be erected in London, these buildings cannot be surpassed throughout the world. I feel deeply on this subject, not only as a man who loves art, but as a man who loves the British Empire. I would like to feel that we are doing a great act of justice, and advancing the progress and prosperity of our great Indian Empire, and therefore I conclude by asking hon. Members whether it is fair that the Indians, who have great genius, a great history, and a great tradition, should be asked to pay out of their revenue in order that some architects—excellent men, no doubt, and gifted and accomplished artists too—may have the opportunity of erecting in the new Delhi palaces of Italian art. The idea, though furthered by one paper, and promoted by another, is in itself absurd and unjust. I hope we shall have the Report of what the Town Planning: Committee has been doing, and that we-shall have some plans and drawings, exhibited in the Tea Room, and that at any rate, we shall not be told that the decision-has been taken to put up modern western-palaces in the great capital of our Eastern. Empire.

My hon. Friend has spoken of northern art belonging to England and other northern countries. This is essentially a question in relation to southern art which took its origin in Italy. It is designed entirely for a country with brilliant sunshine, and from that point of view alone Renaissance architecture is particularly suitable to India, or any other country with brilliant sunshine. I wish to-put in a plea for that style. We should on this important occasion remember that it is the greatest opportunity that any architect has had in the world for many centuries. No English architect has ever had such an opportunity in design, or anything approaching it. What I want to-secure is that this shall be put in the hands of the very best man who can be found. I have seen some of these modern Indian buildings, of which my hon. Friend thinks so much, and I am bound to say I thought very little of them. Modern Indian buildings are trumpery affairs, and do not reproduce the magnificent building which we see at Agra and other places. I believe we require an adaptation of the style which is best suited to the work. At the present time, under the influence of the extraordinary revival which there has been of all the arts in this country during the last thirty or forty years, I believe that we can find men in England capable of dealing with this great problem in a way worthy of the Empire. The best way to get the work done in the best possible manner, is to get the best advice you can, and to consult the Royal Academy and the Institute of British Architects as to the man who is-best suited to deal with this great problem, and to put the work into his hands. In that way, you will get a better piece of work than in any other way. I have seen a great deal of public competition and I will undertake to say that every architect worth his salt will say that you never get in public competition the best work. The architect who goes in for a public competition is thinking the whole time of what will please the committee, and not what is the best work he can do. In that way he is never able to put his whole soul into the work. You want for this work to get the best possible man, and to let him see the site and saturate himself with the Indian sunshine and the whole atmosphere of the place, and in that way you can get a really magnificent city of Delhi, which would be a credit to this Empire during all the ages to come.

Before I reply to my two hon. Friends I ought perhaps to say a word as to the speech of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Roes) earlier this afternoon. He quoted a resolution, protesting against the appointment of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Mac-donald) on the Royal Commission on Public Services. In reply, all I can say is, that I have nothing to add to the complete and full answer which the Prime Minister has given on that subject on several occasions. He also made a suggestion, I believe, identical with that put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, with regard to the treatment of the River Jumna. That will receive most careful consideration when the actual plans and sanitary arrangements of the new city come to be dealt with. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset began by quoting a statement of the Prime Minister some time age that a full opportunity of discussing this matter would be given in Parliament. I do not like to disagree with him without having an opportunity of looking it up, but I rather think he will find that the question then being considered was the question of the announcement made at Delhi, and not certainly any question of the system of architecture to be employed in the new city, though there is certainly not any desire to avoid discussion on this subject. Then he went on to deal with the question of this Committee, which has been visiting India, and made certain criticisms.

The facts about this Committee are, it went to India and was expected to be able to report on one single visit. It went out, and decided that it would be far better to divide the visit into two, and to come back to India again at a time when it would find the Government of India in residence at Delhi, but after the first visit it did frame a Report, which was merely a preliminary Report. It is now waiting for the second visit to be completed before it issues a full and final Report.

Those first impressions which found a place in the preliminary Report, were considered by the Indian authorities, and certain modifications were suggested, and therefore we have every reason to wait until those modifications have been considered by the Committee, and they have completed their full investigations, before they give their final verdict on the problem submitted to them. With regard to the publication of the preliminary Report, the Government of India are considering its publication at a very early date, and with regard to the alleged premature publication in a newspaper that publication, in so far as it did cover the substance of the Report, was entirely unauthorised and entirely unaided by materials from the India Office. But owing to the conditions of the work, very naturally and not improperly the substance of the report was really common knowledge at the time. My hon. Friend then raised the question of Mr. Lanchester, and spoke as if there were some mystery behind it. There is nothing mysterious about it.

Mr. Lanchester is not a member of the Committee, and has never been acting with the Committee.

The hon. Member is accurate except as to the presence in India of Mr. Lanchester at the same time as the Committee. Mr. Lanchester was chosen to make a report, because he is a town-planning expert of remarkable distinction, whose opinion would be of great advantage. I think my hon. Friend was not accurate in saying that Mr. Lanchester reported to the Viceroy. He no doubt had a great deal of communication and conversation with him, but it is not strictly accurate to say that he made a report. I pass to the major question, with which also my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk dealt, the question of architecture. Most of us are aware that a certain amount of controversy has arisen in the newspapers and elsewhere with regard to the style of architecture that is likely to be employed for the new city of Delhi. The controversy has taken the form of contrasting Indian architecture with a particular form of Renaissance architecture called Italian. The hon. Member for South Norfolk, I am glad to say, anticipated what I might have said as a personal opinion with regard to the narrow view taken by many people of Renaissance architecture. But I am not here this afternoon to waste the time of the House or to yield to the temptation which the hon. Member for Somerset held out to me to indulge in a disquisition on architecture. I suggest that at this stage to deal with the question in that way is really rather academic. It is perfectly true that the matter is of vast importance to the new city, but to suggest that there is any violent controversy in regard to it is to suggest that which is not the fact. What have we before us, what is the main problem to be faced in constructing this new city? It should be remembered that the Committee had no reference and no authority of any kind to deal with anything except what is called the lay-out of the new city; they had nothing to do with the style of architecture to be employed. That is a question which is yet in the future, and about which very little, if anything, has yet been decided. But what is clear to the mind of the Secretary of State and the Viceroy is that this is not a question of one single choice as to the style of architecture to be employed. There is a vast variety of different buildings which have to be considered in relation to this City—buildings which are to be destined for different purposes and therefore necessarily should be of a different character. You have the Government offices, you have the Viceroy's own residence, you have the residences of the Europeans, you have the municipal offices, you have the military cantonments, and you have the civil part of the town, all calling for great variety, which must be dealt with in any judgment arrived at on the kind of architecture which should be employed.

There are two essentials which must not be overlooked in deciding this question. One is that each kind of these buildings should be so framed that it serves the particular purpose for which it is intended. The other is that while you preserve that particular utility in each kind of building, you must have at the same time that general harmony of design which will make it a complete and beautiful unity. Variety is quite essential, and I give only my personal opinion at this stage when I say, and I think many will agree with me, that, there is really no reason whatsoever why we should not have Indian and European architecture side by side in the new city. But really nothing at all has yet been decided. What the Secretary of State has decided, and in that the Viceroy is in full agreement with him, is that the fullest possible scope should be given to Indian artists and to Indian craftsmen to work upon the new city, and to beautify it, while giving vent to Indian aspirations and Indian ideas. The hon. Member for South Norfolk dwelt upon the very difficult problem of how architects are to be chosen. He stated the case as to public competition, so far as there is a case, very clearly and very well; and my hon. Friend behind me reminded me that not very long ago the Under-Secretary of State, speaking on the Budget in the summer, made a statement with regard to the question of the extent to which public and open competition should be adopted. That statement was rather a guarded one, and it must be remembered that it was made at a very early stage of the proceedings. But, on careful consideration by the Secretary of State and by others, it does appear that there are serious difficulties in the way of adopting public competition without any exception whatsoever—difficulties such as those my hon. Friend for South Norfolk pointed out, namely, the extraordinary difficulty of choosing judges, the effect that the character of those judges would have on the architects who compete, and the difficulty of arranging the visits of would-be competitors to India, so that they might be in a position to compete on fair terms.

I may add one other possibility, that in the case of open and public competition you do not always get all the best architects to compete. I do not wish to enlarge on this, because I can assure those who are anxious to see the principle of public competition adopted in connection with Delhi that the Secretary of State, in so far as he possibly can, intends to adopt it. On that, as on many of the other questions, I can assure the hon. Member that it is not from any desire to conceal from him what the policy of the India Office is but solely that there is no information which can be given at the present stage, that I have very little to say. Let the hon. Member remember that the ground plan of the new city has not yet been settled. We have not yet received the final report of the Committee that had to settle the ground plan. The Committee will probably report in March, and no doubt the report will be published very shortly. Until that report has been published, and until the ground plan has been settled, I am afraid it is a little premature to consider this question of archi-tects and architecture. I hope the hon. Member will not think that I have done any injustice to the eloquent speech and appeal which he made on behalf of the Indian architects, and I can assure him that the Secretary of State will bear in mind all those considerations which he put forward.

It was my wish to bring to the notice of the House this afternoon the sufferings of the agricultural community in Ireland, owing to cattle disease and restrictions on the sale of cattle, sheep and pigs, and the consequent inability of the people, prevented from selling their stock, to pay the instalments of purchase money now due; the form of relief required being merely time for payment, which will cost nothing, and I intended to say that it could be given by order of the Treasury without any legislation at all; and that the Treasury has been accustomed to do stronger things than this for its own convenience, and that, under the circumstances, and with so many people involved, it would be much stronger to refuse this request than to concede it. However, the Prime Minister two days ago vetoed the subject altogether, and, since I am not allowed to discuss that important subject, perhaps the House will bear with a brief instalment of the case relating to Dublin Castle jewels. The Chief Secretary's evasive answers on this subject render it necessary for me to disregard form and logic and sequence and deal with the crime in Dublin Castle in any way I can. Hence, on the present occcasion, I propose to confine my remarks to two of the characters, who are, of course, perfectly well known to the Government, and who dare not prosecute anyone without connecting them with the crime. I am entitled to name them, but in deference to your wish, Sir, and for that reason alone, I withhold the names. In the years preceding and during the Boer War the British Army in South Africa had the distinction of comprising first as a private, afterwards as a petty officer, a railway guard, and finally as captain, the greatest scoundrel then in South Africa. He was well known in the Army to be a reckless bully, a robber, a murderer, a bugger, and a sod. I believe that the exploit for which he was court-martialled, I think, in 1906, was robbery of the Buluwayo-Salisbury mail coach, but the crime for which some years later he was kicked out of Thorneycroft's Horse Regiment was sodomy. In the in- terval he had made his impression on all who knew him. Such a reckless being was he known to be, so many lives of native blacks was he known to have taken wantonly, that though his guilt was a matter of common knowledge, no one would take the risk of publicly giving evidence against him on any charge. Hence the first court-martial failed, and it was not thought useful to attempt another. Finally, in 1902, he was informed that he could no longer be tolerated in the Army, and the only way he could escape expulsion from it was by resigning, which he would be allowed to do. He was good enough to resign on the pretext of ill-health—ill-health not certified by any medical officer. He came to Ireland, and, as if nothing had happened, was given a commission in the Third Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment. Finding robbery of mail coaches not feasible in Ireland, he practised his other accomplishments there, and got congenial spirits in Dublin Castle to admit him to their society. He awaited his opportunity, and availed of it when it came, to steal, in conjunction with others, the Crown Jewels. One of his chums in the Castle, and a participant in the debauchery, was also a lieutenant in the Third Battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, then stationed in county Armagh.

This person threatened what is called the Irish Government that if they attempted to put him on trial he would make a full disclosure of worse crimes and of everybody connected with them. There was a chance for a righteous ruler, such as the Chief Secretary claims to be. Apart from that impudent confession, so notorious was that person's connection with crimes and criminals, that no one wishing to avoid exposure would venture to accuse him. It was a pretty state of things when a criminal so bad knew his environment to be so bad that he could safely flout a thing calling itself a Government. His threat was submitted to, and all that was done was to call upon him to leave the Castle and to resign his commission in the Army in order to escape punishment. He accordingly sent in his resignation in September, 1907. The commander of the forces offered no remark as to why he had been called upon to resign. That proved the thing and indelibly fixed the guilt upon him. This South African hero managed to escape expulsion from the Army in Ireland until 9th August, 1908. On that day he was once more told he must leave the Army, and that he would again be allowed to resign. Out he went as quietly as he could. In addition to his personal part in the crimes in Dublin Castle, two questions of wider importance arise. First, how this person, discharged as he has been in Africa, was afterwards able to obtain admission in Ireland; and, secondly, by what authority criminals found a second time in the Army are turned loose amongst the public, instead of being hapded over to be dealt with under the ordinary criminal law?

Immunity of criminals is a startling thing anywhere. It derives a special significance from the fact that Dublin Castle is the seat of Irish Government, the centre of Anglo-Irish society; the fountain of Anglo-Irish honour as by law established. Immunity of criminals acquires a deeper meaning when criminals belong to the class whose function in Ireland is to set us all a good example. Dublin Castle and the Crown Jewels are public property. The Viceregard Court is a manifestation of State, maintained at the public expense, where social distinction is conferred upon young women and young men on being ushered into society. It is the right and the duty of this House, which maintains that institution, to require it to be fit for its purpose, and to that end to require all in it and all connected with it to vindicate their character in a Court of Law when a crime has been committed, from which they can in no other way dissociate themselves. Is a den of thieves and criminal debaucheries a fit place for introducing young Irish women and Irishmen to society? If any one questions proof of debauchery, the answer is that the theft would to-day be in the same condition, and a title hunter would have been found to buy back the jewels from the thieves for restoration, but for the prompt disclosure of the police and the difficulty of evading the criminal law after that disclosure. Concealment of the theft having been made impossible, and that crime being inextricably mixed up with debauchery, an ordinary criminal investigation of it is avoided in order to prevent the disclosure of debauchery. If the Chief Secretary denies that, let him allow the ordinary law to take its course, and we shall then see. To conceal criminals, with a knowledge of their guilt, is to become an accomplice and conpounder of felony, and the more closely the criminals are connected with the Government, the graver the crime of shielding them. With what object but shielding the crime and the criminals was the Viceregal Commission set up? Does anyone suppose for a moment that if a Government Department in England were implicated in crime committed upon its own premises, that that Department would be allowed at some time it pleased to select and appoint persons in its own power to hold a sham inquiry for the purposes of exculpating itself. That unthinkable thing is what the Chief Secretary did. He selected three men in his own power and in need of certain things at his hands. He appointed them as men ostensibly to investigate the jewel theft, but really to do what he and the thieves wanted done. To prevent effective inquiry was manifestly what these criminals, like all criminals, desired. That is what the Chief Secretary gave them. To that extent he made himself their champion. He did not give these Commissioners power to summon witnesses or to administer an oath, or to allow anyone who condescended to appear before them to be cross-examined. In short, his Commission was exactly what a model hushing Commission ought to be. Even such as it was, he did not allow Sir James Dougherty, the Under-Secretary at the Castle, to be examined by them. He appointed his own secretary to act as secretary to that hushing Commission, and afterwards, in order to seal his mouth in perpetuity, he placed him in a high position in the Irish Land Commission, over the heads of old and able servants in that Department. The Chief Secretary salved his conscience and threw dust in the eyes of the public by asking the officials involved, one of whom had threatened a full disclosure, to give him their "word of honour" that they had not been in Dublin Castle at the date of the theft.

Imagine the Chief Secretary for Ireland going amongst these scoundrels and saying, "Now look here, gentlemen thieves, you have got me into a pretty mess; public opinion has compelled me to appoint a Commission to inquire into your work, but I have taken care that it is of the right sort. It will look far better, however, if I can safely produce some of you as witnesses, but I am unable to do this unless you first give me your word of honour that you know absoluiely nothing about your own theft." In order to give some appearance of reality to the sham, they closed with this offer. Of course, they all declared that they were absent from Dublin on the day of the theft. Why should they not? Nobody could blame them. It was awkward for some of them that the contemporary fashionable intelligence in the Dublin newspapers gave them the lie, but the Secretary was too well fitted for his job to bring that discrepancy under the notice of the Commission. It was awkward also that the police knew several persons in Dublin, some of whom are still able to prove on oath and willing to be subjected to cross-examination, that the jewels had been stolen by certain specified Castle officials and Army officers, whose assurance as to their absence the Chief Secretary had accepted. Again, the Secretary of the Commission proved how fitted he was for his job by not bringing this under the notice of the Commission. Such was the hushing Commission.

I submit that the setting up of this imposture by a Minister was a greater crime than the theft of the jewels. If the law, as administered, was the same for officials and non-official persons alike, there could be no doubt that the threat of the criminal officials to make a full disclosure would have been seized, and public investigation, subject to open cross-examination, would have been set up at once. Had this crime and the evidence available been discovered in a crowded slum inhabited by poor working people, there cannot be a shadow of doubt that the Chief Secretary would have had everybody concerned arrested and imprisoned under (he ordinary law, and why not? If the Crown Jewels had been stolen by a servant or a labouring man, even though it might be to procure food for a starving family, we all know he would now be in penal servitude. There is no pretence in this case that the jewels were stolen by servants or working people. The theft was on far too grand a scale for them to accomplish it with safety. The ordinary law would have been good enough for them, but some persons paid out of the public funds regard themselves as above the ordinary law. Here was a case in which the police, with full knowledge of the thieves, were prevented from touching them. If I have done the Chief Secretary any injustice—[HON. Members: "No, no."] —the right hon. Gentleman has at his command the obvious and only satisfactory remedy, and that is a full inquiry. If that would prove the immaculate purity of Dublin Castle, what can be the reason for not doing a thing so desirable? A jaunty air of blank ignorance has served the Chief Secretary very well. It is not a very defensible attitude for a constitutional ruler. It does not explain by what authority he presumes to determine what persons may commit crimes with impunity and what persons may not. It does not dispose of the facts that the jewels disappeared, that the persons having access to them at the time have never been put upon their trial as such persons would certainly have been had the crime been committed anywhere else, that the Castle criminals still enjoy immunity from the criminal law, that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give their names to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that no inquiry has been held but a packed inquiry to find a foregone verdict. I repeat that the motive of all this evasion is to conceal crimes worse than theft. It is to be hoped the House, which is entitled to the truth in this matter, will not be again put off with the stale official pretence of blank ignorance, but that the criminal law will be put in operation in Dublin Castle as well as throughout the rest of this realm.

The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the course of his multifarious duties, is often exposed to a good many things, and I certainly think the House will agree I have been exposed to a good deal during the last ten minutes. I do not, however, propose to adopt a tone of virtuous indignation on that subject, because I can assure the hon. Member I listened to him from first to last with the utmost anxiety which I possibly could in order to extract from him some information which I presume he has at his back, and which would enable me to do the one thing I am most desirous of doing before I leave office, and that is to see the Crown Jewels restored to their proper keeping. The hon. Member has suggested, indeed he has said quite plainly, that the Crown Jewels might easily be discovered and restored but for the fact that to do so would be to reveal horrible crimes committed in Dublin Castle by persons known to me, and that I shrink from doing my plain duty and from the discovery of the jewels because I wish to avoid a scandal affecting certain such persons. That, I understand, is his allegation, and he says there is not the least use my getting up at this box or anywhere else and stating, either on my word of honour or on oath, that there is not a word of truth in any one of those charges. I do not know of any person whom I am shielding at the present time. I do not know of any criminal. I have had no consort with any criminal, at least with any known criminal. I do not know whether I can reach his heart or conscience, but I can assure him there is not a word of truth in the imaginary conversation he narrated, how I went to persons whom I knew to be guilty of abominable crimes and said to them, "Look here, I am in a hole, something must be done," and that the ignorance which I am now professing, and which I deeply regret is real ignorance. I do not know any of the incidents to which he has referred. I know nothing whatever about them. All I know is the police assure me that during the course of their inquiries into the robbery of these jewels they did not come across the names of any persons to whom they could depose, and they were not put upon the track of any crime of any sort, horrible, or the reverse, in Dublin Castle or in the city of Dublin. They did not come upon any track or clue which would enable them to put anybody on his trial for these odious offences. The hon. Member may say that he knows better than the police; let him tell me, not across the floor of the House, not at the fag-end of the sitting, but at some other time, the names of the officers of the Army against whom he makes these accusations.

Mr. Speaker would not allow that.

The hon. Member does not need to ask Mr. Speaker's permission to communicate these facts to me. Let him put me and the police in possession of the names.

I have done that.

You have not.

Didn't I give you the names of Gorges and Shackleton?

The hon. Member can communicate with the War Office and ascertain the circumstances under which those officers resigned their positions in the Army. I am not here to say a word in defence of either of these gentlemen whose names have just been given. Their names have been known to the police, and if the police were in possession or have any information which would lead to their detection, not necessarily as stealers of the jewels, but as having been guilty of odious crimes, every effort will be made to bring them to justice. Does the hon. Member suggest that I am in collusion?

Will you not accept a sworn inquiry?

That is not the way to ascertain whether people have been guilty of odious crimes. You do not have a sworn inquiry before you arrest a person. You proceed upon evidence, and if it is good enough to justify the police in making an arrest, the arrest is made; and it then has to be proved whether it was properly made and whether the crime can be brought home to them. I want to discover who stole these jewels; I want to purge the City of Dublin of crime, and every effort I can make will be made in that direction. The hon. Member spoke in a manner, which I regretted very much to hear, about the Commission appointed by me at the request of the Knights of St. Patrick. He asserted that they were "creatures of mine." One has gone to his last account—County Court Judge Shaw, the Recorder of Belfast. Will the hon. Member dare to get up, and say that that man, one of the most honourable and upright who ever lived in Ireland, was a "creature of mine"?

He got his reward within twelve months.

I leave the House to judge whether a person capable of making a remark of that sort is likely to be of use to me in the further conduct of this inquiry. I assure him that I shall totally disregard what he says in the future.

Will you put these men on their trial?

I desire to refer for a few moments to the subject of the Memorial to the late King Edward. At a meeting of the King Edward Memorial Committee, which took place yesterday, and subsequently in answer to questions that were put, the announcement was made in this House that the Memorial to the late King, which it was originally proposed to place on a site at the head of the Broad Walk in Green Park, is now to be placed opposite to what may be termed the Carlton House site at the foot of Waterloo Place. I desire to express on my own behalf and on behalf of those on this side who have interested themselves in this matter, our sincere gratification at this announcement. It will, I feel sure, be understood that the criticisms we have directed against the site in the Green Park have been prompted solely by a desire to preserve to the London parks such rural amenities as they at present possess. We are deeply grateful for the consideration which has been shown to our views, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the First Commissioner of Works, and the hon. Gentleman who represents him in this House, for the courtesy they have shown on every occasion on which we have approached them in this matter.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."