Commons Sitting of 14 May 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chepstow Water Bill,
King's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.
City and South London Railway Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Leicester Corporation Bill,
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Walsall Corporation Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Pensions Funds (Cardiff) Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    EMIGRATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India what is the present situation as regards the scheme of assisting emigration to Jamaica, Fiji, Trinidad, and British Guiana?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India are taking no steps to proceed with the scheme. It involves legislation, and Indian public opinion is strongly opposed to it.

    MONTAGU-CHELMSFORD REPORT.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he can state when the dispatch from the Government of India on the subject of the increased pay and pensions for the Indian Services recommended in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report may be expected?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have undertaken to expedite the dispatch. I am unable to give a date.

    ARMY OFFICERS (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCE).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India fixed the children's allowance for officers of the Indian Army at £2 a month for officers drawing up to Rs.500 a month, and £l for officers drawing up to Rs.625 a month; that captains who are in command of companies or adjutants drew Rs.637 a month, including exchange compensation allowance, and that the Government of India deprived these captains of the allowance by thus fixing the limit at Rs.625; that the exchange compensation allowance has now been withdrawn, and the pay of these captains has been reduced to Rs.600 a month, and the Government of India now refuse to pay these officers the allowance of £1a month, on the ground that their pay is theoretically still Rs.637 a month; and will he therefore instruct the Government of India to pay up this allowance with all arrears, and also suggest the advisability of raising the limit to Rs.650 a month, so as to put a stop to this treatment of officers by the Indian Pay Department in the future?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have received no complaints on the subject, but will ask for a Report.

    CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILLS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Prime Minister whether he will provide facilities for this House to discuss the Motion on the Paper on the subject of the East India Criminal Law (Amendment) Bills, in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and others?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I hope that it will be possible for a general Debate on Indian affairs to take place on Thursday of next week.

  MERCHANT VESSELS (SALVAGE).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any payments have been awarded to naval ratings for the salvage of merchant vessels during the War; if so, will he stats the ships salved and the amounts awarded; and whether a merchant vessel chartered by the Admiralty is considered during the time of charter one of His Majesty's ships?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A statement is being compiled for my hon. Friend's information showing the names of ships salved during the War, in respect of which salvage awards have been distributed among the officers and men concerned, with the amounts in each case. As regards the second part of the question, if this refers to the status of the salvors, it depends on the provisions of the charter, or other title by which the Admiralty hold her. If it refers to the status of the merchant vessels salved, the rule is not to allow salvage to the crews of His Majesty's ships in respect of salvage services where His Majesty's Government takes the risk. In this connection I would add that in the case of the "Ernaston," recently raised by my hon. Friend, the owners took the marine risks and the Admiralty took the war risks. The loss of this ship was held to be due to war risk, the captain, officers, and ship's company having been compelled to abandon their ship by the commander of a German submarine. No claim for salvage was therefore allowed.
  Mr. STEWART: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to publish that statement with the Papers or will he send it to me?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I propose to send it to my hon. Friend. If he wishes any further action, perhaps he will consult with me.
  Mr. STEWART: It is naturally a point of great interest to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will discuss that matter with my hon. Friend

  ADMIRALTY (STAFF OF NAVAL OFFICERS).
  Major ENTWISTLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number of naval officers employed at the Admiralty on the 1st May, 1914, the number on the 1st November, 1918, and the number on the 1st May, 1919?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The following are the figures regarding officers (Naval and Royal Marine) employed at the Admiralty:

  On 1st May, 1914

  155

  On 11th November,1918

  837

  On 1st April, 1919

  727

  It has not been practicable in the time at our disposal to prepare the exact figures for 1st November, 1918. The staffs of the various Admiralty Departments, both civil and naval, are at present under review by the Board.
  Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he hopes shortly to have the figures of the Staff of the Admiralty in London the same as in May, 1914?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That depends upon the work that they have to do.
  Colonel ASHLEY: What more have they to do?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A great deal.

  ADMIRALS AND COMMODORES (SHORE APPOINTMENTS).
  Major ENTWISTLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number of admirals and commodores employed in shore appointments on the 1st May, 1914, on the 1st November, 1918, and on the 1st May, 1919?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Thirty-two admirals and six commodores were employed in shore appointments on the 1st May, 1914. The number so employed on the 1st November, 1918, was 63 admirals and 26 commodores, and on the 1st May, 1919, 55 admirals and 20 commodores.

  IMPERIAL SERVICE LEAGUE.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a body called the Imperial Service League has the official sanction and approval of the Lords Commissioners; whether any public money from the Navy Votes will be paid, or has been paid, to this body; whether any Grant has been made to this body from the Grand Fleet Fund or from canteen profits; and, if so, whether the men of the Royal Navy have been fully consulted as to such payments of the Grand Fleet Fund or canteen money?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The scheme for the formation of the Imperial Service League Originated with the Army, but the Admi-

  1563
  ralty, at the request of the War Office, arranged for representatives of the naval forces to join in the consideration and preparation of the detailed scheme, and for information with regard to it to be put before the Fleet with the object of obtaining the views of the men as to whether they desire it to be supported financially or otherwise. As a result of the reports received from the Fleet, General Sir Ian Hamilton was informed on the 4th February that the Admiralty gladly avail themselves of the offer to the Royal Navy to join in the League, but that the question of financial support must be reserved, as there is at present no fund at the disposal of the Board which could be diverted towards the expenses of the League. It was added that, should funds become available in the future, the Admiralty will gladly contribute to the League.
  No public money from Navy Votes has been paid to this body, and there is no intention of paying any, nor has any grant been made to it from the Grand Fleet Fund or from canteen profits. The disposal of money from the Grand Fleet Fund is a matter for the committee and members of that fund, and not for the Admiralty, but, as regards canteen profits, it is the policy of the Admiralty to consult the men of the Fleet to the fullest extent possible before deciding how such profits shall be disposed of, if and when they arise, and it was for this reason that the proviso in the letter to Sir Ian Hamilton was inserted.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has there been any official information given with regard to this Imperial Service League?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: To the Members of this House?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Yes.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Not to my knowledge.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that information is furnished as soon as possible?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think my hon. Friend should address his question to the Secretary of State for War, because, as I have said, it originated with the War Office.

  OFFICIAL NAVAL HISTORY OF WAR.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the official Naval History of the War will be published, and whether it is intended to publish the earlier instalments as soon as ready?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on this subject on 14th March, to the effect that it was hoped that the first volume of the official Naval History of the War would appear before the end of the year. That volume would not include the Battle of Jutland.

  ROYAL NAVY (SIGNAL AND WIRELESS LOGS).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the wireless logs of His Majesty's ships are regarded as strictly confidential documents which have to be properly safeguarded like the signal books?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: All signal and wireless logs are regarded as confidential documents, but the Regulations as to the custody of the logs provide for degrees of security depending upon the nature of the messages they contain. Thus, certain classes of messages are entered in special logs which may only be handled by certain officers, while other messages are seen by ratings under the strict reservation that all messages, whether visual or wireless, are strictly confidential and are not to be promulgated, or even discussed by those whose duty it is to handle them, without permission. The Regulations as to the custody of signal books provide in like manner for different degrees of security according to the purpose for which each class of book is intended; it may therefore be taken, in general, that the answer is in the affirmative.
  Commander BELLAIRS: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer as to the official character of this book that if a wireless log is missing it will become the subject of inquiry, to be followed by a court-martial?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagine that it would become the subject of inquiry, but

  1565
  whether a court-martial would follow would be a matter for the commanding officer.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    WAR GRATUITY (DELAY IN PAYMENT).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Frederick Ashley, late stoker 1st class, on., s.s. 109461, His Majesty's ship "Edgar," Devonport division, was discharged on 18th January last and was informed that his gratuity, after nine years and three months' service, would be paid him in one month; whether repeated letters to the Admiralty bring only the reply that nothing is known of him; and when will this gratuity be paid?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Ashley's war gratuity has now been paid. The delay in the issue of this award arose from the fact that the report of the man's dispersal did not reach the Admiralty. Two communications were received from Ashley, but in neither did he give his official number, the ship from which he was demobilised, or even his full name. Consequently, after endeavours had been made to identify him, the letters had to be returned to him for further particulars.

    DISABILITY (ORIGIN).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Mr. C. Kemp, late No. 204826, Royal Navy, A.B., was discharged from the Royal Navy early in 1914, time expired, and passed to the Royal Fleet Reserve; whether he was recalled to the Service on the 2nd August, 1914, and admitted to hospital suffering from valvular disease of the heart on the 15th August, 1914, and invalided; and whether, in view of the fact that this man's disease is, in the opinion of his medical adviser, directly due to his pre war service and that he is now totally in capacitated from earning a livelihood, it is proposed to award him an adequate pension on the scale laid down by the Ministry of Pensions for similar cases caused by serving since 2nd August, 1914?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. Mr. Kemp's disability was regarded by the Admiralty at the time
    1566
    of his discharge as not being due to his pre-war service and that question cannot now be re-opened. Mr. Kemp has appealed to the Pension Appeal Tribunal on the ground that his disability was caused or aggravated by his service in the present War, but the Tribunal rejected the claim. In these circumstances, it has only been possible to award a pension of £9 18s. a year for life, that being the amount to which Mr. Kemp is entitled under Article 1932 of the King's Regulations in respect of his total period of service.

    DISABLED OFFICERS (BONUS).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister if it has been decided to add the 20 per cent. war bonus on pensions to the wounds pensions or retired pay of officers discharged in consequence of disablement prior to 4th August, 1914?
    Sir J. CRAIG: This matter is under consideration.

  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE.
  Mr. TILLETTasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the interim Report issued by the Joint Committee of Manufacturers and Representatives of Organised Labour appointed at the Conference presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh on the 9th February; and whether it is his intention to bring this officially before the notice of the Standing Committee of the National Industrial Conference with a view to the adoption of the detailed proposals therein set out?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have read the Report to which the hon. Member refers, and it is proposed to bring it to the notice of the proposed National Industrial Council when it is established.

  UNEMPLOYMENT DONATION.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Annie King, of 25, Church Street, Stanley, county Durham, about which the hon. Member for the Consett Division wrote to the Minister of Labour, Montagu House, Whitehall, S.W., on the 28th March; whether Mrs. King was employed

  1567
  at the Birtley munition works until they stopped, was discharged on 18th December, 1918, and received out-of-work pay to 29th February; whether she was then offered domestic service; whether, having two children, she was unable to leave home and go into domestic service; whether the assessors nevertheless dismissed her appeal; whether she has been refused all further out-of-work benefit; whether there is any appeal beyond the Court of Referee in such cases;
  (2) whether the case of Mrs. E. A. Urwin, of 17, Meldon Terrace, New Kyo, Ann field Plain, county Durham, about which the hon. Member for the Consett Division wrote to the Ministry of Labour, Montagu House, Whitehall, S.W. 1, on the 28th March, has had his attention; whether Mrs. Urwin is a married woman with a husband who is practically an invalid; whether she is about forty years of age, and obliged to stay at home to look after her husband; whether she has, nevertheless, been refused out-of-work donation on the ground that she wil not accept domestic service; and whether it is the policy of the Ministry of Labour to compel married women with husbands or children dependent upon them to go into domestic service under conditions which prevent them attending to their homes or else forfeit the unemployment donation to which they are otherwise entitled?
  Mr. WARDLE: The facts are substantially as stated. In both cases the claim to donation was referred to a Court of Referees, who unanimously decided that reasonable offers of work had been refused, and disallowed the claims accordingly. Leave to appeal to the umpire was not given, and the decisions of the Court are consequently final.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any means of contesting this proposition that married women are to be forced away from their homes into domestic service?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am not sure that that necessarily follows.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: That is the objection to the service offered them.

  PEACE TERMS.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Major EDWARD WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    1568
    whether, in the event of any Colonial Mandatory failing to carry out the obligations of its mandate and charter, the League of Nations possesses, or will possess, any machinery for the transfer of the mandate to some other Power?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The terms of the several mandate charters have not yet been decided upon.
    It is provided in the Covenant of the League of Nations (Art. XXII., last paragraph) that "a permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the Annual Reports of the Mandatories, and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of such mandates."
    In the event of the permanent Commission advising the Council that a Mandatory Power was not carrying out its obligations, it would lie with the Council to consider what steps should be taken.

    MESOPOTAMIA.
    Sir ELLIS HUME-WILHAMSasked the Prime Minister what arrangements, have been made at the Peace Conference for the future government of Mesopotamia; whether the future development of the country's resources will be left in the hands of the British who have conquered it; what Army of Occupation it is proposed to leave; and whether or no a British Governor will be appointed to ensure a just administration and a continuation of the development which has already begun with British money?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible to make any statement on this subject at present.

    ALLIES WAR BILL.
    Lieut.-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether there is any provision in the peace terms which compels the enemy countries to pay in full the Allies war bill when, and as, they are in a position to do so?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on Monday to the hon. Member for Hackney, South.
    Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to allocate a day for the discussion of the peace terms, and will he in any case, in

    1569
    compliance with the promise he gave to my hon. Friend (Mr. Bottomley), promise that that day will be given before the peace terms are signed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure that the hon. Member for South Hackney recognised that I gave no such promise. I said, if circumstances in the opinion of the Government made it possible to have a discussion without doing harm, it would be given. My hon. Friend recognised my answer when he reserved his right to move the Adjournment.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the last day on which this Peace Treaty will have to be signed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot. I wish I could.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Will the Government bear in mind that upon the last occasion that the German Empire made peace they inflicted the whole cost of the war and, in addition, large indemnities upon their enemies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The peace delegates are well aware of that. We have not forgotten that at any stage of the proceedings.

  UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to announce the name of the successor to, the Earl of Reading as His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America?
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance, particularly at the present moment, of the proper and effective representation of the country at Washington, he can make any announcement as to the immediate appointment of a successor to Earl Reading as British Ambassador?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I am unable to add anything to the reply made to a similar question of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western on the 7th instant.
  Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister in Paris
  1570
  the universal feeling of this House that this appointment should be filled up without further delay?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will do so.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I give notice I will raise this question on the Foreign Office Vote to-morrow.

  SPITSBERGEN.
  Mr. PERCYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to a statement recently made on behalf of the Foreign Office that Spitsbergen was a no-man's land, whether he is aware that Henry Hudson raised the British flag on Spitsbergen in 1607 and it was formally annexed to Great Britain as King James his New Land in 1614; whether the British sovereignty has ever been abrogated; and, if not, whether it is intended to maintain that sovereignty in the interests of the present or future settlers?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am aware that Henry Hudson visited the island in 1607; I have, however, no evidence that he raised the British flag there. It appears that the British claim was intermittently acknowledged by the Dutch interests concerned, but there is no evidence that it was ever formally recognised by the Dutch Government. Even if British sovereignty at that time were proved, it would be difficult now to base a claim on it as occupation ceased for more than two centuries. Apart from this, all the Powers interested, including Great Britain, recognised at the Spitsbergan Conference in 1914 that the island was a terra nullius.
  Having been a party to the decision of the Conference of 1914, His Majesty's Government cannot take independent action, and the whole question of Spitsbergen is one for international arrangement.
  Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the fact that there is a good deal of coal there cannot this matter be referred to the Coal Commission?
  Colonel YATE: What right had the British representative at the Conference to agree that Spitsbergen was a no-man's land?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Member must allow me to make some research before answering that.
  Colonel YATE: Is it a proper thing for a Foreign Office representative to give away the interests, of this country gratuitously?
  Sir H. BRITTAIN:Is it likely that this question will be considered by England with the Allies with the view of re-establishing possible British rights which have been abandoned?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH:I had hoped that the question would be considered by the Paris Conference, and I am not yet without hope that that may be done. It must be considered in conjunction with our Allies.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What other powers are claiming?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like notice of that question.

  VENEZUELA (IMPORT DUTIES).
  Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further progress has been made in the negotiations with the Government of Venezuela for the removal of the 30 per cent. surtax on British goods upon importation into that country; and whether he will say how the matter stands?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Venezuelan Government have recently expressed their readiness to enter into negotiations with His Majesty's Government for the conclusion of a new commercial treaty, and His Majesty's Chargé ďAffaires at Caracas has been instructed to inform them that His Majesty's Government will be prepared to do so provided that the Venezuelan Government will, on their part, agree to abrogate the surtax of 30 per cent. imposed on imports into Venezuela from the West Indies and British Guiana.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: If this country adopts Imperial Preference, how can we complain of foreigners putting on a surtax?

  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVANTS.
  Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
  1572
  whether the Governors of the various Crown Colonies and Protectorates have received instructions to consider and report upon the question of increasing, by way of war bonus or otherwise, the scales of salaries paid to Colonial Civil servants so as to make these more commensurate with the present high cost of living and heavy taxation; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of issuing such instructions?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Amery): War bonus schemes designed to meet local conditions, which, of course, vary in different places, have been adopted in practically all the Colonies and Protectorates, and are reviewed by the Governments concerned from time to time.
  Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing amongst the officials of the Colonial Civil Services at the present system of confidential reports, under which an unfavourable or adverse report by the Governor to the Colonial Office is not communicated to the official concerned; and whether he will take steps to alter that system and bring it into line with the Army procedure, which makes it incumbent upon a commanding officer to bring, before transmission, any unfavourable or adverse confidential report to the notice of the officer concerned?
  Colonel AMERY: I am not aware that any general dissatisfaction is felt in connection with the present system of confidential reports on officers of the Colonial Civil service. The question whether the system should be altered as suggested by my hon. Friend has been repeatedly considered by successive Secretaries of State, who have decided against the proposal, and the Secretary of State agrees with them that the disadvantages of the proposed change would outweigh its advantages.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any reason why successive Secretaries of State have treated these officers in a disadvantageous way?
  Colonel AMERY: I shall be glad to discuss the question with my hon. Friend. It is generally connected with the efficiency of the service.

  GERMAN TRADE ROUTES.
  Major-General Sir NEWTON MOOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a cable in the Press of 8th May stating that German traders in Rabaul are cancelling their freight contracts with Australian shipping companies with the intention of diverting trade to Hamburg through Japanese and Dutch vessels; and, if so, what action the Government proposes taking in the matter?
  Colonel AMERY: I have seen the cable referred to. The question of action is primarily one for the consideration of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia which is administering German New Guinea.

  ARTISTS RIFLES (OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War whether a considerable number of public school boys, who voluntarily joined the Artists Rifles (Officers' Training Corps) in 1918 with a view to obtaining commissions, were compulsorily and permanently transferred, when their course of training was almost completed to the 5th Battalion King's Royal Rifle Corps as riflemen instead of passing into an Officers' Cadet Battalion; whether Colonial members of the same Officers' Training Corps were sent to No. 11 Officers' Cadet Battalion, Pirbright, given commissions, and then demobilised; and whether some compensation will be made to these public school boys for the inequality of treatment and the disadvantages they have suffered?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday to similar questions asked by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Epping and Finchley. In this reply it was explained that members of the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps were ordinary enlisted soldiers and as such were liable for service in the Army unless they could be demobilised under the Regulations in force. The Colonial members were under an agreement as to repatriation under a scheme made with the various Governments. It was for this reason and
  1574
  for the better organisation of repatriation that these members were collected and placed at the Officers' Cadet Battalion mentioned.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    VOLUNTEERS (DISCHARGE).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether Private E. S. Storror, No. 16743, 9th Section, 11th Platoon, 2nd Battalion Gloucester Regiment, Mesopotamia Expeditionary Force, joined the Army on 5th February, 1915, after serving in France from November, 1915, to March, 1916, was sent to Salonika in 1916, and after being constantly in the doctor's hands and with no home leave for two and a half years has been sent to Tiflis, in Russia; and has this treatment of a volunteer who is legally entitled to be discharged his approval?
    Captain GUEST: As I have already stated, it has been necessary to include in the Army of Occupation in the Caucasus some troops from Salonika who are eligible for demobilisation, but I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is being made to release all demobilisable men at the earliest possible moment. As regards the medical fitness of a soldier, this is a matter for the local military medical authorities and I have no reason to suppose that any men who are not medically fit for service are being retained. I am, however, having inquiry made regarding Private Storror, and will write to my hon. Friend later.

    APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether, with regard to Sapper A. W. Hendy, No. W.R. 554331, Royal Engineers, Post Directorate, Marghil or Tancomat, Mesopotamia, having lost a father and sister, and having a widowed mother and two children to support, he expressed the hope that it would be possible to arrange for Sapper Hendy's transfer to a home establishment and to then consider his discharge on compassionate grounds; is he aware that neither Sapper Hendy or his mother have yet heard anything of his transfer; and what steps has he actually taken?
    Captain GUEST: A cable was sent to Baghdad on the 8th April asking for Sapper Hendy to be transferred to a home establishment at once and for the date of

    1575
    his departure to be telegraphed. No reply has yet been received and a reminder has been sent.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to consider the demobilisation, as a special case, of Gunner F. Woodgate, No. 21640, 115th Heavy Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery, France, who was recalled to the Colours on 7th August, 1914, went to France 14th August, 1914, became time-expired in October, 1917, has pre-war employment to return to, and has been applied for by his employer, but whose release has been refused by his commanding officer on the ground that his battery is below cadre strength?
    Captain GUEST: Gunner Woodgate is not registered by the War Office either as pivotal or for special release. If his term of Colour service has been completed he is eligible for demobilisation, and will be released as soon as circumstances permit.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Seeing that this man rejoined the Colours in August, 1914, is he not now entitled to demobilisation?
    Captain GUEST: I must presume without further knowledge that the man is filling some post of importance in connection with demobilisation.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is a man who joined on 7th August, 1914, to be retained while hundreds of thousands who joined at a later date are being released?
    Captain GUEST: I am afraid that the longer their service the more indispensable many of them become.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that Gunner H. Goldsmith, No. 906170, C Battery, 337th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, 18th Indian Division, Mesopotamia, has been refused release on compassionate grounds, although his parents, who are getting on in years, have lost two sons in the War, and this man, who was helping to contribute towards their support, is their only surviving son; and whether he can see his way to reconsider the decision in this case?
    Captain GUEST: Careful consideration has been given to this case, but I regret that the compassionate grounds put forward by my hon. Friend do not fall within any of the categories prescribed in the
    1576
    instructions recently issued governing releases on compassionate grounds. If Gunner Goldsmith is eligible for release under current instructions he will be released as soon as the exigencies of the Service permit.

    NON-COMBATANTS.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state for what reason men in the Non-Combatant Corps at Hilsea hutments, Cosham, Hants, are not demobilised; and what work of value they are now doing?
    Captain GUEST: If the men referred to by my hon. Friend are eligible for demobilisation under current instructions they will be released as soon as circumstances permit, unless they are temporarily required for the military machinery of demobilisation, when they will be released as soon as their services can be spared or they can be replaced.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will a non-combatant soldier who enlisted after the 1st January, 1916, be held for another year?
    Captain GUEST: The same Regulations apply to non-combatants as to combatants,

    271ST LONDON DIVISIONAL ENGINEERS (SIGNALS).
    Mr. DAWESasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Territorial formation called the 271st London Divisional Engineers (Signals) was reduced to cadre strength some time back and the remaining men, most of whom joined in, 1914, were informed that they would very shortly be demobilised; and when he expects that the demobilisation will be effected?
    Captain GUEST: I regret that it is not possible to identify the unit which my hon. Friend has in mind. If he will verify the particulars given or furnish some additional information, I shall be happy to have further inquiry made. In any case, all men who are eligible for demobilisation are being released as rapidly as the exigencies of the Service permit.

    INLAND WATER TRANSPORT.
    Commander KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether a number of men of the Inland Water Transport, homeward bound for demobilisation after nearly three years' service in Mesopotamia, have been detained at Karachi for

    1577
    service in India; and, if so, for what service they are required, in view of the fact that they have no military qualifications?
    Captain GUEST: I have no information as to any Inland Water Transport personnel, homeward bound for demobilisation, being detained at Karachi, but it is possible that they have been held up there temporarily in consequence of the recent disturbances in India.

  GABBARI PRISON, ALEXANDRIA.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will have investigations made into the treatment in Gabbari Prison, Alexandria, of men who had volunteered for the Royal Army Medical Corps and refused transference to combatant units; whether he will give the dates of the death of Private N. Johnson and Private Tiller in this prison; what was the cause of their death; whether they were treated according to the regulations of the prison; and whether he will state the number of men who have died in this prison since January, 1917?
  Captain GUEST: This matter is being inquired into, and I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I know the result.

  ARMY LEAVE.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers who have been abroad for two or more years without leave and arrive home for demobilisation only receive the twenty-eight days' furlough on full pay and ration allowance which is given to all soldiers on demobilisation; and whether he will consider giving to such soldiers some extra allowance or furlough in lieu of the overseas leave of which they have been deprived owing to the exigencies of the service in distant theatres of war?
  Captain GUEST: Careful consideration has been given to the question of the granting of additional furlough to soldiers who have been abroad for two or more years without home leave but I regret that under present circumstances I do not see my way to grant such additional furlough in these cases. I would point out to my
  1578
  hon. and gallant Friend that a number of the men referred to have already received overseas leave.
  Sir J. HOPE:Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that holidays or leave on full pay are part of the emolument of a soldier and that if the man gets no holiday the Government profits by it?
  Captain GUEST: The conditions under which leave may be granted have been very carefully gone into.
  Sir J. HOPE: But this is a question of money. Cannot some recompense be given to men who do not get a holiday?
  Captain GUEST: If cases are submitted they are considered.
  Mr. HURD: Did the hon. Gentleman not promise to consider this matter again?
  Captain GUEST: My reply was given after the final reconsideration of the matter.

  TALLAGHT AERODROME, DUBLIN.
  Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Secretary of State for War if demobilised soldiers are not allowed to work at Tallaght Aerodrome, close to Dublin, unless they join the Transport Workers' Union or one of its branches, and if that body charges demobilised soldiers 10s. 6d. as fee because they have served, the ordinary fee being 2s. 6d.?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): Difficulties have arisen at the aerodrome through the refusal of union men to work with non-union, but I am informed that no pressure is brought to bear on the latter to join the Transport Workers' Union, if they prefer to join some other recognised union. I am further informed that no distinction is made as regards fees for admisson or re-admission to the Transport Workers' Union between ex-soldiers and other men.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Were sixty or seventy demobilised soldiers requested by the Transport Workers' Union to join that union, and did the chief engineer call up the men and tell them that they must join or they would be discharged?
  Major-General SEELY: There is always difficulty in securing the co-operation of

  1579
  those who are in a union and those who are not. In this case, so far as I can ascertain, the best steps have been taken.
  Colonel ASHLEY: If the discharged men would form a union of their own, would not that get over the difficulty so far as the Air Department is concerned?
  Major-General SEELY: If it is any recognised union all difficulties cease.

  STEEL STRIPS (IMPORTS).
  Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether Scottish tube makers are buying steel strips in large quantities from America; whether large consignments of American steel strips are coming into the Midlands at prices considerably below those of local makers; whether steel strips is to be regarded as a pivotal industry; and, if so, how this fact is to be reconciled with the declared intention of His Majesty's Government to provide adequate safeguards for the protection and expansion of key industries?
  The MINISTER Of RECONSTRUCTION (Sir Auckland Geddes): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The importation of tube strip has been licensed freely since January, and is now allowed under general licence, as manufacturers in this country are quite unable to meet the demand. No representations as to the maintenance of any restriction have been made by manufacturers to the Board of Trade.

  PATENT HOLDERS (RELIEF).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to take any action to give relief to the holders of patents who have been unable to work their patents during the period of the War, and have thus lost so much of the time for which the patent was granted?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on Thursday last to the question asked by the hon. Member for Mile End, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

  IMPERIAL COMMUNICATIONS BOARD.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a protest from the Admiralty against the appointment of the right hon. Member for Blackburn to the Imperial Communications Board; if so, what action, if any, he has taken in the matter; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction on the same subject exists in both the Army and the Air Department; and whether, in the interest of the wireless service of the Empire, he will take steps to remedy the present unsatisfactory condition of affairs?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. The appointment was made because it was thought to be in the interest of the wireless service.

  GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND.
  Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling long existing in Scotland, which found frequent expression at the recent General Election, that the control of purely Scottish affairs should be vested in a Scottish Parliament, and moreover, having regard to the urgency of relieving the constantly growing congestion of business in the House of Commons, he will consider the desirability of setting up at an early date a Scottish Convention to advise and make recommendations as to what measure of Home Rule, consistent with the maintenance of the Union, should be granted to Scotland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government cannot undertake to adopt the course suggested.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not take any steps whatever to grant Home Rule to Scotland; and is he aware that the extension of the Grand Committee system which the Government introduced has proved perfectly impossible?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope the last part of the hon. Member's question is not correct. The impossibility will be judged by the results of the Bills. Certainly at present the Government are not prepared to take any steps in that direction.
  Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the sending of an army to Scotland immediately?

  BRITISH TRADE.
  Mr. G. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that many orders by home and foreign traders are at present being placed in countries outside Great Britain, and especially in the United States, by firms which in pre-war days used to deal almost exclusively with Great Britain; whether this is caused by the inability of British firms to manufacture the articles at the same cost of production as other countries; whether as a result many factories in this country are idle, or about to become idle, at a time when reconstructional work is calling for orders all over the world; and when His Majesty's Government will introduce such means for the reform of the existing economic policy of this country as will enable British manufacturers to maintain their competitive power in home and foreign markets?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that to some extent a diversion of trade of the nature indicated has taken place, but I regret that as regards the last part of the question I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to a supplementary question, by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham on Monday last.

  IRELAND.

    VISIT OF AMERICANS.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether certain persons of American nationality have been given passports from Paris to Ireland for the purpose of an unofficial political mission; whether he is aware that they have declared the object of this mission to be to confer with President de Valera upon the question of securing international recognition of the Irish Republic at the Peace Conference; whether this was known to be their object by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the passports were issued; whether these men are accredited by the American Government; if not, what are their cre-
    1582
    dentials and whom do they represent; whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to receve these American gentlemen on their return to Paris; and, if so, whether he has considered the effect likely to be produced in Ireland by his encouragement of foreign interference in British affairs and by his patronage of revolutionary propagandists?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The object of this visit, as it was understood by the Prime Minister, was simply to enable these visitors to see for themselves the conditions in Ireland. The persons referred to are not representatives of the American Government, and it is not the intention of the Prime Minister to receive them.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very widely reported and believed in Ireland that the Prime Minister favours the granting the demand for an Irish Republic, and, if there is no truth in it, why has that report remained uncontradicted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I was not aware of that. If there is such a belief, it is an indication that all Irishmen are not of a, practical nature. As regards denying, it would be absurd to deny it, for, on the face of it, it is impossible.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it a fact that the Prime Minister himself requested these gentlemen to call on him and himself issued their passports?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the first part of the question is not correct. As regards the Prime Minister seeing them, I discussed this with him, and I am glad to have an opportunity of saying he thought it would be rather an advantage if American citizens interested in Ireland should be received by him, when he would have an opportunity of putting the British case and having it widely reported in America, where, I am sorry to say, it is not sufficiently understood.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Why, having issued that invitation, has he now withdrawn it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the reason must be very obvious. He was willing to receive American citizens, but he is not willing to receive American citizens who go to Ireland and not only take part in politics, but in a rebellious movement.

  ARMY HOSPITALS (ABERDEEN SCHOOLS).
  Mr. F. C. THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering that the military authorities removed in March all patients and personnel from the Girls' High School and the Central Higher Grade School, Aberdeen, which had hitherto been used as hospitals, in order to give the school board possession of these buildings, and that notwithstanding up to date the board has been refused entry to either of these buildings as surplus equipment has been left in them, he will give immediate orders for the removal of this equipment and the release of the buildings, as the schools are most urgently required in the educational interests of the city?
  Captain GUEST: I understand that it has been found impossible to remove the surplus equipment referred to by my hon. Friend to other War Department buildings in Aberdeen pending sale by auction. I am informed that the disposal of the equipment is now in the hands of auctioneers, who will proceed with the sale without any avoidable delay, and the premises will then be completely evacuated.

  LABOUR CORPS' DRAFTS.
  Mr. ALFRED DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War if notice was published in daily routine orders at No. 5 Camp, Northern Command Labour Centre, Ripon, to the effect that any man who had previously been on active service overseas would not be placed in Labour Corps' drafts for further service overseas; whether such order has been cancelled and when; and whether men who have seen service overseas are being put on draft for overseas again?
  Captain GUEST: I am having inquiries made, and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

  DOMINION TROOPS (VISITS TO BRITISH TOWNS).
  36. Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for War whether, before they leave these shores, arrangements may be made for visits to other great centres of the British Isles of representative troops
  1584
  of each of His Majesty's Dominions upon the lines of the recent successful march through London?
  Captain GUEST: I sympathise with the desire expressed in my hon. Friend's question, but I am afraid I can hold out no hope of its being possible to arrange for visits of this kind to other centres as he suggests.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the troops already in camp in this country be used for this purpose to meet the wishes of a large section of the country?
  Captain GUEST: It involves a great deal more careful organisation than that.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: As arrangements have already been made by some large centres to give receptions to Canadian troops, could not the same facilities be given to Australian, New Zealand, and Newfoundland troops?
  Captain GUEST: The question is one for the Governments concerned, and it must largely rest with them.

  TRIUMPHAL MARCH.

    LONDON REGIMENTS (ROUTE).
    Major BLAIRasked the Secretary of State for War if Hyde Park and the West End have already had the privilege of witnessing several triumphal marches; is he aware that the route arranged for the triumphal march of the London regiments does not give the people residing in the East End the opportunity of showing their appreciation of their citizen soldiers; and will he arrange that units will be paraded in Victoria Park and march to the City and the Tower of London?
    Captain GUEST: In the settlement of the route for the proposed triumphal march of London regiments, the claims of the East End have not been overlooked. At the same time, as was pointed out to my hon. and gallant Friend in answer to his question of the 25th March, the length of the route and other matters have to be taken into consideration. Troops are being drawn from all parts of London, and the concentration, area decided upon is considered the most suitable that could be chosen in the interest of the troops as well as of other military requirements.

  LABOUR CORPS (PRIVATE HENRY JONES).
  Major COHENasked the Secretary of State for War if he will have inquiry made into the case of Private Henry Jones, No. 341012, Labour Corps, of 9, Lily Road, Liverpool; whether this man while serving, as No. 2701, in the East Lanes Territorial Force, Royal Field Artillery, was taken prisoner, being exchanged, invalided from Germany in October, 1918, and discharged from King George's Hospital on the 11th November; whether he was told at that time that he would hear from the proper authorities regarding his discharge from the Army; whether during the past six months he has been making repeated efforts to obtain instructions until the present time, when he was suddenly in formed that the civil police would be notified if he did not return forthwith; whether he has now returned and what is his position; and whether he will lose his gratuity in consequence?
  Captain GUEST: Inquiries will be made in this case, and I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result as early as possible.

  MILITARY SERVICE (EVASION).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for War what is the position of persons who have evaded military service; and whether all proceedings against them are still suspended as stated in the House of Commons on 11th November, 1918?
  Captain GUEST: I understand that the instructions of the 11th November last, which were issued by the Ministry of National Service, are still in force.

  NORTH RUSSIA (OFFICER VOLUNTEERS).
  Commander BELLA1RSasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the misapprehension that might be caused by a single recent case as to the fighting spirit of the officers, whether he will state the number of officers who have volunteered or been accepted for service in North Russia as privates or non-commissioned officers?
  Captain GUEST: So far as my information goes, thirty-seven demobilised officers
  1586
  have volunteered and been accepted for service in the ranks for the North Russia Relief Force.

  PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now say if the rates of commutation of pension for warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men have been revised so as to bring them into line with the rates for officers?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): No, Sir, I am afraid not. The revision of an actuarial life table which is here involved, is a very lengthy and laborious work.

  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  Lieutenant-Colonel POWNALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to publish the Report on the Consular Service, and to state the intentions of the Government with regard to it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would ask my hon. Friend to postpone this question.
  Mr. HURD: May we have the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee before the discussion comes on in the House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I will try to arrange for that, but I do not like to lay a Paper before the House until it has been considered by the Cabinet.

  FORESTRY.
  Captain BOWYERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has been made aware of the contents of the Report of the Forestry Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee, printed in 1918; whether prior to the War this country was dependent on foreign countries for nearly two-thirds of its timber supply; whether the proportion of timber required for national use which was derived from sources within the Empire had been falling off steadily for fourteen years before the War; and whether, as a result, he will take steps to encourage and promote forestry in the Empire to reduce in the future of our present dependency on foreign countries for the supply of timber?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I am well aware of the dependence of this country on foreign supplies of timber before the War. The proposals which are now under consideration by the Government include the promotion of forestry within the Empire, with the view of meeting the conditions to which the question draws attention.

  DOG MUZZLING ORDER.
  Lieutenant-Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the muzzling could at once be made general instead of local, in view of the great hardship imposed upon dog owners by not being able at present to move their dogs from one county to another?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The subject to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers has received the careful attention of the Board, and they do not feel justified at the present moment in issuing a general muzzling Order. I might add that even if universal muzzling were decided upon, it would not be possible to allow free movement of dogs from infected areas.

  HOTELS AND BUSINESS PREMISES COMMANDEERED.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the First Commissioner of Works if he is housing in India House staffs from the Hotel Cecil, and as a result the Shell Marketing Company and Sir Isaac Pitman, Limited, are both forced to occupy temporary quarters, and that this arrangement will be a serious charge on the taxpayer and detrimental to both of the British firms interested; and whether, in view of these facts, he will arrange to house the Hotel Cecil staffs in hutments, and so save money to the taxpayer, and give the two firms mentioned the quarters to which they are legally entitled?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a previous question, the Air Ministry staff from the Hotel Cecil are shortly to be removed to India, Canada, and Empire Houses. This will necessitate the Shell
  1588
  Marketing Company remaining for some further period in their present temporary premises, and Messrs. Sir Isaac Pitman and Son, Limited, will be delayed in obtaining possession of these premises, which it is understood they have acquired. This is the most economical arrangement that can be made for the housing of the Air Ministry in order to release the Hotel Cecil. The suggestion made by the hon. Member in the last part of his question is impracticable.
  Mr. HIGHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that hotels should be released before business premises?
  Sir A. MOND: I understand that is the general desire of the business community.
  Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Is every effort being made to release not only hotels but business premises in general?
  Sir A. MOND: Every effort is being made to release all possible accommodation.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the First Commissioner of Works which hotels are likely to be released before the end of June; and if he is aware that the lack of hotel accommodation in London is generally prejudicial to the interests of the country?
  Sir A. MOND: I expect to be able to release the Hotel Cecil from Government occupation before the end of June. I hope it will be possible to put into effect various schemes which I have in hand by which most of the hotels in Government occupation will be vacated. I fully appreciate the great inconvenience caused by the shortage of hotel accommodation.
  Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if accommodation is curtailed the reduction of staffs will automatically take place?
  Sir A. MOND: I am afraid I am responsible for providing accommodation for staffs, and not for reducing it.
  Sir C. HENRYasked the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware of the considerable reduction in the staff at the Windsor Hotel; and if he has made any arrangements to relinquish this hotel?
  Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and steps are now being taken to utilise the surplus accommodation. The answer to the last part is in the negative.
  Sir C. HENRY: For what purposes will this accommodation be used?
  Sir A. MOND: To transfer other staffs.
  Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what other staffs?
  Sir A. MOND: If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice I shall be glad to do so.

  REINSURANCE (BRITISH-OWNED COMPANIES).
  Sir N. GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will support any combination of insurance companies or other responsible groups in any effort they may make for reinsurance work by British-owned companies; and if legislation is possible, with a view to prevent enemy-owned companies from again making large annual sums out of reinsurance work connected with British reinsurance companies?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Any representations made to the Board of Trade by a combination of insurance companies or other responsible groups regarding reinsurance work by British-owned companies shall receive careful consideration.
  The question of restricting reinsurance business with enemy-owned companies is part of the general question of our future commercial relations with the present enemy countries, in regard to which I am not in a position to make a statement.

  RAILWAYS (NEW ROLLING STOCK).
  Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has as yet made any estimate as to the amount of new rolling stock requisite properly to fit out the railways of the country; whether the ordering of new rolling stock is being left to the individual railway companies; or whether any new official policy of standardisation is being introduced?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The points raised by the hon. Gentleman are not being overlooked, but I am not in a position at present to give him specific information, except that the ordering of new rolling stock is still left to the railway companies.
  Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that there has
  1590
  been no declared policy in relation to this matter by the Government is preventing the railway companies from entering upon re-equipping the railways and is responsible for the congestion of traffic which exists to-day?
  Sir A. GEDDES: No, I am not aware of that.
  Sir E. CARSON: Are railway companies ordering new rolling stock?
  Sir A. GEDDES: There is a great deal of rolling stock at present on order and being manufactured.
  Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Metropolitan Railway manager, in a Committee-room, on Monday last, stated that they were not ordering new rolling stock and were not going to until the Government declared its policy as to railways?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware he stated that. I received, a day beforehand, a request for a statement of policy which was obviously quite impossible.

  NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING YARDS.
  Sir JAMES BRUTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury what Government. Department is actually now in charge of the national shipbuilding yards at Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury and what is to be the ultimate fate of these yards?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply. The Ministry of Shipping is in charge of the national shipyards at Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury. As regards the disposal of the yards, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for The Wrekin.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    HOME-KILLED MUTTON.
    Major NALLasked the Food Controller why the percentage of home-killed mutton allocated during the four weeks ending 26th April, 1919, to Manchester and Salford was only 3.5 per cent., whilst that to the Metropolitan area was 10.2 per cent., Westmorland and Cumberland 18.8 per cent., and Yorkshire 7.8 per cent.?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I am informed that the low percentage of home-killed mutton allocated to the Manchester and Salford district during the period in question, was due to a temporary shortage in the supplies of sheep to the markets drawn upon by these towns. I may add that if all the mutton consumed in Cumberland and Westmorland had been sent to Manchester and Salford it would have made no appreciable difference in the percentage allocated to the latter area.

    CANADIAN CHEESE.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the Food Controller whether, his attention has been called to the announcement that his Department will purchase the exportable supply of Canadian cheese in the present season; whether this is the case and, in that event, what price has been agreed on; whether there are any other commodities which, despite the ending of the War, are still being purchased by any of the Departments of the Ministry of Food; and whether, in that case, he will give the reasons for this policy?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The announcement referred to in the first part of the question is untrue. The Ministry of Food do not propose to purchase the exportable supply of Canadian cheese in the present season, but will leave private traders to import this cheese on their own account. As regards the latter part of the question, apart from cereals, sugar and butter, the Food Controller has for some months ceased from making fresh purchases, with the exception of those to which he was committed in order to complete general arrangements made during the War.
    Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most precise statements have been made in Canada to the effect that a cable had been received at Ottawa from the British Ministry and that it was sent out on the authority of Reuter's Agency?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have no information of the circulation of the item in Canada. I had observed it myself in certain papers and made my own inquiries and found it contrary to the facts.

  ASSISTANCE OF THE BLIND.
  Mr. RENWICKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government is prepared to provide
  1592
  grants in aid for the training, employment, and relief of the blind, as recommended in the Report of the Departmental Committee, while the complete scheme for the relief of the blind is being worked out by the Advisory Committee which is now sitting?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): My right hon. Friend is in communication with the Treasury on this matter, but cannot at present make any statement.
  Mr. RENWICK: In view of the urgent need for funds from training and employment centres for the blind, could the hon. Gentleman consider the question and give an immediate grant in aid pending the decision of the Advisory Committee?
  Major ASTOR: No time is being lost in fixing a workable scheme.
  Mr. RENWICK: When is the Committee likely to finish its labours?
  Major ASTOR: No time is being lost, but I cannot give a definite date.

  SMALLPOX, GERMANY.
  Mr. SPENCERasked the President of the Local Government Board what information is now in the possession of the Government as to the prevalence of smallpox in Germany since the issue of Dr. Bruce Low's Report in May last?
  Major ASTOR: There was a recrudescence of smallpox in Germany, especially in towns and districts on the Russian and Austrian frontiers, towards the end of 1918, and this has continued up to the present time. The last official report received is dated 5th April. From 23rd November, 1918, to 5th April, 1919, the number of smallpox cases reported in Germany was about 1,500, of which 600 were in Dresden. Other towns in which cases occurred include Stettin, Danzig, Koenigsberg, Breslau, Cassel, Hanover, Aachen, and Halle. Some cases also were reported in Berlin and Baden-Baden. The number of deaths from smallpox during the above period has not yet been published.

  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  Commander Sir EDWARD NICHOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade if 2s. 6d. is paid to the

  1593
  officials of the Labour Exchanges for each man registered for unemployment; and if this is an incentive to the officials to register as many as possible and without sufficient inquiry as to their merits for unemployment donation?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    DISABLED OFFICER (EMPLOYMENT).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that a wounded and disabled officer, who was a trained mechanical engineer and specialist in mechanical drawing before the War, who rose from second lieutenant in the Royal Field Artillery to the rank of major and battery commander during the War, and won the Military Cross, and who, after being wounded, was employed at the Air Ministry Drawing Office, Ministry of Munitions, Ap. D (D), was discharged on reduction of staff, while certain civilians were retained; and whether, under such circumstances, if he cannot retain this officer in the Air Ministry, he will obtain suitable employment for him in some other Government Department?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I am making inquiries into this ease, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as they have been completed.
    Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Air Ministry have given due consideration to wounded and disabled men?
    Mr. HOPE: I am answering for the Minister of Munitions, and cannot speak for the Air Ministry.

    LIEUTENANTS (PAY).
    Colonel DU PREasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether the pay of a second-lieutenant of the Royal Flying Corps was 12s. per day as equipment officer; whether on transfer to the Royal Air Force these officers received a form stating that their pay would not be reduced; and, if so, whether he can state why such an officer on promotion to
    1594
    lieutenant and appointment as court-martial officer was paid at the reduced rate of 11s. 6d. per day?
    General SEELY: The pay of a second-lieutenant holding the appointment of equipment officer, third class, in the Royal Flying Corps was as stated in the question, and such officers, in common with others transferred to the Royal Air Force on its formation, were given an undertaking that they would not suffer in the matter of pay, so long as they continued to carry out duties similar to those falling to them prior to transfer. On vacating the appointment of equipment officer, on appointment as courts-martial officer, an officer of the Royal Air Force would be transferred from the technical to the administrative branch of the force, and would draw the rate of pay of his rank in that branch, whether higher or lower than his previous rate. If my hon. and gallant Friend will communicate with me on any particular case he may have in mind, I will have its merits investigated.

  LONDON TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether any record is kept of the percentage of occasions upon which the subscribers to the London telephone system are cut off during the course of conversation; and whether there is any possibility of remedying this frequent and most serious defect?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The records of observation of a large number of calls in London show that the cases of irregular interruption, averaged slightly over six per 1,000 calls during the last six months. Efforts are being made continuously to reduce this class of faults to a minimum. The above figure includes "cut-offs" due to line and apparatus faults as well as those caused by operators.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to take some steps to see that when one is cut off the telephone one can get on again?

  ST. AUSTELL POST OFFICE.
  Commander Sir EDWARD NICHOLLasked the Postmaster-General if he will give instructions to begin at

  1595
  once the new post office for St. Austell, plans of which were approved before war started, and thereby give employment to some 200 labourers, demobilised soldiers, and others who have been doing war work, and now out of employment, and many drawing unemployment pay?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: A sum for commencing work this year upon a new post office for St. Austell has been included in the draft Estimates presented to Parliament, and now under consideration.

  SUNDAY POSTAL DELIVERY.
  Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the hardship inflicted on postmen in those districts where the Sunday delivery of letters has been suspended in having their Sunday pay stopped in consequence; whether he is aware that most of such postmen undertook their duties on the understanding that they were to do Sunday work, and therefore would receive Sunday pay, and counted upon receiving such pay on entering the service of the Post Office; and whether, in view of the fact that his Department made a profit last year of over six millions, he is prepared to apply a part of that sum in compensating these men for the loss of income they have sustained?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am aware that Sunday duty has been suspended in a number of cases. Sunday pay, like ordinary overtime pay, is an emolument additional to the weekday wage, and no vested right to its continuance is recognised. In the circumstances it is not practicable to grant compensation if the Sunday attendances cease to be required.
  Captain TUDOR REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when it will be resumed?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid I cannot now.

  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH (IRELAND).
  Mr. EDWARD KELLYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has made representations to the Treasury with a
  1596
  view to securing a grant for agricultural research equivalent proportionately to the £2,000,000 voted to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and, if so, with what result?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): The Department have made representations to the Treasury in the matter referred to, and have been promised a grant of an average amount of £40,000 per annum for a period of five years (to include grants from the Development Fund) with the intimation that the question of an increase in this provision will be considered when improvement takes place in the financial position. The matter is still the subject of correspondence with the Treasury.

  NORTH-WEST AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL (IRELAND).
  Mr. E. KELLYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is now in a position to announce any improvement in the equipment of the North-west Agricultural School?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his similar question on this subject on 27th March last, to which there is at present nothing to add.
  Mr. KELLY: In view of the nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this subject on the adjournment to-night.

  "CLASSICS IN BRITISH EDUCATION."
  Captain BOWYERasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the pamphlet, No. 21, issued by the Ministry of Reconstruction, entitled "The Classics in British Education"; and whether, having regard to the clear exposition of the essentials of real education for the masses of the people as set forth in this publication, steps will be taken to provide that copies of the pamphlet may be supplied to all teachers in secondary and elementary schools in the United Kingdom?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I have seen this pamphlet. It is apparently intended for the general public rather than for the professional teacher, and I do not think it is particularly suitable for the purpose suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, which would involve a distribution of about 200,000 copies.

  NATURALISATION LAWS.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirableness of introducing an Amendment to the Naturalisation Laws requiring the names of sponsors for aliens seeking naturalisation to be published with all official notices of naturalisation?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY to the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that such a provision as this would make British citizens more cautious before guaranteeing the integrity of people like Laszlo, Hanemann, and other traitors to the country?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: The power to publish the names of sponsors is now within the discretion of the Home Secretary, and he does not see his way to advise legislation to interfere with that discretion.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that numerous cases have occurred during the War, where the Home Secretary has used this power to withhold information to the public disadvantage, as has been frequently proved?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of these cases in regard to the present Home Secretary, at any rate.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is it the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to amend the naturalisation law as it exists at present?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether public notice is given of applications for British naturalisation prior to such applications being considered?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Applicants for naturalisation, with the exception of men who have served in His Majesty's Forces and British-born women, are now required to advertise their applications before a decision is reached.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Since when has that been the practice?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: So far as I know it has always been the practice.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Why did you say "now"?
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether, in cases of denaturalisation, notice is given to either the Home Office or the police authorities as to the reasons for such denaturalisation?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to a question to the same effect by the hon. and learned Member for York.

  KINGSTON COUNTY MAGISTRATES (VACCINATION ACT DECLARATIONS)
  Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the general practice of the Kingston county bench to insist that declarations under the Vaccination Act, 1907, shall be made at the court; whether this practice causes extreme inconvenience to large numbers of parents living at a long distance from the Kingston courthouse; and whether he will repeat the action of a former Secretary, and advise the bench in question that such practice is unfair to those who desire to make declarations under the Act?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir, and my right hon. Friend has been in correspondence with the justices on the subject. The chairman of the bench informs him that they are modifying their practice in accordance with the suggestions which he has made to them.

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  Major KNIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes making any provision in the Finance Bill to enable the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to delay the collection of Excess

  1599
  Profits Duty in the case of firms whose excess profits have, in consequence of instructions received from the Ministry of Munitions, been entirely devoted to extensions, and who are accordingly unable to pay at present; and, if so, whether such provisions will cover such cases as that of Messrs. Russell Brothers, of Redditch?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am not prepared to introduce legislation to alter the existing position with regard to the payment of Excess Profits Duty by instalments.

  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

    EX-GERMAN COLONIES.
    Sir C. HENRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the terms of Peace are agreed upon, whether those ex-German Colonies, of which either this country or the Dominions of the British Empire hold the mandates will be included as Colonies and obtain the advantage of the proposals as regards Imperial Preference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: None of the territories alluded to will be Colonies. But in certain cases, such for example as South West Africa and certain islands in the Pacific, they will be administered as integral portions of the mandatory's territory, and will consequently share in its advantages.

  HOUSING.

    SMETHWICK SCHEME.
    Mr. J. E. DAVISON: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is a fact that a scheme for the erection of 232 houses proposed by the Smethwick Town Council has been rejected by his Department; if so, whether he is aware that as a result the work will be considerably delayed, and whether he can state the reason for withholding approval of the scheme?
    Major ASTOR: As far as my information goes at present the facts are not as stated by the hon. Member, but I will let him know what the position is when I have had a reasonable opportunity of making inquiries.

  "DAILY HERALD" (WAR OFFICE CIRCULAR).
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Daily Herald" purporting to give authentic copies of circulars issued to various commanding officers; whether these circulars were in fact sent out; whether it is correct that the commanding officers were requested to supply information as to whether the troops under their command would assist in strike-breaking; whether they would parade for draft overseas, especially to Russia; whether there is any growth of trade unionism amongst them, and what effect outside trade unions have on them; whether these circulars were issued with the knowledge and approval of the Cabinet, and, if so, whether he will state the reasons for this action, and afford facilities as early as possible for a Debate on the matter?
  Captain GUEST: I have been asked, on behalf of the Secretary of State for War, to reply to the question. The document in question was a confidential circular issued some three months ago, for which the War Office accept sole responsibility, at a time when the country was threatened with a strike which would have brought the vital services, including food supplies, of the nation to a standstill.
  It is not, and never has been, the intention of the Government to use troops to intervene in ordinary industrial disputes between Capital and Labour. But, as the Government announced at the time in this House, they conceived it to be their duty to the country to take steps to prevent such a state of affairs arising. Information for this and other purposes—namely, the reception by the troops of Army Order 14—was needed, and the method adopted was by no means improper under the peculiar circumstances then prevailing.
  General officers are entitled to obtain the opinions of their subordinates on any subjects, and it was clearly necessary that the Government should be informed of the sentiments of the troops before framing such a policy as would safeguard the public interests.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Had this policy the approval of the Cabinet, and, if so, will the Leader of the House grant us facilities for discussing the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The matter was not brought specially to the notice of the Cabinet as it clearly, I should think, was within the duty of the War Office to find out in a general way what the sentiments of the troops were at that time. As regards the time for discussion, I hope that the opportunity for which my right hon. Friend wishes can be arranged in the ordinary way, on a vote of Supply or otherwise.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are these reports which were called for still being sent in although the circular was sent out three months ago?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is really necessary to give notice of that.
  Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is it not a fact that it is an offence against the Defence of the Realm Act to publish a confidential secret circular, and does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any action against the "Daily Herald?"
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It certainly is an offence, and that point is being considered.
  Mr. J. JONES: Will proceedings be taken against the "Times" for publishing confidential documents?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend. Is it the duty of active field officers to assist the Secret Service Department of the country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. The Government would certainly disapprove of anything of the kind. What was done was to take steps, which seemed to the War Office right, to find out exactly what the sentiments of the troops were in reference to the difficult subjects then before the country.
  Mr. N. M'LEAN: In considering the question of the prosecution of the "Daily Herald" for publishing confidential documents, will the general question of prosecuting others for publishing confidential documents that have got into their hands be also considered?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. The hon. Member may rest assured that no action will be taken specially because this is a Labour paper. Questions of that kind have arisen constantly and have been
  1602
  considered by the Cabinet, and action was not taken because we thought that it was not in the public interest or desirable to do so. I do not in any way prejudge what decision we may come to in this matter.
  Mr. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very keen resentment throughout the country owing to the action of the Government in this matter, and already some of the Executive Council of the trade unions are expressing so much dissatisfaction that they are contemplating taking drastic action with regard to it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be very sorry indeed if I thought that that were the case. The Government in such cases can only carry on if it has the confidence of the country as a whole. I believe that it had that confidence, and I cannot believe that objection would have been taken.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I take it that the Leader of the House, in agreeing to give us facilities to discuss this matter, will include also the opportunity of discussing the action taken by the "Daily Herald"?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really cannot say what kind of opportunity will be available. If it is Supply, I doubt if it could be brought in in that way. But if my right hon. Friend will discuss the matter with one of the Whips, we shall consider what facilities will be given in the ordinary course.
  Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is not the question of the prosecution of the "Daily Herald" only a matter of law?
  Mr. J. JONES: Why not the "Times"?

  VISCOUNT FRENCH'S NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.
  Sir DONALD MACLEANasked the Leader of the House whether he can give an opportunity for a discussion of the Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in reference to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. So far as the Government are concerned, we do not think that such a discussion would be desirable, and in the ordinary course we would not give facilities for it. If, how-

  1603
  ever, my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, asks for an opportunity for a Vote of Censure, I shall find time for it.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of the fact that I have no intention of moving such a Motion as a Vote of Censure, but only wish to clear up the constitutional point, surely my right hon. Friend will agree that it is rather an undue limitation of free debate in this House to impose such a condition as that?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I do not, and I hope that the House will agree with me. The special safeguards which exist in our Rules, preventing such a discussion, are there for the express purpose of ensuring a sense of great responsibility. I could not, therefore, agree to it unless the responsibility is taken of moving a Vote of Censure on the Government.

  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Leader of the House whether, when important Clauses or important matters connected with a Bill are under discussion in Standing Committee, will the Government take steps to ensure the presence of a Minister of Cabinet rank? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the Debate on the Women's Enfranchisement Bill this morning in Standing Committee when the proposal to enfranchise all women on the same basis as men was under discussion, there was no member of Cabinet rank at the Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will see what can be done about that. The Government, of course, recognise that it is part of the whole scheme of Grand Committees that they should be treated by the Government in precisely the same way as the House of Commons. If that were not done, the Grand Committee scheme would not work, and I will do all I can to make sure that it is done.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, since he wants the Committees to be treated with the same consideration as the House of Commons, what steps he has taken to secure the attend-
  1604
  ance of a quorum at the meetings of those Committees, and also what steps he has taken in order to secure the proper reporting of the proceedings of those Committees?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are, I believe, taking all the steps they can to secure the attendance of a quorum. The House, of course, knows that, owing to the number of important Bills, the amount of work is greater than it has ever been before and it will recognise the difficulty. As regards reports I am sorry to hear that there is any complaint.
  Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to arrange that Members shall not be put on too many Committees, but that there shall be equality of work on Committees for all Members?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member, I am sure, knows that the selection does not depend on the Government, but I hope that everything possible has been done in that direction.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a large number of these Committees are not being reported at all?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course that is perfectly true. The arrangement come to at the time the procedure Resolutions were carried was that they could be reported on the instructions of Mr. Speaker, but it was not arranged to report all of them.

  DISABLED MEN (FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Order [8th May] that the Disablement (Facilities for Employment) Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

  WOMEN'S EMANCIPATION BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee E.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 94.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 94.]
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 4th July.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 95.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Stand-the Committee to be printed. [No. 95].
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE D.
    Sir Samuel Roberts reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Sir John Randles; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Murchison.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

  1. "That, in the case of the Bedwellty Urban District Council, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the Workington Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the Parties tie permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  3. "That, in the case of the Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Ordered, That Mr. Archdale be discharged from the Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons).
  Ordered, That Major Kerr-Smiley be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL

    MR. SHORTT'S STATEMENT.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move
    "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    This is a Bill to amend the law with respect to the supply of electricity. The main object of the Bill is to reorganise the supply for industrial purposes. I suppose that it is familiar to the House that, comparatively speaking, electricity is a young industry and is probably not more than some forty years old. The first Act of Parliament with which the House need concern itself is the Act of 1882 and it is rather significant that until this century practically the whole of the legislation which dealt with the question of electricity was legislation which was passed at a time when the real use of electricity was unknown. The best methods of use and the best methods of production were practically unknown, and no one, so far as I know, had appreciated then all the valuable powers there were in electricity. The Acts of 1882 and 1888 were, of course, totally ineffective and totally insufficient for the present development of the electrical industry. The position therefore we have to face is one which is the product of the fact that, while electricity has really passed from the experimental stage, the legislation with regard to it is legislation of necessity passed by men who did not and could not understand the subject, and legislation passed at a time when experiment had not discovered all that has been discovered since. One of the first results of that has been that electricity is managed within an area which is substantially the area of the local municipality—that is, small areas, numerous areas, and all of them developed in their own way, and all of them starting their work and their method of production and distribution in their own way. The result is to-day that we are faced with a state of things in which we have a very large number of small electrical concerns, each of them feeding a small area, and an area not chosen because of its peculiar adaptability, or because it was a convenient area necessarily, but chosen solely and simply because of its boundaries for local gov-
    1626
    ernment. It must be clear that that in itself condemns the present existing state of things.
    We have to-day in existence, I think, some 600 different electrical works in this country. We have, I think, in London alone, seventy sets of works and seventy distributing agencies, many of them of a totally different description and not capable of being co-ordinated or of co-operating. We have, for example, in London ten different systems of frequency and twenty-one different systems of voltages and any number of transport systems, and those concerns have three different systems of generating and distributing their electricity. Thus, even in a place like London, you have a very large number of different companies supplying the area, and they are so distinct and their frequencies are so distinct, and their voltages are so distinct, that you cannot combine them, and in the case of a breakdown of one, unless it is within reach of another of the same frequency and the same voltage, they cannot come to each other's rescue or co-ordinate for the purpose of economy. Altogether, the system is one which is about as bad as could possibly be conceived, either from the point of view of sufficiency or efficiency. That being the case, one has to consider what is the best thing to be done. If I may, let me instance the case of the railways as somewhat analogous to the present existing state, of electrical production and distribution. Some sixty years ago, there were something like about a thousand railway companies in this country, and, of course, it is plain to everyone, where you have a thousand different railway companies serving a country the size of ours, with their different directors and staffs and other expenses connected with each individual company, that economy is practically impossible and co-ordination is impossible, and that any general thought out policy is impossible. Equally, if you add to that the fact that the gauges of railways are different, inter-working becomes impossible and you have to handle goods and traffic on the determination of each different company. The House, therefore, will readily appreciate the state of chaos into which the railways of this country might have come, but, fortunately, the matter was taken in hand and combinations took place, and now I think I am right in saying there are about 120 companies in this country to-day.
    4.0 P.M.
    That has produced a comparative state of efficiency, not yet as complete as it ought to be or as it might be, in the railways. We are at present, with regard to electricity, in the same position as the railways were. We have got these large numbers of different companies, with their own expenses, no co-ordination and no co-operation, and we have, in addition, a diversified number of systems of generation and distribution, all of which go to put our electrical system into a state of chaos, from which we hope to rescue it.
    It had become very clear, even before the War, what great value electrical power might be. Big consumers all over the country were calling out for cheap power and for efficient power, and, moreover, for a secure supply of power, because, if the great manufacturer with an immense amount of capital is at the mercy of one system, and if in that system there should be a breakdown, then his works would stop. That consumer is not going to rely on electricity alone, and you want a secure supply in addition to efficient and cheap supply. These are things only to be got by co-ordination. If you co-ordinate, you get cheapness of supply, a relatively less capital outlay than if you have ten different concerns to supply an area divided into ten, each supplied in parts. Then you have your spare and reserve and other plant, and when you face the fact that each of these concerns has to erect considerably more plant than it will actually use, it becomes apparent that if you combine them into one and erect one great station, with a number of units in it, your reserve and spare plant is less in every way, and the capital outlay is relatively less. In addition, if you have the large concentrated plant, you are able to generate your electricity with a great saving of coal. I believe to-day that, over the manufactures of the country, it is reckoned that about 7 lbs. to 8 lbs. of coal are required for each hour of a single-horse-power unit. With a properly erected station, sufficiently large and concentrated, you could deliver to that manufacturer the same equivalent amount of power for less than 2 lbs. of coal. So that if you have proper organisation of your generating station, if it is of the proper size, you could get, by more efficient working, for 2 lbs. of coal, the one-horse power hour which, under present circumstances, on the average, costs the
    1628
    manufacturer between 7 lbs. and 8 lbs. of coal. It will be apparent at once that that means an enormous saving of coal for the whole industry of this country.
    In addition to that, where you have all the generating plants of an area concentrated into one place you can secure a so much higher load factor. The load factor is the main consideration for the purpose of economical working. If you have expensive machinery that is running on the average all the twenty-four hours only up to 25 per cent. of its capacity, clearly it is not being run at the best possible advantage; but if you can so arrange that from the same station you deliver your electricity to the trams, the railways, for lighting purposes, for machinery, for heating, cooking, and for every other purpose, you then secure a very much better load factor, and you have your machinery working, instead of at about 25 per cent. of its capacity, perhaps on the average up to 75 or 80 per cent. of its capacity. That means an enormously greater profit or an enormous reduction in the cost of electricity per unit, and therefore an equivalent saving to the consumer. Still more important, as we have found latterly—it was not known until a few years ago—you are able to choose your site so much more advantageously if the whole of the generation is collected into one area. We have appreciated of late years much more than we did the immense importance of having your generating station close to a large supply of water for the purpose of condensation. It is of immense importance, even of more importance that a big generating station should be near a river or a canal than that it should be close to a railway or coalfield, but where you have only to choose, say, a third of the number of generator sites, or even a quarter or a fifth of the number of sites, it is plain that it is much easier to secure that every generating station shall be constructed upon an advantageous site, and you will get your water, and if you get your water and your coal, you are then able to save a very large amount of expense in the generating of the electricity, which, of course, corresponds to the production of the raw material. It became perfectly clear, even before the War, what an immense part electrical power might play in the industries of this country and in all the amenities and all the necessities of life as well. People interested in transport were calling for electrical power, manufacturers in the tex-

    1629
    tiles, engineering, and other trades were calling for electrical power. It was clear that something would have to be done to co-ordinate our system, to create some kind of general policy, and to secure as far as possible greater efficiency and greater economy, and for that purpose three Committees were set up. The first was a Sub-committee dealing with the conservation of coal, the second was a Board of Trade Committee dealing with electrical trades, and the third was the Electric Power Supply Committee. That was a very powerful Committee. It was representative of practically every industry interested in electricity. It was representative of the undertakers of electric concerns, of the consumers, the local authorities—of everybody, in fact, who was concerned with electricity; and this Bill is based upon the Report of that Committee, and substantially carries out its recommendations.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Was Clause 44, to put it under the Ministry of Ways and Means, one of their recommendations?
    Mr. SHORTT: I shall come to that presently, but I am surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend knows so little about this Committee. The Ministry of Ways and Means was not even thought of when this Committee reported. That Committee considered the whole question very carefully, dealt with difficulties which had faced electricity in the past, the experimental stages through which the industry had gone, and the necessary ignorance which existed in regard to electrical power, and they pointed out what were the conditions which governed a cheap and efficient supply of electricity. The first thing was "combined generation in single areas." That means collecting into one area all the units of supply which are at present scattered about in different generating stations. "Well-situated stations, having regard to condensing water, fuel, and distance from consumers. Modern and large units of generating plant." Well, of course, that really applies to almost every form of industry. "Uniform standards of system, frequency, and pressure, so far as is practicable." As I pointed out, we have in London alone a large number of different systems of frequency, and where you have different frequency you cannot combine, any more than you can work two cog-wheels whose cogs do not fit. "Greater freedom for overhead
    1630
    wires and wayleaves." That, again, is a detail which I did not mention when I was speaking on the general subject, but which is dealt with in the Bill.
    In the past, probably rightly, Parliament has imposed restrictions on the electrical industry rather than given it any encouragement. It was quite natural. There was a certain unknown danger in electricity, and therefore restrictions for the safety of the public were imposed, and one of the restrictions was the practical prohibition of overhead wires for the transmission of power. Way leaves, of course, is a matter which is common to electricity and every other industry which involves distribution of any sort. "Good technical and business management and adequate and cheap capital." These, again, are common almost to every industry. The Committee then recommended that there should be a general central body, that the country should be divided into suitable areas, that each area should have its own suitable body to conduct the affairs of that area, and that the general policy—namely, one central body for the whole country and the subordinate areas, each with its own district body—should be the general policy upon which the electrical industry of the country should be carried on. This Bill, therefore, provides, first of all, that there shall be set up a body called the Electrical Commissioners. They will be five in number; they will be appointed pointed by the Board of Trade. They will, for all practical purposes, have the conduct of the whole of the policy dealing with the electrical industry in this country.
    It will be their business to make experiments where experiments should be made, to stimulate, to encourage, and to guide, and for that purpose they will have power to set up advisory committees for their assistance. Under them, and subject to their rules and regulations and directions, there will be the local area bodies, and through these local area bodies the Commissioners will have the controlling power over the whole of our electrical policy. They will, of course, be subject in many respects to the Board of Trade and, through it, to Parliament. They are appointed by the Board of Trade, unless, of course, what has been already mentioned in Section 44 takes place, but I will deal with that subsequently. I am discussing this at present purely from the point of view as if the Board of Trade remained the authority.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would it not be better for the House to discuss it as if it was the Ministry of Transport?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am more than gratified to hear that the Ministry of Transport Bill is so safe and secure as to justify a discussion on that basis. I accept that position with pleasure, but I think it is probably preferable that I should proceed in the way I am doing. The Board of Trade would appoint them, and the Board of Trade would therefore practically have control over them, but for practical purposes these Commissioners would control the electrical policy of the country. They will then, by means of local inquiries, obtain the necessary information to enable them to divide the country into a certain number of areas, and those areas will be chosen and defined, having regard to the questions of generation and distribution of electricity, and also in many cases, where the use of electricity is as yet undeveloped, they will be chosen from the point of view of development and supply when they are developed. Take, for example, the industry of agriculture. There is no doubt about it that electricity may very well play a very much larger part in agriculture than it hitherto has done. In dealing with agricultural areas, they will be put into the district areas where they are most likely to be more easily developed, more readily developed, and more efficiently supplied. For each area there will be set up a Board. Each area will have its own Board, with its own chairman, and its own distinct authority, and its own distinct powers. The Boards will consist of representatives of those who are at present undertakers of electricity industries. Whether they are local authorities, or whether they are companies, they will be represented upon these Boards. The consumers equally will be represented upon these Boards, and labour will be represented, and if there is any local authority within the district, either a county council or a borough council or any other local authority, and that local authority chooses to subscribe or contribute to the expenses of the management of the area, they also will be represented; and provision is made for the choice of some known and trusted local gentleman of wide business experience for the office of chairman. So that you will have in each district a body set up fully understanding that area, representative of all the interests concerned
    1632
    with electricity and electrical power, and whose duty it will be to see to it that that area is properly and efficiently supplied with electrical power.
    The financial arrangements are first of all that primâ facie each district finds its own finance, and what one might call the supplemental finance, the additional and assistance finance, will come from the National Exchequer. In the Report of the Committee on Electrical Supply their recommendation was that primâ facie the expense should be borne by the National Exchequer, and that any assistance or supplemental Grants should be upon the local people, but after full consideration, having regard to the general financial position of the country, we have thought it wiser and better that each district should be responsible for its own finance, that the responsibility for the finance should be, in the first place, local and that, in the second place, the assistance should come from the National Exchequer. That is one of the details in which we have not followed exactly the full recommendation, of the Committee.
    Sir HOWELL DAVIES: What do you mean by the local authorities first providing the finance, and secondly, the National Exchequer? We should like to know to what extent the local authorities have to provide finance, and to what extent the Government will do so.
    Mr. SHORTT: I was coming to that. The district boards will have power to borrow for the cost of construction of any stations they erect, for their working capital for the first three years, and for the payment of interest until their works become remunerative. Their duty is to form a fund into which all their receipts go, and so far as possible their duty will be so to regulate their charges that their receipts will cover their expenditure, and any margin over and above that will be at the discretion of the Central Electrical Commissioners, The Electrical Commissioners will decide, if there is a margin, if the receipts are greater than the expenditure and there is no loss, what margin the local district boards are to be entitled to keep and what part of the surplus profits is to go for the benefit of the consumers.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: What Clause is all this in?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is in the amending proposals. I think my right hon. Friend will find it there. In the first place, there is

    1633
    power for the central authority to advance money to the extent of some £25,000,000, and there is further power for the central body to expend something like £20,000,000 during the transitory period while the district boards are being set up.
    An HON. MEMBER: Twenty millions in addition to the £25,000,000.
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes. The £20,000,000 would be repaid as and when the boards take over from the central body the work they have done during the transitory period. When the district boards are created they will take over within their area every generating station and all the main transmission lines will be taken over and will vest in the district boards. The intention of the Government has been, as far as it is possible to avoid it, not to interfere with the existing undertakings. Local authorities who have existing undertakings, who have their business clientèle, their goodwill, so to speak, will be as far as possible left, and all that will be taken over by the district boards will be the generating stations and those things which are really part of the generating stations and are not essential to distribution. Anything which is really a part of distribution will remain within the existing undertakings.
    Sir S. ROBERTS: Will there be provision for them to be sold in the Bill?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes. In Section 7, my hon. Friend will see that all generating stations other than private generating stations and such main transmission lines as may be specified in the Order shall vest in the district boards, and if he will look at the definition of "main transmission lines" he will see that it means
    "all extra-high-tension cables and overhead lines transmitting electricity from a generating station to a sub-station which do not form an essential part of an authorised undertaker's distribution system,"
    so that what is taken over—
    Sir C. HENRY: Does that apply to enterprises carried on for profit, not municipal?
    Mr. SHORTT: If a man has got in his own works a generating station for his own supply, that is not taken over unless he wishes. If a company is supplying other people, and it is a public supply generating station, it is taken over. Therefore what is intended is, and what I think this Bill does, is to leave with the
    1634
    present undertakers the whole of the distribution, and the proposal is that you should by the activities of these district boards cheapen the production at the generating stations, supply these what I might call retailers, the distributors, with what is really for them their raw material, namely, power in bulk, and enable them to supply to the individual consumer at, we hope, a very much lower price. Therefore, all that the boards will have to purchase when they take over are the generating stations and the main transmission lines, and all the plant and all the machinery necessary merely for distribution, as apart from generation, will remain with the owners who own them at present. Another provision is that where an undertaker is taking from the district board in bulk, an undertaker whose generating station has been taken from him by this Act, the board are bound to supply him at as cheap a cost as he could have supplied himself if he had still been in possession of the generating station. So that where an undertaker can show that he contemplated carrying out improvements which would have enabled him to supply himself, as distributor, say, at ½d. or two-thirds of 1d. per unit, he would then be entitled to receive his power from the district board at as cheap a rate as he could have supplied himself.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In perpetuity?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not quite sure, but I think it is in perpetuity. I was going on to say that there must be circumstances which will be taken into account. The principle of mutatis mutandis will be confirmed. The undertakings will be taken at a standard price, which is fixed. With regard to local authorities, the standard price is annuities, which practically substantially cover the necessary amount for sinking fund and interest; and, with regard to others, it is the cost of construction and the cost of the site, less something for depreciation. No doubt there may be some discussion as to whether the standard price fixed by the Bill is a fair price, but that is what the Bill fixes. The intention is that a fair price, having regard to all the circumstances, should be paid. There are many other details in the Bill, but I do not know that there are any which go to the broad principle and broad policy which the Bill is intended to initiate.
    Mr. G. THORNE: Will the recommendation be carried out with regard to divisible profits?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have said already that, supposing there is a surplus, the Electrical Commissioners at the centre decide what margin they can keep for eventualities, and there is no profit, but the rest will go for the benefit of the consumer.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is in the Bill?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is in Clause 25, which says
    "The prices charged by a district electricity board for electricity shall be fixed by the board subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and shall be such that their receipts on income account will be sufficient to cover their expenditure on income account (including interest and sinking fund charges), with such margin as the Electricity Commissioners may allow."
    I think I have now dealt with the main principles upon which this Bill is based. It, as I have said, attempts, and, I think, succeeds, in carrying out in principle, if not in every minute detail, the recommendations of a Committee which, by its very personnel, commands the respect not only of the House, but of the country, and whose recommendations must have the greatest possible weight. Their recommendations differ in no way from the recommendations of other Committees which have gone into this subject. I think I am right in saying that every Committee which has gone into this subject has recommended greater concentration, a more extended policy, greater economy, greater efficiency, and greater security, and we have simply endeavoured, as far as we can, to carry out those recommendations. We have tried, as far as we can, to see that there is no hardship or injustice upon those who have been the pioneers in the past. It is perfectly true that our electrical systems are not all they might be, but that is no blame to those who have been responsible in the past, because, after all, they did their best, and they did well, considering their knowledge, and the existing facilities and all the circumstances under which they worked. They have carried out their work thoroughly and well, but they had not the knowledge, they had not the experience that we possess to-day, and, therefore, we were anxious to avoid as far as possible anything like a reflection upon those who have been the pioneers of electricity, and anything like a hardship upon those to whom really is due the development that has already been made.
    1636
    I should like here to express our appreciation of the great work which has been done by municipalities and by companies in the past in this direction. They have done great things, but experience has shown that a local government boundary bears no relation of any sort to the boundary of a convenient electrical area, and that where you are considering a matter like electricity, mere geography, artificial as most of our geographical boundaries are, is quite irrelevant, and we must look upon it from a totally different point of view. Moreover, it is impossible to work electricity efficiently if each municipality is to be allowed to be a country to itself, to run its own concern in its own way, with its own frequency, and without regard at all to what may be the needs of its neighbours, which it might be able to supply. Let me just instance, for example, the South of Scotland. There you have a go-ahead, hard-headed race, quite alive to their own best interests, and a people who would do their best if they had no doubt the experience and full knowledge to secure that everything that they do would be of the most efficient character. But what do we see in Scotland to-day? If you take the area of Edinburgh and the Forth, Stirling and all round that district, they have a frequency of 50. Glasgow and the area all round Glasgow, which is well within reach, for transmission purposes, of the Forth area, which, if they only could weld them together, might have been of the greatest assistance, have a transmission of 25, which is practically unworkable with the Forth transmission system of 50. But even in the Glasgow area you have Paisley one area of its own and Greenock another area of its own, each of them 50, and neither of them able either to come to the aid of their neighbours in Glasgow with their 25 or to call upon them for assistance if they have a breakdown. If, on the contrary, you had a general policy, and you had the whole of that area 50, you could have ensured absolute security, far greater concentration, and, therefore, greater economy and greater efficiency. And when you come just across the Border to the North-East Coast of England, there is a frequency of forty. There, perhaps, you have a collection of as keen, intelligent business men as you can have anywhere—men who are trained, as, in other parts of our country, all the best business men are trained, to take active part in their local affairs, and men who,

    1637
    if they had known better, would have ensured that in the setting-up of these various undertakings they were so constructed as to work together. That is not so. What we have to do is to try to remedy that and put it on a different footing. I think this Bill does that.
    The framers of this Bill had the very good fortune to have excellent guidance. We knew that there was, all over the country, a keen call for greater efficiency and greater economy in the supply of electricity. We knew the importance of it, and, indeed, everyone must appreciate the importance of it. It is one of those essentials to which we must devote attention if we are to carry out anything like our programme for post-war reconstruction. Transport is essential if we are going to improve the housing in this country. For housing we must have transport. For transport we must have better motive power. Electricity we require for agriculture and every industry, and, indeed, it is only by cheaper, more efficient and more secure power that we shall be able to attain to that amount of production which is essential if we are to keep up wages and conditions of all classes of the community. Motive power is as essential as a cure for low wages as motive power is a cure for bad housing. It is essential for the industries and well-being of this country. It is with those objects in view that this Bill is framed—the objects of providing the motive power, with all that it means; providing it in those ways, doing no avoidable hardship to any of the pioneers, to whom we are so indebted, but sparing no interest which interferes with the general interest of the community; doing what is fair, we hope, to all, doing what will produce a workable, an efficient and a thorough system in this country, and one which will enable us to make use of the great opportunities of motive power which we possess—our coal, our water, and all our great facilities—so that we can produce in this country the goods that are necessary, the commercial prosperity which is necessary, and thereby conduce to the general prosperity and well-being of the individual, without whose prosperity, of course, the country is a failure from beginning to end. Those are the objects which we have in this Bill, and it is with those objects in view that I ask the House to give a Second Reading to it, for we have no time to lose. So soon as the House is satisfied that the general
    1638
    principle of the Bill is good, I will ask it to give us the Second Reading, so that we may at once, without undue delay, get into Committee, and begin to thrash out the details, so that the Bill may be as free from blemish as this House can possibly make it. Then let us get to work to put it into operation, and work all those improvements we so much desire.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill in a speech which has shown knowledge of the subject, combined with capacity, and with a lucidity which I certainly envied him. He has stated that the Government has been fortunate in the Report of the Committee upon which this Bill is founded. I should like to emphasise what he has said in regard to that. The chairman of that Committee is my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Williamson), and he was supported by an exceptional body of men, thoroughly well qualified in their various walks of life to investigate and report on the subject. Further, they had called before them a class of witness, every one of whom was authoritative in the special aspect of the question which he desired to lay before the Committee. Therefore, in this respect I think the Government have been very fortunate in the basis upon which they have founded their Bill. I also congratulate the Government upon this being the final measure—for this Session at any rate—of the schemes of social and industrial reform which they have adumbrated. I am quite certain the House will be relieved to know that after this we are not likely to see any other fresh Committee immediately set up. We have heard to-day of the great strain which has been placed upon the House in connection with these Committees, and the great difficulty which Members have in giving adequate attention, not only to the Committees upstairs, but also to the necessary work of this House. While it is very necessary that there should be expedition in the passage of this measure—on Second Reading and in Committee—I would just issue this warning: Do not let us imagine that by simply placing ill-considered Acts upon the Statute Book we have solved the problem. It is most important that due care should be taken in Committee, and also in the Second Reading Debate—which is often extremely valuable to those in charge of the Bill—so as not to be in too much of a hurry.

    1639
    What is happening here is a very desirable thing, no doubt. I see at the moment in the House a large number of interested Members who know what private Bill work is upstairs in Committee. They know the very great attention which has been paid to all the proposals which the local authorities and public corporate bodies have from time to time put forward. I quite agree with what my right hon. Friend has said, that in those coloured maps which adorn the walls of the Committee room it is quite evident there was no geographical sense at all. The idea was that the world, so far as this particular project went, was the area before the Committee. But although the Committees very earnestly strove, so far as they could, to look after the public interest, it was extremely difficult for many of the small public bodies to be adequately represented there. I hope when this Bill gets into Committee Members will see, so far as they can, that there is embodied in this measure such safeguards as will ensure that while we very largely get rid, as we do—the House will quite carry that in their mind—of private Bill legislation upstairs by these measures—that is desirable or undesirable, as may be—in my view if it can be safely and reasonably done it is a very good thing—
    Mr. INSKIP: Not for the lawyers!
    Sir D. MACLEAN: They will always find something else to do. Especially if we go on passing Bills at this rate, there will be no lack of work for the lawyers. You are going to take away from this House, and the purview of its Committees, and transfer it to a great central authority acting in and through district boards these very important functions. I hope that these boards when constituted will, at any rate, do this—carry with them the same high sense of public duty, and the same complete freedom from any suggestion of corruption or undue influence which has been one of the proudest records of Parliament in connection with private Bill legislation.
    As far as the general case is concerned there can be no doubt at all that it has been thoroughly made out. Lack of co-ordination has resulted in the usual overlapping, inefficiency, and high and unnecessary cost. The Bill sets out to remedy that. There is another thing which is implicit in the Bill: that if the further development in the use of elec-
    1640
    tricity can be thoroughly widespread, especially in crowded urban areas, we shall undoubtedly go a long way to solve some of our most pressing health problems. If I remember rightly the very interesting speech made the other day by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the Scottish Universities on the Public Health Bill, I think he pointed out that while the Housing Bill and sufficient housing was a very potent factor in the matter of good or bad health, the deadweight of the particles of dust which came from the smoke which fell upon the surface of any given area was productive to a very large degree of ill-health. This fact we do not probably adequately realise. If you can get rid of the smoke nuisance you do a very great deal on behalf of the public health.
    Passing from the case—which I will not further elaborate—I would just like to say a word or two upon two points—and two only—in connection with the Bill. The real difficulty will arise in connection with the district boards. There will be no trouble at all about setting up the central body, but when you come down to your districts your trouble will necessarily arise. I am rather afraid my right hon. Friend and those who work with him in this matter have not sufficiently taken their courage in their hands. I fear very much that unless the power which is sought is a mandatory power difficulty will arise. Take, first of all, as an example of that, the question which comes up very clearly—the finance of the Bill. Finance is to commence in the local area, instead of, as I should have thought, beginning at the top and coming downwards, with the money to be at the centre. If you have the money at the centre you will have the inducement to the local area to get the work. If you are going to leave it to the local area, already seriously and heavily burdened with many other tasks, you will find very considerable delay and much reluctance to undertake the scheme which is implicit throughout this Bill. Then I must say this in regard to the local bodies which it is proposed to set up. I see from the Report that the suggestion is that private bodies as well as local authorities and public incorporated bodies should be co-ordinated in the local scheme. I hope that proposal will receive very careful attention in Committee.
    There is no doubt at all that any great trading corporation in a particular local area, if given these large powers of control-

    1641
    ling what is going to be the motive power for the future—and in a very large probability the industrial future in that particular area will, we know, depend on it—for human nature is very active in an incorporated body as well as in an individual—the interests of the locality may be subordinated to the trading interest of that great corporation which may have too large powers in its hands under the Bill. Our local authorities have done excellent work, as my right hon. Friend has already said. They should be supported and encouraged to further develop their public and local activities. But as we know, you often find members of the local authorities who are—and it cannot be helped—linked up with great industrial concerns. There will be a real danger that the general public interest may suffer by the monopoly granted to a great industrial concern. I hope the Committee will see that adequate safeguards are set up in the Bill to cover that point.
    With regard to the general question of finance which, after all, is the most vital part of the Bill, I am not very clear myself as to the line upon which it may run. I endeavoured to follow carefully what my right hon. and learned Friend said, but I think the general finance of the Bill will require very careful consideration. The real usefulness of these new boards which it is proposed to set up—the central authority working in and through district boards—will depend on whether you can get your power cheap enough. If not, it will not be used. If the undertaking is overloaded at the start by great capital charges, it will take a very long time—for it is the private consumer upon whom now you must depend—to make your concern a profitable business and an economic venture. Let us not forget that in all these measures we are passing—and I get tired of emphasising it—that sooner or later we shall find that they must be based on business lines. The impact of the taxes will settle this question at no very distant date. Although many seem to think that the State can find the money and satisfy all our needs in connection with these matters, it comes down in the end to the individual taxpayer. It is, therefore, our duty, while passing these measures through Parliament, to see, as far as we can, that every safeguard is provided, that there is no unnecesary extravagance, and that the capital charges are not high. I myself hope that the Debate will run, as it certainly will, in view of the hon. Mem-
    1642
    bers I now see in the House, on practical lines, and that there will not be any undue pressure to get this matter through without full and adequate discussion. It is worth while doing. We are laying down the lines for the next generation of a great, wide, necessary measure of national reform. Let us bend our energies to the task, but do not let us press them too hard.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I have listened to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) has said as regards the case put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Second Reading. A case has apparently been made out to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman. In my view the fact is rather to the contrary. I hope before I sit down to give some indication to hon. Members as to why this matter will require a very considerable amount of attention and revision before the Bill is put on the Statute Book unless it is to do a great injustice and hinder, instead of promoting, the trade and commerce of this country. I wish at this moment to register a protest—a protest which, I think, is felt by nearly all hon. Members. Hon. Members received a print of this Bill for the first time on Saturday morning, and some of us on Monday afternoon, and I do feel that a measure of this magnitude should have been in our hands a much longer time so that it might receive more mature consideration before coming on for the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading, gave us an historical survey ofthe Electric Lighting Acts, and electricity development in this country, and then he passed on immediately to technical details. To follow the right hon. Gentleman in all those technical details which he placed before the House would occupy several hours if I take them up point by point in order to show a great many fallacies in his statements. I will refer to one technical item, and that is his reference to the load factor. If I heard correctly, he stated if in one case you have a load factor of 25 per cent. and if you bring a large number of these together and combine them in one great generating station, you get a load factor of 75 per cent. Now this is not so, for instance, if you have in a factory district factories running from six in the morning until six at night, the load factor is from 16 per cent. to 20 per cent. and in

    1643
    the big generating station it will remain from 16 per cent. to 20 per cent. It may improve 1 or 2 per cent., but this is due to diversity factor. I am afraid I should weary the House if I followed on with such technical matters, but in my opinion it is typical of the unsoundness of the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has placed before the House, and I appreciate that it is quite impossible for hon. Members to fully understand these questions unless they happen to be technical experts.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Board of Trade Reports, and he pointed out that they had issued three Reports and they all supported this measure almost in the identical form in which it is presented to the House. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt remembers standing at that dispatch box, moving the First Reading of the Ways and Communications Bill, and there was no word then about any Reports, although there are in existence some very excellent Reports coming right down to December, 1918, which are directly in opposition to the proposals to the Ways and Communications Bill. We heard of nothing but Reports in regard to this Electricity Supply Bill. Why should we have such Reports made the basis of this Bill, and why should they have been ignored in the case of the Ways and Communications Bill? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say if there is any sound reason why, on this occasion he should found his Bill on Reports, and in another case he should go directly contrary to every recommendation made in Report on the subject of transport.
    The right hon. Gentleman made the statement that the electricity supply undertakings of companies and municipalities were in a state of chaos and that this Bill would rescue them. I shall touch upon this point later on when I shall say a word or two in connection with the district boards, but if this Bill is to rescue these companies and municipalities from a state of chaos it is quite simple because there is no chaos from which to rescue them and if there was chaos, it could never be remedied by the district boards under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that only by a cheaper and sufficient supply of power can we keep up production and keep up wages. I will give one or two illustrations as to the bearing of the cost of electric power upon the cost of manufacturing in this country. We
    1644
    have to look at this question from a national point of view, and I emphasise the word "national" because I think that is the only point of view from which any of us in this House are interested. We are concerned only with the principle of this Bill, and the machinery which it is proposed to set up in order to give effect to that principle. I think the principle of this measure can only be justified on one ground at this crisis of our history, and that if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to make out a clear case that this was going to re-establish trade quickly, so that the country can again get into its stride and become prosperous, and have all its manufactories going as before the War. The right hon. Gentleman has shown us nothing of the kind, and he has not attempted to show that by passing this Bill you may make trade quickly prosperous, which is the only justification for the Bill.
    Before dealing with the principle of the Bill, I think it is necessary that we should see—and this is a highly technical matter—exactly what part the cost of electricity plays in the industries of this country, and what is the relation between the cost of electricity and the wholesale price of the articles manufactured by electricity, or other motive power. I have taken the trouble to get out some facts which I think will be of assistance to the House. I will give the case of a canvas manufacturer, fairly far north in Scotland. His turnover is £350,000. The factory is wholly driven by electricity, and the total cost of his electricity is £l,500. Would any modification of such an Electricity Bill in that factory make much difference so far as production is concerned, or any difference in the wages? Obviously, not at all. I will give other cases, and I have purposely taken them in England, Scotland, and Wales, and I have made my inquiries at random without any chance of knowing what the replies would be like. Another instance is that of a small colliery in Scotland. It has a sale amounting to £67,551, and the total cost of electricity is £1,725. I will not labour the point, because the fact speaks for itself.
    I now come to the jute mills. A jute mill has a turnover of £178,812, and the total cost of electricity is £2,850. Is it not absurd to suggest that by the State doing something with the electricity supply they are going to revolutionise the industry and increase its capacity for trade. Now take

    1645
    a tweed manufacturer, who has a turnover of tweed cloth, value £250,000, and his electricity bill is £2,300. In the case of boot manufacturers, I have several illustrations, but I will only give two which are fairly representative. In one case the power bill totals £100, and the output is between £20,000 and £10,000, and, taking the mean figure at £15,000, the total cost of driving this factory is £100. Another boot manufacturer, whose total turnover was £18,000, had an electricity bill of £146 17s. 10d., less a discount of 2 per cent.
    As to the hosiery trade. In one case there is a total turnover of nearly £100,000 and the electricity bill is £200. Is it not absurd to suggest that even if the electricity was given free it would make any substantial difference on the total running cost when the amount is only £200? Another hosiery factory has a total turnover of £350,000, and the power bill is £929 9s. 10d., less a discount of 2 per cent. Another hosiery factory would not give the figures, but they said that the cost of electric power was so trivial that it was not worth while taking into account in making up the cost. In the case of a needle manufacturer, the total turnover was £24,000, and the cost of electricity £266 10s. In a steel foundry the turnover was £300,000, and the cost of electricity a little under £5,000. If anybody takes the trouble to take out the percentages they will see how absurd it is to say that this country depends upon such proposals as are contained in the Bill for the improvement of our trade and capturing foreign trade in competition with other countries.
    I will now give some Welsh illustrations. They decline to give the figures, but they gave the percentages. Take the case of a tinplate rolling mills, and the total cost of power is 2 per cent. In the case of a tinplate stamping and enamelling manufacturer, the total cost of power was 485 per cent., or something like 9s. 6d. per £100. I have chosen another instance in order to get a different type of trade altogether. I now take the case of a paper mill, which I think is about the worst case I could quote for my own purpose, because a paper mill starts running in the early hours of Monday morning and runs right through to Saturday afternoon without a stop, and it has the highest load factor of any class of factory in the country. This paper mill has a turnover of £592,387, and the total cost of power is £10,348.
    1646
    I have faithfully tried to give to the House a fair review of the trades of this country. There are many I have not touched upon, because time has not permitted a closer investigation since the Bill was presented to get all the trades, but I think I have given a fair representative view of the cost of electricity in relation to the total value of manufactured articles, and I think hon. Members will agree that this is not a matter of urgent and pressing national importance at the moment, if it is put forward from the point of view of capturing trade and setting our industries going because the War is coming to an end. I do suggest that we should not mislead the people in the country as we have been doing. We require to revise and amend the electric lighting law, but do not let us tell the people of the country that we are going to get a great increase in production, and that we are going to increase wages because we are going to pass this Electricity Bill. It is unfair. The people who listen to these statements take them as the truth. They assume them to be correct because they emanate from this House, and they are entitled to assume that they are correct because they emanate from this House. Let us try and go straightforward with our proposals and say that we want to amend the electric lighting law. If you like, go as far as you go in this Bill and say that we wish to bring this matter a stage nearer to nationalisation, but tell the people that in plain blunt language, and do not bring it in under the tempting guise of the possibility of higher wages, because that is grossly unfair.
    The principle of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said, depends upon two or three simple features. I interpret it as meaning a promise of a cheap and abundant supply of electricity. I have dealt fairly exhaustively with the question of cheapness, and, as to abundance, that is entirely dependent upon getting further transmission lines and further plants in operation. I should like to call the attention of the House to the position of electricity supply in this country before the outbreak of war. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that at the outbreak of war the electrical enterprises of this country, and particularly the electricity supply business, both municipal and company, were going ahead at a very rapid rate indeed, and, if they had had the benefit of five

    1647
    years development, it would have put us in a position in which there would have been no question of introducing such a Bill as this. I suggest that it is very unfair never to say a word about the position of electricity supply at the outbreak of War, and the position in which it would have been to-day with normal development. Let the electricity companies and the municipalities draw together freely, have your Electricity Commissioners established under this Bill, and let it be known that this policy of unification is desirable for the country, and you will find, as indeed the right hon. Gentleman indicated in connection with the railways, that unification will come about quickly. Unification is in the interests of the electricity supply companies and of municipal electricity authorities, and they themselves will bring it about without having imposed upon them district boards and State Regulations. The right hon. Gentleman himself stated that one thousand railway companies by unification have been reduced to a total of only one hundred and twenty. The same thing exactly will take place in connection with the electricity supply if only the Government will give the companies and the authorities a fair chance to bring it about.
    I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that all the principal associations in the country, and all the principal technical experts outside those immediately associated with the Government, are absolutely opposed to setting up district boards. This Bill is apparently entirely supported by reports. I can refer to reports. There is a report by the Federation of British Industries and another by the Institution of Electrical Engineers. The Institution of Electrical Engineers, in drafting their report received reports from the following: The British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association—not an association likely to oppose district boards unless in principle they were unsound—the Association of Consulting Engineers, the Federation of British Industries, the Cable Makers' Association, the Incorporated Association of Electric Power Companies, the Provincial Electric Supply Committee of the United Kingdom, the Tramways and Light Railways Association, the British Electrical Federation, Limited, Edmund-
    1648
    sons' Electrical Corporation, Limited, the Iron and Steel Institute, the Conference of Directors of the London Electric Supply Companies, and the Electrical Contractors' Association. What is the summary of this Report? They say:
    "The Committee are strongly convinced that, owing to the complexity of the technical, administrative and financial problems involved in a comprehensive scheme of electric supply reform, it will be found altogether impracticable to deal directly with the task of reconstruction by means of general legislation covering all the points at issue. They accordingly urge that immediate action should be confined to the creation of the Board of Electricity Commissioners, who should have powers and functions as outlined in the following paragraphs. There should be a gradual development in the establishing of the administrative machinery as the necessity is felt; otherwise, the industry may be hampered in the future by successive organisation to the same extent as it has been in the past by the conditions referred to."
    That gives the House generally the Report of the Institution of Electrical Engineers which was forwarded to the President of the Board of Trade commenting upon the Reports to which the Home Secretary has referred. We have heard no mention of this Report, which brings together most of the best technical and commercial advice that can be obtained on this matter. A Report was also made up by the Federation of British Industries. The committee framing that Report were entirely consumers, and their interest was to see that they got electricity in the cheapest and most expeditious manner, if they were not already being supplied—
    "The Federation of British Industries are of opinion that if a strong impartial body of Electricity Commissioners is set up no further step should be taken until the Commissioners have all the facts relating to electric power supply before them and are able to judge as to the advisability or otherwise of additional executive machinery. The Electricity Commissioners in making their survey must have powers to obtain what evidence is necessary. It should be clearly stated in their appointment that they are in no sense committed to the lines of action or development indicated in the Reports of the Government Committees on Coal Conservation and Electric Power Supply."
    That expresses the views of the consumers of electricity who are members of the Federation of British Industries, which, I might say, represents the largest and smallest industries in this country. In my view, this Bill could be made a good workable Bill to do a great service to the consumers of electricity in this country, if the right hon. Gentleman, when it gets into Committee, would only limit it to the appoinment of Electricity Commissioners, taking certain powers, if necessary, to

    1649
    establish district boards for those areas where a supply of electricity is not given, or where it is refused by the authority which to-day has the right, by Act of Parliament or otherwise, of supply. I am quite certain that no harm will come to anybody in this country, and that there will be no retardation of industry, if in the first instance we set up the Electricity Commissioners. We can follow with the district boards in twelve months' time, if they are seen to be necessary, and no harm will be done by the delay. I wish to conclude by reminding the House that the Coalition Manifesto, which was signed by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the House, contained this statement:
    "Industry will rightly claim to be liberated at the earliest possible moment from Government control."
    We are just getting out of the turmoil of the Defence of the Realm Regulations which have disgusted everybody. Are we going now to deliberately plant "D.O.R.A." broadcast over the first Electricity Supply Bill introduced? It would be the greatest offence that could be committed against any citizen of this country to insult him by establishing district boards, and by saying, "We will take advantage of the tameness and loyalty of the people during the War, and, before they recover from the shock of the War, plant 'D.O.R.A' in perpetuity upon the supply of electricity."
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I rise with a certain amount of diffidence to speak on this very technical subject which occupied the attention of a Committee over which I had the honour to preside for a period of no less than ten months. I may say that every opportunity was given by that Committee for every possible point of view to be laid before it, and included among those who came before the Committee representatives of this very Federation of British Industries to which the hon. Member who has just sat down has referred. I gather that while they agree that there should be, as indeed was recommended by the Committee and as is incorporated in this Bill, a body of Commissioners, the view of the Federation of British Industries is that those Commissioners should have time to inquire before district boards are set up. We spent two or three days per week inquiring, for ten months, and before us came the representatives of every possible point of view in the country. The consensus of opinion on the Committee, after hearing the evidence—
    1650
    not from their own knowledge, because personally I knew nothing whatever about electricity before I presided over this Committee—was that not only should Commissioners be set up, but that district boards should be set up to attend to the supply of electricity in suitable areas. The hon. Member for Hampstead, I gather, would rather leave things as they are. But the evidence before the Committee was such that they were driven to the unanimous conclusion that the present condition of things is unsatisfactory.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Would it not be worse under a Government Department?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I hope not. Had I thought it would, I should not have signed the Report. With regard to the examples given to the House as to the percentage of money required for power, and the percentage of output, I suggest that they were most misleading. If the hon. Member had taken the steel now produced in electric furnaces, what would have been the percentage of electricity required to produce that steel output? One might also ask what percentage would be required to produce nitrogen from the air. The difference in each case would be very great. The hon. Member might have said; "Here is the industry of diamond cutting. We produced £250,000 worth, and the cost of the total power we required was 30s.!" That is the sort of argument to which we have been treated; it ought to carry no weight. If the House wants to know what is the cost of power in this country, the figures can be readily supplied, but the cost of motor power in this country is a highly important matter which would greatly conduce to the future benefit of British industry and British enterprise. The Committee, I admit, were faced with a task which, when they began it, they regarded as more or less appalling. It was a body consisting of sixteen members, and I think it has been correctly stated by the Home Secretary that it was a very representative body. Indeed it was composed very largely of experts, and when I consented to take the chair I had grave doubts whether it would be possible to get a unanimous Report from gentlemen holding such diverse views and representing such diverse interests. But after considering very fully, as I believe every member did, the national interests before his own personal predilections, we

    1651
    came to a unanimous Report of very great importance with regard to the cheapening of power in this country.
    It is true that past legislation has hindered development. That development has been cramped by restrictive and conflicting legislation. It is true also that the development of the use of electric power in this country has been to some extent retarded by that particular individuality which I think is a characteristic of our race. There is no doubt that many manufacturers have said that they would rather produce their own power, and have control of the production of it than buy from somebody else, even although it could be shown that they could buy it more cheaply than they could produce it. I think that spirit has to some extent interfered with the development of electricity. But it is passing away. The same thing has occurred in connection with the railways. When they began to use electricity in large quantities they felt they would rather produce their own power than combine with other large companies or corporations in producing it jointly, although it could be done as cheaply as they could produce it themselves, and, as experts think, even more cheaply. Manufacturers now are much more willing to co-operate and take power from bodies of a public nature than they were at first. The evidence which came before us also showed that the railways themselves were recognising the great advantage it would be to the nation if they and all the other consumers in the country were united in this matter.
    The effect of cheapening the production of power in this country would be immense in a great many directions. With regard to housing it is undoubtedly the case that the provision of cheap power and cheap light would do a, great deal to solve the housing question. If cheap power were available in rural districts, there would no longer be any reason why manufactories should be put up in crowded centres, and if we can have those manufactories in rural districts there will be more space, more light, more air and more sunshine for the people who work in them. Then again the saving to the country from the point of view of cleanliness would be surprisingly large. Indeed if it were possible to estimate what the country would save by
    1652
    using electric power instead of consuming coal to produce steam, they would find that the saving would be very remarkable. Further, there is the question of the pollution of the air by smoke, and the deterioration which takes place in consequence of the prevalence of smoke in our large cities. Figures with regard to large cities like London and Manchester show that deterioration costs millions every year—the deterioration of the ironwork of railways and of chimney-pots, and everything of that sort—and, consequently, one can look forward to the time when, if the smoke is reduced, that great deterioration will also disappear. Then, again, with regard to the increased production referred to by the Home Secretary, the evidence the Committee had before it undoubtedly proved that by substituting electric power for steam power men would be able to work shorter hours and to produce more, gaining proportionately higher wages. Therefore, if you can substitute cheap electric power, it would be greatly to the benefit of the worker.
    With regard to agricultural development, we had evidence that we are on the eve of great changes, and if cheap power were available there is no saying how far development might go in rural as well as in urban districts. People rather shake their heads at that, but the evidence we had before us distinctly declared that the development of cheaper electricity in agricultural districts would prove to be a very important factor. I should like to say one word about the electrification of the railways. The evidence before us was that electricity was the cheapest motive power for local or suburban traffic. We were also informed it was the cheapest form of power for shunting in goods yards. A statement was made with regard to long-distance trains, to the effect that the application of electricity as motor power was not yet in sight, but that it was coming rapidly over the horizon. I understand there is undoubtedly a move in that direction, and that from the local and suburban trains we shall gradually come to electrify the other lines over greater distances. Another point made was that it is important, as land is very valuable in towns, and as it is exceedingly difficult to widen a railway, that electricity should be applied to such trains as run in and out of the big railway centres which are more or less congested. Undoubtedly, if electricity could be applied to such lines, it would be possible to run more trains

    1653
    over the same number of lines, and thus deal with a greater amount of traffic than by any other means. To double or treble many of these lines is in many cases an almost absolutely impossible proposition. I think I have said enough to show that there are enormous possibilities before us if we can change from the production of power by steam to electrical supply.
    We are talking a great deal nowadays about the development of our industries. That development means new factories. For them land is required, and the cost of building and machinery has to be taken into consideration. One of the largest sources of cost in a new factory is motor power. You have to spend a very large proportion of your capital on boilers and engines, but if you can purchase motor power or electric power at low rates, not so much capital will be necessary for building and equipping a new factory, and, in addition to that, lighter construction could be used, as it would be possible to have a motor on each floor to supply all the power necessary. The advantages, indeed, are so innumerable that I should weary the House if I endeavoured to enumerate them. Something was said by the Home Secretary about the work of power companies and municipalities. It is true that some municipalities have been exceedingly go-ahead. They have on various occasions laid down plant in anticipation, and, of course, that is a very necessary and proper thing to do, but others have shown themselves much more backward, and it would be idle to disguise the fact that while many have done their duty well, and with great enterprise, others have failed in giving satisfaction in the service they provide.
    The question of fuel has also been touched upon in this Debate, and in the Report it has been pointed out what an enormous saving could be effected in this direction. We surely have had brought home to us, with fuel at its present high prices at which it is likely to remain, how necessary it is to move in any direction which seems to promise cheap power and a smaller consumption of coal. Britain's position with regard to this matter may be contrasted with that of other countries. There were very interesting and enlightening Reports issued by the Board of Trade to other Government Departments which the Committee had the advantage of perusing and which contained extracts from the Press in Germany, both daily
    1654
    technical. It was very interesting to observe that during the time this Committee was sitting the German Government and the German people were taking stock of the situation with regard to electric power in Germany, and schemes were being elaborated to improve Germany's position in respect of the provision of cheap electric power, because in Germany they had suffered to a large extent, as we had, from having a number of parochial areas providing electricity at different voltages, and the effect of the legislation in Germany was, if possible, to sweep all that away, and have a unified system—a more national system.
    It may be asked, How can we compete in regard to electric power derived from coal with countries like the United States and Italy and the south of France, where they have available very large water power for the generation of electricity? I am bound to say that at first sight it does seem impossible to compete in the manufacture of power from coal with that produced from water power. But the circumstances in this country do help us. We all know the concentration of our industries. We know that the coalfields are not very far away from our manufacturing industries, and it was given in evidence that we could compete in this country, owing to the concentration of our industries, in the delivery at the works of electric power as cheaply as it can be delivered in the United States and Italy, where the water power may be hundreds of miles away. The loss in the transmission of electric power is high, and that will enable this country to compete with those countries where electricity is derived from water power. There cannot be a more important fact for us to bear in mind, because it will put us in this country upon a level which will enable us to compete with others where nature has given them a water power which we in this country do not possess. It is no good disguising the fact that while the water powers in this country should be availed of as far as they exist, there are no water powers in this country comparable with the water powers that exist in the south of France, Italy or the United States. Even in Ireland, where it is thought that water power exists in enormous quantities, it is the case that, owing to the small fall, the amount of power

    1655
    available there is much less than one would suppose from the large area of lakes which that country possesses.
    I should like to say one or two words about the Bill itself. In doing so I do not wish to appear as a critic or too strong a critic, shall I say, of what the Government propose, because my object and intention is to support the Government in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am prepared to give them every assistance in my power with the Bill throughout its passage. But there are points in this Bill in which it differs, not perhaps in principle, but in execution, from the ideas which the Committee had in reporting to the Government. I will go through it by Clauses. Clause 1 sets up Electricity Commissioners. It was felt very strongly by the Committee that these Electricity Commissioners should be paid adequate salaries and should be men of the highest possible standing. It would be a great mistake—let the House bear this in mind—to regard the position of an Electricity Commissioner as a suitable dumping ground for any Ministerial figures, because it is far too important a matter. The provision of power for this nation is so important that I doubt whether we have had anything before us in this House for a number of years in the way of constructive legislation so important as this Bill. In order that it may be carried out to the best advantage for the country, it is important that these Commissioners should be men of the very highest ability. I see it is contemplated that all these Commissioners are to be paid. Personally I think it is a pity, perhaps, that they should all be paid. It might, have been well if the two Commissioners whose term of office is to be fixed by the Board of Trade had been unpaid. My reason for suggesting that is that, being unpaid, men might be got who could not give the whole of their time, but whose services would be very valuable to the nation. The fact that they are to be paid implies that they are to be whole-time men. Therefore men who can give only part time, or if you like, three-fourth of their time, would be ineligible for these positions. It is desirable that words should be inserted, where necessary, to make it possible—I will not go further than that—to appoint a man who is not necessarily paid, and who need not give up perhaps some directorships or some such position from which he might otherwise be debarred.
    1656
    Clause 5 is a really important matter, because the Report of the Committee was that as soon as possible after their appointment the Commissioners should proceed to delimit suitable electricity districts, that the number of the districts should be left to the judgment of the Commissioners, and that the district should be large and should cover ultimately the whole of Great Britain and Ireland. The change I note in Clause 5 is that instead of a mandatory provision that the country shall be divided into districts, the provision is that they may divide it into districts. That makes a great deal of difference, especially when that provision is read in conjunction with Clause 7, Sub-section (6), and with Clause 20, in both of which provision is made for existing concerns to continue. If the formation of district boards is to be optional to the Commissioners, then there is always at any rate the fear that they may not set up these district boards in all parts of the country, and that existing arrangements, or some such new arrangements as may be made, might be set up, and you would have what would be a very great blot upon the system—namely, one part of the country divided into districts with district boards, and another part of the country where there is no district board. That is a very grave matter, and I hope that in Committee it will be fully considered. The formation of these boards is dealt with in Clause 5. May I say in passing that I hope the Government will not keep in view too large a number on these boards? If these district electricity boards are large you will not get done the work that is necessary. Any man who is a member of a district electricity board will have a great deal of work to do. It is a very important position. I, for one, look forward to the establishment of a district which shall comprise, say, the whole of Lancashire, or even more. I hope you will get the very best men in the district to come forward by nomination or election to serve on the board, who would have in view the whole of the interests of that district which would be committed to their charge, and that you would get to serve on such a board men—such as those who serve on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board or the Port of London Authority—who have no personal interests in many cases, but who will have a public sense of duty, and come forward to work to provide the cheapest power for the district in which they live. It is essential, if this work is to be well

    1657
    done, that it should be a small body. If you have a body of sixty or seventy, or eighty constituting a district board, you will not get good work. It should be much more like five or six than the numbers I have mentioned.
    With regard to the areas which the district boards are to cover, it has been assumed by certain persons that because Lord Haldane's Report mentioned sixteen districts as the number into which the country might be divided, that therefore sixteen was the approved figure, and that in each of these sixteen districts there was to be one great central power station. Nothing could be further from the real facts of the case than that. As regards the number of districts, the Committee felt that that should be left to the Electricity Commissioners to decide after fully considering the matter. But whether it be sixteen, eighteen, or twenty, we were of opinion that the districts should be large and not small districts, and that, for example, a little borough or even a large town should not be regarded as an electricity district, but that you should take in a large sweep of country. We also considered that even districts should be formed where there is little or no industrial activity at present. There is no reason why even the North of Scotland, as well as the Firth of Clyde, should not be formed into one district. Although there is little industrial activity in the North of Scotland, it is well that an electricity board should watch developments and encourage the supply of electric power where it is needed. Take the shores of the Moray Firth. You have there a number of little towns, each of which individually thinks of its own interests and is very jealous of them. There is no one undertaking at the moment which supplies them all and which provides cheap power or even water. Certainly the whole, country should be divided into districts. On Clause 7 I should like to call the attention of the Government to the great difficulty they will have in ascertaining what
    "might reasonably have been expected to accrue from any improvement of the generating station and plant."
    That is a most difficult provision, and it is not one which the Committee over which I presided recommended. It has been adopted since the Report was made, either in the draftsman's room or in the consultation room where Ministers and officials meet. They will have great difficulty with these words, and I suggest that the Govern-
    1658
    ment should give them further consideration. With regard to Clause 16, it is provided there that a district electricity board, after being set up, may, when it has acquired the generating stations in its area, lease them. That is a very debate able point. The Committee recommended it unanimously, and I am prepared to support that to which I put my name. At the same time I am bound to say there are two points of view about leasing. I would suggest to the Government that, if they decide to give an option to the district authority to lease the generating station to a company, which may or may not now exist, to be worked by it, they should at any rate fix a term of years so that the Commissioners and the district board might revise their position after that term of years has expired. At present there is no limit, therefore it might be possible to lease in perpetuity that which is to supply a public need. That is a very dangerous thing. Clause 19, Sub-section (4) provides that the prices are to be fixed by the Board of Trade for electricity supplied by works put up by them within two years, and that these prices are to be such
    "that their receipts there from will be sufficient to cover their expenditure on income account…with such margin as the Board may think fit."
    6.0 P.M.
    In my judgment that is perfectly impracticable. It is something which is going to supply the great future need for power in the district. Say you decide to spend £300,000 or more in putting down plant which is to supply not only to-day's needs, but the needs of to-morrow, of next year, of ton years or of twenty years hence. When you have built this great station, you cannot expect at once to derive an income which will pay interest upon the cost and cover all the outgoings. I say deliberately to the Government that you must be prepared to make a loss to begin with. You will not be business men if you do not. You have to anticipate the future. That is the only way to run a business successfully. You have to look ahead. You cannot therefore put down in a Bill that the charge for electricity is to be such as will cover the interest and cost on expenditure. There must be some give and take about that. I should like to call the attention of the House to Clause 27, which is a very important Clause. Hitherto, when any local authority or company has wished to do anything in connection with the development of electricity, it has had to come to the House of Commons and get a Bill or a Provisional Order. That has

    1659
    meant delay and expense. It has been a serious blot on our procedure and has greatly hindered the development of industry in this country. In Clause 27 we have a suggestion for a shorter way. I would congratulate the Government on the endeavour they have made here to provide for the needs of the country in a shorter way, so that what is required can be done by what is called a Special Order. The Special Order is described in Clause 27, as governed also by Clause 40.
    The financial provisions of the Bill are very essential provisions. We considered this matter very carefully. We first of all put down, as the means by which this great provision of power of the county should be financed, that the money should be supplied through the Commissioners, in other words, that it should be supplied by the nation and not by the localities. As an alternative, in order to ensure unanimity, provision was made that in certain cases where a local authority or others were willing to finance the district boards commercially it should be within the power of the commissioners, to allow that local financing. But that is a very different proposition from a provision which says, "You shall finance locally and it is only when you cannot finance locally that you may come to the Government." I am afraid it cuts at the root very largely of the future success of this great scheme. If money is not available under the proper safeguards of the district board, the district commissioners, the Board of Trade, and the Treasury—you have all these various interests safeguarding the money so that it shall not be frittered away—if you are not prepared to give public money I am afraid you will not get what I hoped you would get, a great electrical scheme covering the industrial part of our country. There are many drawbacks to putting the burden of finance on the localities. Some people say local authorities can raise money cheaper than the Government. There may be such exceptional cases, but as a rule no one can raise money as cheaply as the Government. If, for instance, a local body wants £300,000 they will not spend it all at once. It is spread over four years. But they have to issue a loan for £300,000; otherwise it will be very difficult to provide the money as and when it is required, as they could do if they got it from the Government. Furthermore, they come into the
    1660
    stock market and compete and raise the rate against one another. You will have half a dozen district boards, or possibly undertakers who are not district boards, coming into the market and asking for money for electrical concerns in driblets and competing in the market, and, therefore, raising the rate. There is a great drawback from the point of view even of the investor, because people do not like their money in things which are not readily saleable. If you have Government electricity stock it is a thing which will be turned over by hundreds of thousands of pounds at any moment. There is no risk to the country in doing this because they have the works and they have the power to raise the price of the electricity, so that they can always protect themselves.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Where does the cheapness come in if they raise the price?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The cheapness comes in in the provision of electricity in larger up-to-date stations, without any private profit in a large number of cases. I think the Minister of Industries and Commerce is the proper person to operate the Bill. I do not know whether it is well justified or not—probably it is not—but there is a certain trepidation in committing to a Ministry which is going to have control of the railways of the country the control also of the power which is going to be used by the railways only as to one-sixth or so and as to five-sixths by the industries and private persons. If a Ministry of Industries and Commerce is to be created, as I understand it is, who is more fitted to take charge of the provision of power for industry than the Minister of Industry and Commerce? I hope the Government will reconsider their attitude, and that when the time comes we may hear that they are willing to listen to arguments on the other side. Otherwise I support the Bill most cordially.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: I think the Bill will be found to be generally acceptable to the country and a great advance in electrical progress. But it requires considerable amendment in Committee. The great work which has been done by the local authorities already has been referred to, but the Bill provides that the policy of the Electricity Commissioners, as to taking over an undertaking, shall be entirely within the discretion of those Commissioners. If the various local authorities, where they are small undertakers, are

    1661
    put in the position that they do not know whether the undertaking is to be acquired by the Commissioners or not, they are left entirely in suspense. They can make no extensions. The supply which they have been giving can be taken away from them and they are left with their capital charges. I think such a proposal ought to be déleted. What is a small undertaking? What is a small unit of power? You will have throughout the country electricity undertakings which vary from 100 kilowatts to many thousands. If you have a station which has a total kilowatt power of 500 and you have another which has five times that amount, what is a small station? Is 2,500 kilowatts or 500 kilowatts a small station? In the big stations, which they say they will take over, they have units of power which are obsolete and power which is useless to that large station. But under the Government proposal they are going to relieve the authorities of the amount of the indebtedness for that obsolete power. But when you deal with the smaller undertakings, they say, No, it is useless to us, and we decline to take it over. A most important point, and, as I think, one upon which there will be considerable disputation, is that of the district electricity boards. How have they been constituted? It is the understanding in Lancashire, at all events, that we are not going to have nationalisation of the electric supply. We are going to have these five Electricity Commissioners appointed in order that they may co-ordinate the voltage throughout the country generally, and have a body to which appeals can be made on questions affecting the technical side of the industry. I do not think in Lancashire there is the slightest idea that our electricity undertakings are going to be controlled from London. We have made great progress in Lancashire. Almost the whole of the power which we supply—and it is millions and millions of units per year—is supplied by local authorities, and during the last two or three years various conferences have taken place. The county has been divided into groups, each of which was considered to be a suitable area for a district board, and it was intended not that they should simply have to receive instructions from someone in London as to what price they were to charge and what undertakings we had to take over, but it was intended that we should have those responsibilities solely confined to Lancashire and that within the area of the particular district board the board should
    1662
    alone be responsible and should have the chance of any slight profit which might be made, and should also be responsible for any loss to the undertaking incurred. The Bill provides in these financial Clauses for borrowing. What we want is a Bill which will give us power to extend our areas—we agree that parochial areas are unsatisfactory—but we do not want to have the borrowing done by London. We can borrow on the strength of our own undertakings. We can manage our affairs and we will take the responsibility, through our properly elected authorities, of financing it. We do not ask for Government subsidies to keep us going, or to make up a deficit under any circumstances.
    What is going to happen with the cheap supply of electricity which is spoken about? It is a great fallacy to tell the country that you are going to make electricity ridiculously cheap. It is a fallacy in the Coal Conservation Report to say that the industries of Lancashire or the West Riding of Yorkshire are using anything approaching 7 or 8 lbs. of coal for each indicated horse-power which they produce. If you go to a Lancashire industrialist and suggest to him that he is using 7 lbs. of coal you will be laughed absolutey out of the place. The average provision in a Lancashire mill is 2, 2½, or at the most 3 lbs. of coal per horse-power, and if you consider that Lancashire and the West Riding is a great coal using centre for industrial purposes, you will realise how much of the fallacy is knocked away, how much, at all events, of the argument in the Coal Conservation Report is knocked away, when they estimate a saving of millions on the reduction to industrial counties of coal from 7 lbs to 2 lbs., when as a matter of fact they are producing horse-power at the same cost at which they can produce it under electrical conditions.
    A possible deficit is not provided for in the Bill. If we are to take it that it is the intention of the State to make up deficits throughout the country, and to make a price operative which will cover a national deficit on electricity, you will not get the Lancashire industrialists to take your power. You cannot pretend to sell to the Lancashire manufacturers electric current, which they can make at ¾d. per unit. Before the War, they would not have looked at ½d. per unit. They can produce it themselves cheaper. If you

    1663
    are going to spread over industrial centres the losses you make in the agricultural areas, if electricity to be supplied to the agricultural areas will cost 4d., 5d., or 6d. per unit, as the actual cost of supplying it to those areas, and you are going to charge to the consumer in that area l½d. per unit, and spread the remaining 4½d. over the industrial area, you will at once rob your scheme of any prospect of success, and possibly do away with any chance of cheapness in the production.
    It is sometimes argued that a superpower station is the station which will give the greatest value. It has never been proved that an immense power station can supply electricity cheaper than a moderate-sized power station. There are power stations in this country to-day which have not a capacity exceeding 1,000 or 2,000 kilowatts which are producing electricity as cheap, and are distributing it to the community as cheap, as power stations with a 25,000-unit of power. Therefore, I hope that the House will not be mislead by the claim so frequently repeated that the larger your power station the more centralisedit is, and the cheaper will be your current. Losses in transmission are considerable, and losses in organisation are considerable. You have to consider the distribution costs. In the Reports which have been given us by the Coal Conservation Committee they consider naturally the cost of generation by the State, but they have given us no particulars of the cost of delivery to the consumers. What is the good of putting a Report before the country and, on the basis of that Report, making speeches in this House that you can generate electricity at a certain cost and deliver it to the consumer? They have not put in the Report anything about the cost of transmission and the cost of delivery to the consumer. While I hope this Bill will go to a Committee, and while I hope in some form it will be passed into law, I dissent most strongly from the fallacious estimates which were made as to the cheapness of electricity, and the putting of a paradise before us which we shall not realise, and which those who know anything about the circumstances know cannot possibly be realised. I thank hon. Members for so kindly listening to me on my first intervention in Debate.
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
    "this House declines to proceed further with a measure which proposes to take from popularly-elected local authorities the powers entrusted to them by Parliament, and to transfer these powers to boards created by other methods than that of popular election, and so, while it establishes a great public utility service, places it beyond public control."
    I think if the Government wanted to prove the bona fides of the character of the Coalition, it would never fail to point to the fact that they can always find amongst their suppporters someone to move the rejection of any measure that they may bring forward. I think the standard of revolt was raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) who was followed by the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson). I feel that I am in excellent company, and perhaps on this occasion it may have some effect on the Government. After what has taken place on the former revolts, the right hon. Gentleman probably feels no anxiety as to what will take place on this occasion. I quite realise that there is a three to one chance against me. Still, one never knows one's luck. When twelve years ago, I had the honour and the pleasure as one of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill, of playing a very small part in securing his return to this House, in which he now occupies so distinguished a position, I never realised that I should one day be found opposing a measure he has brought forward; but I take some comfort in the fact that while the voice we have listened to this afternoon, has been the voice of the right hon. Member for Newcastle, the hand that we have felt has been the hand of the right hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes).
    I should not have ventured to have obtruded at this stage my personal opinions, but I have the honour to represent the views of the whole of the municipalities, with the possible exception of one, on the North-East coast. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesboro' (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson), whose name is also attached to this Motion, represents a constituency on the extreme end, and I represent a constituency on the other. Almost throughout that region the feelings of the local authorities are in support of the Amendment which I have the honour to move. This is an extremely important

    1665
    measure. There are three great public utility services, which at the present time and for some time past have been canvassed as to whether they should be under private ownership, or public ownership. One is coal-getting, the other is the generation of power, and the other transport. With regard to transport, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Geddes) is meditating on the subject, and he will do so for the next two years, when he will be able to tell us whether the railways are to be nationalised or not. On 20th June we may hope to hear from the Coal Commission as to whether the mines are to be nationalised. It is very interesting to find that the Government, or at least, the Minister-designate of Ways and Communications has made up his mind on the question of the generation of power. That is to be nationalised and we get it in this Bill. I must confess that I am rather surprised, and I think he must be rather disappointed that the passionate interest of the Labour party in nationalisation is not shown by crowded benches. One would have thought that this first instalment would have been received by them with a little more interest than they have given to it to-day.
    We are committed to national ownership in this measure. Interest in this measure is that it discloses only what may take place, not only in regard to the railways as to ownership, but it discloses something as to what is in the mind of the Government in regard to the administration of the great public utility services when they come into national ownership. We have in this measure an intimation of what may take place in regard to the larger question of railways, and I submit that it is of supreme importance that on this measure we are considering proposals that are made in respect of local administration. My opposition to this Bill is not in any way with regard to the principle of nationalisation which has been introduced. I quite believe all that has been said with regard to the advantages that will come through co-ordination, the improved supply and the cheapened supply that will come through making the area of the unit of supply very much larger than at the present time. My opposition to this Bill is directed to the fact with the local administration of this great public utility service which is now to come under national ownership, is not to be of a popular character. What we are getting here is national ownership and private control.
    1666
    What was the problem before the Government? They had to make up their minds, seeing that they were going to set up a local body to administer this service, what sort of body it should be; whether it should be a selected body or an elected body. Whether it should be a body constituted in the way in which this House is constituted by the popular vote or whether it should be a body whose members were to arrive at their position through being selected by a Minister or being selected by persons of private interests. They have chosen to adopt the latter method. I submit that that is a very grave decision, and I think this Bill is a sad model for the future, if in any extension of national ownership that is to take place we should have that ownership at the centre popular and at the circumference of a private character. I think that is a future to which a good many of us will look forward with misgiving and foreboding. The whole question of the place of local government in the administration of this country in the future is raised in this Bill. There are two methods of local government which have been adopted. One is the Prussian and the other the British. The Germans are noted for efficiency in a great many ways. They are noted for military efficiency, and they are noted for the efficiency of their civil administration, but there is this difference and always has been between their methods of administration and the natural method that has grown up in this country, and that is that in Germany the local authorities have been subordinate either to individuals or to smaller bodies appointed by the Central Executive. In this country in the past there has been no one between the local authority and Parliament.
    Under this Bill you have a great extension of the administrative powers of the country. What has to be decided in considering it is whether you are going to place that extension in the hands of popular elected authorities or whether you are going to place that extension of power in the hands of a more or less private body. I want to make a plea for the local authorities. They are the child of this House. They have been created by all parties in this House. The whole system of local government, which has become the pride of this country, has originated through the action of all parties. No one party can claim to have done more than another. One party have given

    1667
    parish councils, another the county councils. One and all, these authorities have come from this House. They are the child of this House. They have derived their power and what authority they have from the same source that we derive it here. They are elected by the people, and we need to consider very carefully and very seriously in any action we take as to what the effect will be upon these bodies that we have created, and to which we have delegated some of our powers. Are we going to extend these powers, or are we going to substitute in place of these local authorities some other bodies which will not have the same claim to the consideration of the responsible people of this country that these bodies have.
    That is the great problem raised by this Bill. I would suggest to hon. Members who are interested in the question of devolution that the action which we are taking here has a bearing upon that. How can we expect local authorities to gather weight in the country and attract the interest of representative people if we are going to restrict them in their powers? The trend of measures introduced into this House recently has been in the direction of diminishing the authority and restricting the action of local authorities. No measure is going to do more in that respect than the present Bill. A Bill has been brought forward with regard to Ireland in which on occasion the whole local authority may be superseded and its powers withdrawn. In the English measures that have been brought in—the Housing Bill and the Land Settlement Bill—power is taken to withdraw part of the functions of the local authorities. Under this Bill we propose not to lessen them, but actually to take them away. Here you have local bodies which had certain powers granted and which entered upon certain works and constructed certain undertakings, and now we propose to take those powers from them and transfer them to another body, not composed as they are composed, not resting upon the popular franchise, but a body composed in the first place by the selection of individual nominees by the Minister, then by individuals who are to represent private interests, and then by local authorities who, so far as we know, are not to have a predominant place in the constitution of these bodies. This is a very serious policy for the Government to take up.
    1668
    We have heard a great deal of the discredit that is falling upon representative institutions. Over and over again in this House it has been said that one of the greatest dangers that we have to face in this country in the future is the discredit that is becoming attached to representative government, and the desire to take action in other forms and in other ways. I submit that the Government by its proposal in this Bill is lending itself to that movement. You are proposing to set up as traders these district electricity bodies alone, and to take away from the local authorities the undertakings which they now possess. The Government is lending itself to a movement which must tend to discredit representative government. As an indication of what can take place under this Bill I may refer to the particular area in which my Constituency is situated. On the North-East Coast you have a large number of towns which have set up electrical undertakings that have been carried on with a great deal of skill and energy. These undertakings have been administered in the municipality by men of public spirit who receive no remuneration such as it is suggested is to be paid to the members of the district boards. They created every one of these concerns, and guided them solely out of their regard for their civic duties. Under this Bill an electricity board, if it is set up on the North-East Coast, because the owner of all these municipal undertakings, and under this Bill it has power to transfer these undertakings from the local authorities to a supply company which is operating in that area. We have operating on the North-East Coast a great electric supply company which has been carrying on operations for a great many years in competition with the municipal undertakings. I suggest that under this Bill it would be possible for the electricity board which is set up there to take the whole of the undertakings of the local authorities which become vested in them and to lease them to the supply companies which are operating in that area. If I am wrong, and that that is not possible under this Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend will correct me. It is admitted that that is the case.
    Mr. SHORTT Mr. SHORTT dissented.
    Major BARNES: Then I understand that it is not the case, and my right hon. friend will make clear in his reply that it is not within the power of a board set up

    1669
    in the North-East Coast area, if it cares to do so, to transfer undertakings at present owned by local authorities over to the supply company operating in that area?
    Mr. SHORTT: The generating stations alone will vest in the local district board. They have no control over anything else, unless the local authorities so fail in the supply that the district board are bound to step in in the interest of the consumers and supply it themselves. But failing that, the local district board will have no concern with the district supply. They will simply take the generating stations.
    Major BARNES: I quite understand the distinction that was made between distribution and generation. My point is that under Clause 5 the board is appointed. Under Clause 7 all the generating stations in the area, those belonging to local authorities as well as other authorised undertakings, become vested in the board, and under Clause 16 those generating stations which are vested in the board might be, and could be, if the board thought fit, leased to the supply company. That is so?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes.
    Major BARNES: I submit that when that position is known in the area from which I come, and from which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) comes, it will be resented very strongly, and in the present temper of the time it will be very dangerous for the people of this country to realise that, under machinery which is proposed in this House, it is possible for a public undertaking now under public control to be taken out of the hands of public authorities and put into the hands of private companies. I do not know whether this is part of the principle of the Bill or whether it is a matter that can be put right in Committee. I hope that it is not part of the principle of the Bill. If the principle of the Bill is national ownership, I, for one, am not going to oppose it; but, if the principle of the Bill announced here as a policy which may be applied in the future is that this country is going to buy up public undertakings and works and then lease them back to private undertakings, I hope that that principle will be upset in this House. What we want is not a diminution, but an extension of public control. We want to make it perfectly clear to the Government that their policy should be
    1670
    that where they take over a public utility service they should keep it under public control.
    Mr. T. TOMPSON: I rise to second the Amendment.
    Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I am not opposed in any way to most of the Bill, but to the method by which it is sought to carry it out. I agree entirely with what the Home Secretary has said in introducing this Bill as to the urgent need of co-ordination and unification of the various electrical services and that this matter must not be approached in a narrow or a parochial spirit, but it is obvious that local authorities have themselves been hampered by Acts of Parliament because of the limited character of their areas, and it is desirable that these restrictions should be removed. Just in the same way as we have had unification and co-ordination of health services by the Ministry of Health Bill, and as we have co-ordination attempted by the Ways and Communications Bill, so this is the natural corollary so far as electrical services are concerned. We are willing to have unity and co-ordination even on a large scale. The point I wish to put to the Government is that, in order to achieve this very desirable aim, is it necessary to scrap entirely our preconceived ideas of public control, where public money is spent, and for the oversight to be handed over to private enterprise and private companies? A valuable tradition of public policy in this country is that where public money is spent it should be directly and definitely under public control. I hope that we are not in these days going to depart from that recognised policy with regard to electrical services. Judging from what has been said and from the Bill itself, one would think that municipal services were almost a negligible quantity with regard to electrical power and supply, yet we find in the Report of the Electrical Supply Committee that, out of the 600 electrical enterprises which there are in this country, only 230 belong to private companies and 327 belong to local authorities of one kind or another; while in the matter of capital the figures are £36,000,000 private companies and £55,000,000 under public authorities and municipal control.
    I submit that, notwithstanding what has occurred in the reports of municipal control, local authorities have provided under

    1671
    equal conditions as efficient and economical a service as the private companies. I know that reference has been made to a ½d. per unit supply in certain cases by private companies and the larger fee charged by municipal undertakings, but I submit that the conditions are not altogether comparable. If you take a ½d. per unit for a high-tension load delivered in bulk to big consumers and compare that with a low-tension load delivered in retail as it were to small consumers, the comparison is not fair. I would further point out with regard to municipal services that you have that service provided as a public convenience. A municipality cannot pick and choose as to what persons and what area it shall serve, whereas the private company which is out for profit, as is perfectly natural and right, cater for the area where they will have the biggest power supply and the biggest load and get the greatest return, and therefore if you compare on equal conditions the services rendered by the municipalities and the private power companies you will find that the public services are as good, as efficient and as economical as that of the power companies, and seeing that this is so and that the large bulk of the capital is represented by the public bodies, why do you ignore them and scrap them in favour of the private enterprise to which only the smaller portion of the electrical enterprises of the country belong?
    This matter I know is difficult to follow because of many technical points in reference to tension, voltage and various other matters which only skilled engineers and electricians can follow; but when you compare municipal tramway services with which we are all acquainted and which we can all understand with private tramways, then you will find that the municipal authorities can compare more than favourably with private enterprise. If the public authority can do the work in the one matter they can do it in the other. This Bill wipes out municipal control, and by arbitrary machinery transfers to irresponsible bureaucratic bodies these enterprises which have been built up by the local authorities. The War has taught us many lessons, but I do not think that it has taught us to regard too favourably the placing of unrestrained powers for trading or otherwise in the hands of Departments under bureaucratic control. I think we ought to try to increase the powers of
    1672
    public control in every possible way and not hand back to private enterprise that which at present is in the hands of the local authorities. The Government have brought in a big Housing Bill, and they have such confidence in the local authorities that they have entrusted them with tremendous powers for the spending of millions of money in the putting up of houses. Is that because there is no profit to be made in that matter? When we come to the question of electric supply they take away the powers which the municipal authorities have.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the private companies generating stations are not also to be taken over as well as those of the local authorities?
    Mr. THOMSON: Certainly; but they are to be managed by this bureaucratic body, which is not popularly controlled.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If he reads the Report of the Committee he will find it is not bureaucratic at all.
    Mr. THOMSON: I have read the Bill, which is more important, and I find there is absolutely no provision for popular control or popular representation. Thus, in the case of housing you give big powers to the municipal authorities, and in the case of electric supply you take the power away from them, and give it eventually, possibly, to private companies. Therefore I say that the House should guard very jealously and watch what are the real proposals of the Bill. On the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill when it was before the House, considerable criticism was offered against procedure for carrying out what was to be done by Order in Council, and the House objected very strongly. I submit that in this Bill the position is even worse. Not only have you the procedure of Order in Council, but you have large powers left in the hands of the Board of Trade which they can carry out by Order without coming to the House in any shape or form. Why should not the House itself say how much these Commissioners should be paid and what length of service they should have, and also arrange for their appointment. Not only have we no control over the Commissioners, but the electricity districts are to be set up arbitrarily by the Board of Trade. I submit that we have evidence in the archives of the Board of Trade and by public inquiries whereby that can be done under

    1673
    the control of the House itself. Legislation to-day is apparently to be all by Departments and taken out of the control of popular assemblies, and of this House as well. What is true in regard to the Commissioners is even worse with regard to district boards. We are not allowed to have any say whatever as to the detailed constitution of those boards. Parliament apparently can settle the constitution of parish councils, or even of an Imperial Legislature, but is incompetent or unable to deal with the district boards under this Bill. It is true we are told in the Bill that the district Commissioners shall represent local authorities and companies and consumers, and labour. But why in this Bill should we not say how many there are to be and who should elect them, and provide for the whole machinery of those district boards? Not only that, but it appears as if, frightened of a popular electoral element, although it may not be so, they take power whereby these district boards may delegate their powers to subcommittees which will have full power under the Bill. I submit that over this hybrid body Parliament has no control whatever. To this hybrid body of irresponsible bureaucrats you are handing over municipal generating and supply stations, which are the bigger proportion of the electric energy in this country. Therefore I say that the House should watch very carefully where this Bill leads them, because it will take out of the hands of the municipalities the whole of the generating stations, and, as has been pointed out, the generating stations in a municipality and the distributing power are so interwoven that, as a matter of practical politics, it would be impossible to divide one from the other, and if you take the generating stations from the municipality you must also take the means of distribution as well. You hand those over to a bureaucratic body over which Parliament has no direct control. It is obvious, as the Home Secretary admitted, that they could transfer later on to a private company the working of that which has been a public municipal enterprise.
    Therefore I say this is a most reactionary and undesirable measure, and this heavy weighting of the dice against the municipal authorities appears right throughout the Bill. Let me give some illustrations. Take the purchase that is to be paid for these concerns. We will assume that a municipality has spent £100,000 in estab-
    1674
    lishing a generating station and transmission mains, and that for a period of years it has paid off £50,000 and kept the works in a state of good condition and provided for depreciation, and that there remains a debt outstanding of £50,000. By the terms of this Bill £50,000 is paid to the municipality. What happens, as I read the Bill, and if I am wrong I hope I will be corrected, with regard to a company? They may have spent £100,000 and likewise kept the plant in a similar condition of efficiency and provided for depreciation. But instead of paying off capital charges they have distributed in dividends to their shareholders large sums of money. They may have only paid off capital charges to the extent of £10,000 or £20,000, and there remains a sum of £80,000, and the power company is to be paid the £80,000 for their station, which is the amount of capital they have spent upon it. You have thus two similar stations, one of which is paid £50,000, that is the municipal one, and the other of the power station £80,000, although it is more than likely that the one for which the £80,000 is paid is not in as good a condition or as efficient as the muncipal station, for which £50,000 is paid. Let me give another illustration of the differential treatment against public authorities under the Bill. After the Bill is passed no municipal public authority can establish a generating station, but a private company can on the one condition that they sell surplus power and electric energy at such price as the Commissioners may determine. A third instance of unequal treatment is that the district boards who will be the suppliers of power and energy may go into an area where the municipality has the right to supply the power, and without its consent, or even against its opposition, supply electric power to tramways and for lighting, and to railways, whereas they may not go into a district served by a power company if they object, and they can appeal to the Electric Commissioners. Therefore I say quite truly that the Bill is heavily weighted against municipalities and public authorities. I agree with the last speaker that we are not against nationalisation, but do let us have one thing or the other, and not this hybrid mixture of nationalisation at State expense, and the handing over of these matters to the control of irresponsible bodies, or even of private companies, as is provided under Clause 16 of this Bill.

    1675
    What is the reason for this Bill. The Coal Conservation Commission suggested that wonderful economies might be provided by means of the development of electric supply by means of super-stations and in other ways. It is desirable that we should have every possible economy as suggested by the Home Secretary, but I submit that when he was drawing the picture of the wonderful reduction in costs he forgot to tell us the other side of the story, namely, that you have already established throughout the country a number of generating plants and transmission services which have cost a considerable amount of money, and even if you scrap them you would still have that debt and interest charges and reduction of the amount against the great economies you are going to get from your super-station. I would like to refer also to the wonderful figure of £100,000,000 which the Coal Conservation Commission suggest would be saved if their proposals were carried out. I would remark that they give no details as to how that £100,000,000 is to be arrived at. They did suggest a greatly increased use of electric supply in the lighting of artisans' dwellings and in the supply of heating, which could be used for ironing and other purposes, and the cooking of the Sunday dinner, and the provision of baths, and it was pointed out that there would be a wonderful economy in the consumption of coal. We had this Report before a local committee in my district, where we have the spirit of co-ordination because we have a joint committee dealing with the gas and electricity supply. Our gas manager and electric engineer, together with the chairman, who is an expert on these matters, produced a report which has not been controverted, but I think rather confirmed. They pointed out that for every ton of coal used in the ordinary small artisan's house for heating or by gas fires, you would have to carbonise four tons of coal in order to get the equivalent amount of electrical energy for domestic heating and domestic cooking. We give that as a rock-bottom figure, and if the other figures in the estimate are no more reliable than that I have referred to, possibly some of the advice we are receiving from experts is not altogether to be depended upon. I notice that in the "Edinburgh Review" for January a writer arrived at a similar decision in a different way. He pointed out that for every 100 units expended in
    1676
    the production of electricity you only get an efficiency of 13 per cent., and for every 100 units used for gas fires, which is the most economical method of heating, you get an efficiency of 50 per cent., thus showing a difference of four times greater efficiency and economy in the consumption of coal by direct heating rather than by electric heating and cooking. We can check some of these things, but we cannot check all the wonderful details of the technical points which are put before us. We do know the soundness of the position of having democratic control where public money is spent, and why should we scrap all our preconceived theories and principles which have worked so well, and give over control to these district boards which are not to be popularly elected, and over which this House will have no direct control, and over which no public authority will have any direct influence. May I ask the Government whether they have taken provisions against the exploitation of the money of the taxpayers in the case of private companies who may want to unload a certain amount of capital stock in plant which has become obsolete? I do not say that this is so for one moment, but I do say that under the provisions of the Bill, by taking the price on the basis of the capital amount that has been spent on generating plant and paying that to the private company, you may find, owing to those wonderful developments in electricity to which the Home Secretary referred, that what was a modern plant ten years ago is not so today, and that you may be unloading on to the Treasury and the taxpayer plant which is obsolete and no good for the modern production of electrical energy.
    7.0 P.M.
    I know we shall be told that we shall have the Electricity Commissioners to guide us. But who are these Commissioners going to be, and who is it that is behind all this? Who has been at the back of these Reports—the Coal Conservation Report and the Electric Supply Committee Report? Who is pulling the strings, and who is making the Government dance to the tune? We want to be very careful lest we find that these power companies which, as the hon. Member who spoke last knows full well, we on the North-East Coast have been up against over and over again, are behind this, striving to get the best they can, and rightly, for their shareholders and investors; and we, in the interests of public and of national economy, must see that we

    1677
    are not loaded with many plants which are of no use, and which are palmed off on the Government, because they have followed too closely the wonderful expert advice which these electrical engineers have given. I submit that we have reason to be suspicious when we find that the means of direct public control are taken away from this House, and I hope, whatever may be done to-day, that at any rate, in Committee, the Government will see that safeguards are inserted whereby we shall go back to the sound principles of democratic control, under which public money is spent and national service is rendered in the interests of the community and not of the private owner.
    Mr. SHORTT: As I understand this Amendment, it is based upon a suggestion that this Bill proposes to take away from local authorities the local powers which they possess in their own localities, and which they were popularly elected to carry out, and transfer those powers to some body which is not only not elected, but is under no form of control, democratic or otherwise, direct or otherwise, and that therefore, on this ground, this is a reactionary measure. I propose to deal with the Amendment, pure and simple, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend who seconded it will not think me at all discourteous if I do not deal with the large number of what I might call Committee details which he very properly dealt with, but which were not quite pertinent to this Amendment. Let me, first of all, attempt to remove a misapprehension, under which both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment seem to labour, namely, that there is any difference between an authorised undertaker which happens to be a private company and an authorised undertaker which happens to be a local authority. They are identically on the same footing and are treated identically in the same way, and for this very proper and right reason, that although the local authority, which happens to be an electrical undertaker, is an undertaker, and is popularly elected, and comes into existence with a different personnel from time to time, it is none the less a trader in its undertaking, just as much as a private company. It generates electricity in order to sell it. A private company generates its electricity in order to sell it. The profits are derived, not from the generation of the electricity, but from the distribution and sale of it. The profits come from the sale,
    1678
    and, so far as the profits are concerned, and so far as the control of the supply to the consumer is concerned, they will remain with the local authorities; the electors will have it. They are not concerned so much with the generating station as with the distribution of the power they wish to use, whether for lighting, heating, cooking, or whatever it may be. What they are concerned about is getting the power to their own places. The mere generating stations does not affect the power of the local authorities either to control the price, the security, or the efficiency of the supply, or any of those things. With regard to leasing a generating station to a power company, if you have a particularly efficient local authority, there is the same power to lease it to-day as to a private company; there is not the slightest difference.
    Major BARNES: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman that in the area I was speaking of it would be possible under the Bill to take the generating undertaking of the supply company and to lease it to the local authority?
    Mr. SHORTT: It would be perfectly possible if the local authority or any local authority had the power to take a lease. Of course, it might be ultra vires for a local authority to take a lease at all, but so far as this Bill is concerned, assuming that the local authority had the power to take a lease, it could be leased to them as well as any other body.
    Sir E. CARSON: Who would be responsible in the case of these local authorities if there were inefficient or deficient electric light?
    Mr. SHORTT: Does my right hon. and learned Friend mean by the local authorities the district boards?
    Sir E. CARSON: No, I mean where there is a corporation in a large town supplying the light. As I understand it, from your statement, the generation of the light itself, the manufacture of it in fact, would remain with these district boards which you are setting up, and the distribution would remain with the corporation. If the light is inefficient or deficient, who would be responsible?
    Mr. SHORTT: Take the corporation in which my right hon. and learned Friend is most interested. Suppose the district board which included Belfast in its area supplied Belfast Corporation in bulk. If the failure of the electric light were due

    1679
    to something in the bulk, the district board would be responsible, but if it were, due to failure in dealing with the bulk then it would be the corporation. That is the position which exists in many places to-day. There are many local authorities which have the power to supply electric light and electric power which have given up generating their own supply and purchase in bulk from others. Every one of them has the power to do that. There is nothing new in that; it is a well recognised system.
    Sir E. CARSON: I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend quite understands my point. What I would like to ask him is what control would the constituents of the corporation have in such a. case as I have put?
    Mr. SHORTT: If the fault were the fault of the Belfast Corporation that control would be at the next election.
    Sir E. CARSON: No, no, in the other case.
    Mr. SHORTT: But in the case of the other they would have to go and take their complaint to the headquarters and deal with the district board. Eventually they would get to the Board of Trade, and after the Board of Trade to Parliament. The democratic control which my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment say is absent, is not absent at all. These district boards are under the direct control of the Electricity Commissioners, who are under the control of the Board of Trade, which is under the control of Parliament. You have the same power of dealing with them as you have of dealing with any people who are under the control of a Government Department. That is the position as far as control is concerned. If you have a district which has to rely for its light or its heating upon a private company you have no local control. If anything goes wrong you can only complain; there is no control, over private companies, of an electoral character at all.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: Is it not the case that under the Electric Lighting Acts there are very stringent regulations for the control of private supply companies?
    Mr. SHORTT: That is not Parliamentary control, but the control of the Law Courts. You have the control of the Law Courts everywhere. If a man contracts to supply you with proper stuff and he does
    1680
    not do it, you have always got that control, but there is no Parliamentary control.
    An HON. MEMBER: What about the municipality?
    Mr. SHORTT: The municipality? The Newcastle Corporation has no control over the Tyneside Supply Company. Not an iota. They simply have to rely on the Law Courts like anybody else, and if the Tyneside Company contract to sell the Newcastle Corporation a certain quantity of electric power and they do not do it, the corporation has no electoral control over them, but just the power of one ordinary individual over another. The private companies are just as much under control as that. Let us just consider the question of how far it is possible to put these local district boards under any form of locally-elected control, because that is what I understand is required. They want to seize this opportunity of putting the whole of the generating of electricity instead of only half of it under the control of bodies which are locally elected and controlled. That is what it comes to. They are not all so at present, but if they had their way it would mean that the whole of them would be so. Just consider what the position is. I think the House agreed with me when I spoke on the Second Reading and said the geographical areas as we know them for local government purposes are out of the question as areas for the distribution of electricity. There is no single or no combination of local government or Parliamentary electoral areas which are at all possible for the areas of distribution of electricity. You have to have first of all an inquiry by the Electricity Commissioners, who will then fix what are proper and convenient areas, not having regard to the electorate or the constituencies, but having regard to the provision and distribution of electric power. You would, first of all, under this Bill have to find out what your area was going to be, then when you had found that out you would have to bring in a Bill for each area to constitute each into an electoral area and give it power to hold elections for the purpose of electing this body to settle what the constituencies shall be and what the franchise shall be.
    You would require an Act of Parliament for every single area unless you dealt with all your areas at once, and if you did not do that you would have to wait till every area in the country was settled before you

    1681
    could bring in a Bill in order to settle the whole country. Suppose it turned out that an area required revision, or that three areas were to be combined later as more convenient under an arrangement together. Besides, you cannot always insist upon having locally elected bodies dealing with their own local corner of what is really a national thing. You can insist upon a local body, on some detail which is purely local, having their own local control. But take railways, roads, and things of that kind, which are local in a sense, but which are equally in a still greater sense national. Supposing every local authority made up its mind that it must have control of that portion of the great main lines of railway that went through its district. The thing would be absolutely impossible, and it is the same thing with electricity, which is as much a matter of through transport as are the railways and the roads. Electricity is much more national than local. It has its local aspects, and for those purposes you get what possible help you can from local people and you put as far as possible control in the hands of local people, but you must always recollect the national elements in a great subject of this kind, and if what the Amendment suggests ought to be done were done, it would mean that you would just go back to your old conditions. Each local authority would consider itself absolutely free to disregard the great general policy of the country which the Electricity Commissioners and the Board of Trade would lay down, or the Ministry of Ways and Communications if it came into existence. You would have them interfering with the national policy, and that would wreck the whole object of this Bill. I hope my hon. Friends, who, I know, are only anxious to assist to make the Bill a good one, will not press this Amendment, because it is based upon wrong conceptions of what the Bill is and of what is possible under the Bill. The Bill merely takes away from any local undertaking, be they a private company or be they a locally-elected authority, that portion of the undertaking which is absolutely essential to a great national policy. It takes away that portion which must, if it is to be effective, be regulated and controlled from one central headquarters. It leaves undisturbed all that is local, and any local control that the local authorities have to-day over the distribution of electric power they will still possess. Anything which is purely local as that is they will still maintain under the Bill, and all
    1682
    that they can possibly lose is that which is essential for a great national policy, for a great national industry, and which must, if that national industry is to be successful and efficient, be put under a central body.
    Mr. NEAL: I, like the two hon. Members who have last addressed the House, may claim somewhat to speak on behalf of local authorities, but I cannot support the Amendment. I realise that it is quite impossible to manage a national scheme by municipalities. The municipalities are not co-terminous, and there are some eighteen hundred local authorities in the land, and it is quite impossible so to split up representation as to make district boards, possibly sixteen or twenty in number, in any way representative of the municipal undertakings. At the same time, I hope that in Committee it may be found possible so to shape Amendments as to give a predominant vote on district boards to those who have no trade interests to further and who are the representatives of local authorities. I want, from the point of view of such authorities, to call attention to what I think is a much more grave matter in this Bill, and that is the method of buying out the undertakings which they have created. The scheme for dealing with that is contained in Section 7 of the Bill, and I congratulate someone, I do not know whom, upon the ingenuity with which they have framed that scheme. The district boards are to have the right to appropriate the undertakings of the local authorities as well as the undertakings of other authorised persons, but the mode of payment is totally different and, I venture to suggest, only needs consideration to be seen as so absolutely unjust that I cannot think it possible to get any Committee of the House to approve of it at all. If hon. Members look at the scheme contained in Clause 7, they will find that the obligation to pay the local authority is ascertained in this way. The Electricity Commissioners are to appoint an auditor. The local authorities will have nothing to say in the appointment of that auditor, who is not to be an arbitrator. There is nothing provided as to how he shall arrive at his result, but in the result he is to give a certificate. It may be an absolutely ex parte certificate, and that certificate is to determine, not the price to be paid for the undertaking, but the amount of an annuity to be paid to the local authority, based upon its obligation in respect of its outstanding loans.

    1683
    First, I cannot conceive of such a measure being attempted with any business undertaking in this land. What business man would be asked to accept the certificate of some unknown auditor, in whose selection he had had no rights and before whom he had no right of appearance, and as a result to accept payment for his business? But the objection goes deeper than that. He has to accept payment for his outstanding loan, because that is what it comes to, and what does that mean? It means that the business which is old-established and which has already defrayed a good deal of its capital expenditure is to lose that absolutely. The authority which has in the past adopted the method of taking every copper that could be taken out of its undertaking in relief of rates is to be placed preferentially as against the authority which, like the one I have the honour to be a member of in my own Constituency, adopted this policy—and I have had some little responsibility for it—of saying: "We will not take a single copper out of the electric undertaking of the city. We will plough it all in as a fertiliser—to use an agricultural metaphor, and we will secure by conservative finance that we have got an undertaking that is absolutely sound and profitable." It is suggested that you are to buy out at the amount of the outstanding debt. I have a good many clients who would be quite willing to dispose of their business on the terms that somebody should pay their liabilities, but I can imagine that somebody may have a client who, when he is approached for the sale of his business and told, "We will pay you the amount of your outstanding liabilities," says, "I have not got any outstanding liabilities," and the buyer says, "Never mind; we will take over your business then." I cannot conceive that any real consideration has been given to the financial aspect of the matter, and I venture to suggest that there is a grave differentiation between local authorities and private undertakings. I understood the Home Secretary to say there was no differentiation, but if hon. Members will turn to the remainder of Clause 7 they will see that the private undertaker is bought out upon the true value of his undertaking, but the public authority has taken from it all its capital. May I give a direct illustration? In the city of Sheffield we have, according to our last electricity accounts, paid over already towards capital expenditure
    1684
    over £703,000. We have set aside reserves amounting to well over £100,000 more. That is to say that we have invested in that undertaking over £800,000 to-day, for which we should not get one penny piece from the Government under Clause 7 of this Bill. I suggest that if the Government wish to take over the undertakings of public authorities the least they can do is to take them over at their fair market value, that where the local authority has been prudent in its management, has been economical, has been thrifty, it shall not be penalised by the fact that it is to be taken over.
    There are one or two other criticisms I would like to make before I sit down. First, it does not seem to me that the element of cost is by any means the only element to take into account. What the object of the Government, I take it is, is to make electricity universally applicable throughout the length and breadth of the land. Second, there can be no doubt that apart from the question of direct cost it would be a great boon and advantage, particularly to such cities as the one I represent, if we could get rid of the smoke-laden atmosphere, and there would be a great saving in public health in that way. Next, I would like to point out what I think was, if I may say so respectfully, the fallacy underlying the argument of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) who opened this discussion, that there is any comparison whatever to be drawn between the cost of motive power and the total turnover. It would be a good deal sounder if he had limited his comparison to the cost of the motive power and the cost of production. But even so that does not complete it, because what one would want in order to complete the comparison would be a comparison of relative cost between that motive power and some other motive power, and so I suggest there is not very much in that. The only other point which I desire to make is the question under which Minister this undertaking should be placed. Section 44suggests that the undertaking shall be handed over to the Minister of Ways and Communications. May I remind the House that when the Ways and Communications Bill was introduced, not only did the right hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir E Geddes) make a statement in the nature of a confession, that he had had some doubts at first upon the matter, in fact, that he thought the Board of Trade was appro-

    1685
    priate, but the Leader of the House came to the same conclusion and that somebody persuaded him otherwise. We had some figures from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge, and at the present time, if the matter were in his control, only 10 per cent. of the electricity generated could be used for transport purposes, and the highest possible point he puts it at is 20 per cent., though that figure must be somewhat speculative, because we cannot possibly tell to what extent industry and other sources of use of this great potency will grow in future. But what is suggested is that you shall hand over to the Minister of Ways and Communications the control of the vitalising force of commerce and take it away from the Board of Trade, or the Ministry of Commerce of which we hear. I trust that that matter will receive very careful consideration when this Bill goes into Committee. To conclude, I wish very respectfully to add my congratulations to the Government that in this first Session of the new Parliament they have had the courage and the industry to introduce so many measures of first-rate importance, which I trust may be for the lasting prosperity of the land.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There have been very many interesting speeches made this afternoon, but I think with one exception—that of the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson)—they have all been against the Second Reading of the Bill. It is quite true that a good many who have spoken began, their speeches by saying they were in favour of the principle of the Bill, but when they had gone a little further we found their arguments entirely against the provisions of the Bill, and therefore against the principle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nairn told us that evidence was brought before the Committee over which he presided that the condition of electricity was unsatisfactory. I should not like to contradict the right hon. Gentleman, as he was a member of the Committee and I was not, but what I should like to ask him is this: Supposing the condition of electricity was unsatisfactory at the moment the Committee was sitting, what guarantee have we that it is going to be made better by this Bill? According to the Scriptures, "By their fruits ye shall know them." What are the fruits by which we know Government control and management of undertakings? I think if the right hon. Gentleman had
    1686
    presided over a Commission on the telephone system prior to the Government taking it over, he might have come to the conclusion that the service was not altogether satisfactory. So far as I can remember, there was strong complaint about that service. But I venture to say that if he were to preside over a Commission now, the evidence would prove that the service was far more unsatisfactory since it was taken over by the Government than before. Then there is the Post Office. From a financial point of view, has that been a very satisfactorily managed undertaking? We heard only a few days ago, I think in answer to a supplementary question, that the Post Office was practically bankrupt. Therefore, as I said before, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Can the right hon. Gentleman point to any undertaking which has been managed by Government officials, during the War, for instance, whch has been successful from an economical standpoint, or which has produced articles cheaply and efficiently? It may be said that this is not going to be entirely managed by the Government, but that it is going to be managed by boards set up by the Government.
    Take the London Water Board. Has that been a very successful undertaking from the point of view of cheapness? We know perfectly well that the London Water Board gave a price to the companies which was based upon the dividends which the companies were earning at that time, without any payment for goodwill of the future income. We were told how the Board's directorates would be abolished and the different managers of the company abolished, and this wonderful Board would be concentrated in one office, and there would be a great saving. What has been the result? The same result that will always ensue from Government control—increased expenditure and diminished efficiency. When I ventured to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman as he was speaking, to ask where the cheapness was to come from, he said, "From the abandonment of profit."
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I said that the cheapness would come from co-operation in generation, as well as the absence of profit. I would also point out the great advantages that will come to London from the amalgamation of all the docks.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The docks, I might point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as

    1687
    I think he knows perfectly well, raised their charges, and their efficiency has arisen because the private companies were not allowed to raise their, charges. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the interruption. That is exactly what will happen when these electricity boards are set up. They will find that they will have to raise their charges in order to provide for the more expensive management—I will not call it by any other name—which results from Government control or from control by selected bodies. The Home Secretary suggested that it was impossible to meet the Movers of the Amendment, and, I think, if I may venture to say so, the Home Secretary is right; but I would suggest to him a method by which he could meet the suggestion of those hon. Gentlemen. It is a very simple method, and one which I hope will commend itself to the House as a whole, and that is, by abandoning the Bill. Then the control will remain in the hands of those hon. Gentlemen opposite who have shown by their speeches the great knowledge they have of the subject before the House, and the wonderful way in which the corporation referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite—I am not quite sure that every corporation has been quite so successful—has reduced the charges upon the generating station. There was a point made by the Home Secretary with which I am thoroughly at one. I cannot say I readily believe in all these wonderful results that are going to happen. I do not believe you are going to have in country cottages the shepherd coming home, tired at night, and turning on his electricity and cooking his dinner, or turning on his electricity and finding a hot bath, and only having to pay his 3d. a year. I do not believe all that. I am not an expert, but I have heard all that sort of thing so often, and it never happens.
    But I would ask the Home Secretary this: I understood him to say that profits do not come from the generating station, but they come from the distribution. I do not pretend to be an expert, but, as I understand it, the generating station is the place where the article is manufactured which is afterwards sold to the consumer. Take a homely illustration. A baker's generating station is his shop, where he collects the material which he makes into bread. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the baker's profit does not come from the generating station—
    1688
    the baking of the bread in his shop—but that it comes from driving the cart by the boy who delivers the bread to the consumer in the neighbourhood? Because, so far as I understand it, that is the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It seems to me that, having once got control of the generating station, then the control is in the hands of these boards. There was a very interesting question by an hon. Member, namely, how, if there were a deficiency in the distribution, the consumer could find a remedy? And he was told it would be against the consumer, but that if there were a deficiency in the generating station it would be against the Government or against a particular somebody, or a particular somebody else, and—rather like the house that Jack built—eventually you would get up to the Board of Trade. Having got up to the Board of Trade, I do not see anything in this Bill—I may be wrong, for I read it somewhat hurriedly—providing that the Board of Trade under this Bill can be treated in any kind of way different from any other Government Department. Therefore, as far as I know, you would have to get a petition of right before you could approach the Board of Trade, in the same way as De Keyser's Hotel got a petition of right. Who is going through all these formalities before you get at the Board of Trade?
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about the electrification of the railways. There is no doubt that the electrification of the suburban services, especially if they are in tubes and underground, but suburban services where there are a large number of passengers during the greater part of the day, has been successful. But whether or not the electrification of a main line is going to be successful is another pair of shoes altogether. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever thought of the enormous cost which would have to be provided for if the electrification of a main line were to take place? If we were starting a railway afresh it might be a better thing to electrify it, but, as we have not electrified it, and as we have got all the existing plant, to scrap all that plant on a big main line is going to cost a very large sum of money. The right hon. Gentleman did rather raise a note of warning when he said it must not be supposed that all these profits are going to ensue at once. If you want to be successful in business, you must look ahead, he said, and expect a loss for a period. I think the country will find that for a very long period there

    1689
    will be a loss, and I think it will prove that, having looked ahead, you have looked ahead wrong, and that you will never recover the enormous amount of money you have spent on these undertakings.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not think I said the business as a whole would be involved in loss. I said that when you instituted a new generating station it might cost a large sum of money, and it might be some years before the user could return a profit on that station.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that is against what I said, because the electrification of the main lines of a railway would be a new service. Then, of course, the chief advantage of electrifying a railway is that you can run so many more trains in the hour. I do not know whether that will be a very great advantage upon a main line service going long distances. Therefore, the advantages which occur on a short suburban service would not accrue. There is only one other question which I should like to mention, and that is this. I am on the Committee which is dealing with the Ways and Communications Bill. My recollection is that there was a Clause in that Bill dealing with electricity, and giving the Government somewhat similar powers to this Bill. That Clause was dropped out, I presume, because it was thought it would not be possible to give the control of electricity to the Minister who was going to control the Ways and Communications.
    Mr. SHORTT: I would like to remind the right hon. Baronet that that was the very reason it was not put in.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Not being an Irishman, I do not think I quite understand that, but doubtless my right hon. and learned Friend learnt a good deal when he was Irish Secretary. However that may be, I do not want to go into the reason. I merely state the fact that there was a Clause in the Ways and Communications Bill which was abandoned. There is another Bill which is being brought in which will have the effect of restoring that Clause to the Ways and Communications Bill. By this Bill the Minister of Ways and Communications will become the Minister under this Bill. I see hon. Members who are on the Committee, and I think they will agree that I am right in saying that that will be the effect of the Bill. Well, I do not think that is the right thing to do. I think the Government ought
    1690
    to wait. Surely they have quite enough to do at the present time! After all, these are far-reaching schemes, which are going to make a new heaven and a new earth! Let us see how some of them are going to work out. Do not let us be in such a hurry. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Williamson) has been, I understand, very successful in all his business undertakings, and that was possibly because he did not undertake too many things at once. A good business man does not endeavour to do too much at a time, but to work within his scope and powers. I venture to say the Government are going outside the scope of their powers and endeavouring to do a great deal too much, and the House of Commons is beginning to feel it. I would put that point to hon. Members who have been sitting on Committees upstairs, and are somewhat weary. It is supposed that hon. Members are going to alter this Bill in Committee. Who is going to do it? And where is the time to come from? We are much more likely, if we pass the Second Reading of this Bill, after sending it to Committee upstairs, to find that the Members, who cannot be in more than two places at once—though they are expected to do so at the present time—do not attend, and that the Bill is not properly considered. The result will be not only disastrous to the Government—about which I am not so much concerned—but for the country, about which I am concerned. I sincerely trust that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will press it to a Division.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Sir F. Banbury was appointed Teller for the Noes; but no Member being willing to act as the second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the "Ayes" had it.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING [SCOTLAND—EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to Housing, Town Planning, and the acquisition of Small Dwellings in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of

  1691
  moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred by any Government Department—

  (a) when acting in the place of local authorities in preparing and carrying out schemes under such Act;

  (b) in recouping losses incurred by local authorities and county councils; and

  (c) in contributing to costs incurred by public utility societies and housing trusts and other persons."

  Resolution agreed to.

  DISABLED MEN [FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT—MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any sums payable in respect of any arrangements made under any Act of the present Session to enable arrangements to be made as to employers' liability to pay compensation in respect of men disabled by service in His Majesty's Forces during the present War with a view to facilitating their employment."
  Resolution agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS.
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, and; if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations incurred for the purpose of the present War or in connection therewith, by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
  Colonel GRETTON: This Motion has come on somewhat suddenly. I would like to inquire from the Minister in charge whether it enables the Government to expend an unlimited sum of money without any further enactment, or is this merely the ordinary Money Motion to enable the Bill to proceed upstairs? The proceedings are not quite obvious, to myself at any rate, or perhaps to other Members of the House.
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): My hon. Friend who was in charge of this Resolution is not able to be here to-night, and the Motion, therefore, cannot proceed.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Sitting suspended till a Quarter after Eight of the Clock.

  CONDITION OF IRELAND.

    STATEMENT BY MR. MACPHERSON.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I beg to move
    "That this House views with regret and concern the present conditions prevailing in Ireland, which tend further to alienate the people of that country from the people of Great Britain and subject to international suspicion our earnest efforts to promote and safeguard the freedom of other small nations."
    I may as well say at the outset that I do not consider it at all necessary or desirable to enumerate a long list of the grievances and wrongs which the Irish people have suffered since the passing of the Act of Union. Those wrongs are well known to us all. All the world knows them. Wherever there is any democratic opinion throughout the world, whether in our Colonies, on the Continent, or in the great free Republic of America, Ireland's wrongs are known and are execrated to the damage of the fame of this country and the Mother of Parliaments. Had I thought it desirable to tabulate a long list of grievances, I should have found it a very easy task, because since it has been known that this Motion was to be moved tonight I have received communications from people in all parts of the United Kingdom, and have been supplied with particulars and data relating to British rule in Ireland. If half or even a fiftieth part of what has been said in those communications could be proved to be true, it would be only necessary to make known to the people of this country what is actually taking place in that unhappy country; and we should have such a storm in this land as would sweep out of power any Government which tolerated such conditions and allowed them to go on. I shall content myself by reading just two or three cuttings of very recent date, and by referring to two or three communications that have been sent to me by correspondents. The first cutting I took from one of the Welsh papers last Saturday night. It reads as follows:—

    1693
    "A reception of the Irish-American delegates was to have been held by the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress at the Mansion House, Dublin, on Friday evening, but shortly before the time for the ceremony the military, wearing trench helmets and carrying rifles and bayonets, arrived in three covered motor lorries, and took possession of the Mansion House. Cordons were drawn in front of the side streets, the soldiers being so disposed as to prevent all approach to the Lord Mayor's residence. The sudden appearance of the military, who were followed immediately by a large body of police, attracted a big crowd, which the police, who were unarmed, dispersed towards Stephen's Green. A guard of soldiers with machine guns was posted outside the Mansion House, and for a time tramway traffic was diverted to other thoroughfares. The Lord Mayor said that he was unable to account for the action of the authorities. One reason assigned is that among the members attending the Sinn Fein meeting during the day was some of the prisoners who recently escaped from Mount joy Prison, and it is suggested that the authorities suspected that they might be in hiding in the Mansion House. No arrests were made, and later the military were withdrawn, and the reception of the delegates proceeded."
    It is the sort of thing that is going on, not in Russia, but in Ireland under British rule. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his place to-night. He understands the Welsh people and Welsh sentiment, and I would like to have had his opinion as to what would happen in Wales if we had some Welsh Americans who were to be entertained by the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress of Cardiff, and we had the authorities acting as they are reported to have acted in Ireland. The next cutting relates to the boy Connors, concerning whom questions were asked in this House last week—
    "The boy Connors, who is aged eleven, was carried off by the police on 10th February, and released after two months' detention. He reached home about 9 p.m. on Wednesday of last week in a motor car, in which there were three policemen. The boy, in the course of an interview, said that from the Monday on which he was arrested until the following Friday he was kept in the police barracks, where he was questioned every day as to what he knew of the shooting of the two policemen at Sologheadbeg. 'I told them,' he said, 'that I knew nothing about it, but they kept on questioning me every day. On Friday morning I was taken by policemen in a motor car to Limerick Junction. A policeman's top coat, with three stripes on the sleeve, was put on me, the collar of which was turned up so as to nearly cover my face. I was put into the train and brought away, I did not know where!' His experience at the depot was pretty much the same as that of the boy Matthew Hogan. He was brought to Dublin Castle two or three times a week and questioned about the Sologheadbeg affair, but told them time after time, he said, that he was at school at the time it happened and knew nothing about it. During the two months that he was there he was never allowed to attend Mass and never saw a priest, but he regularly said his morning and night prayers."
    1694
    I ask any father in this House from Wales, England, or Scotland what would be his feelings if his boy were treated as that Irish lad was treated, and what would be the result in this country if incidents of that sort were daily occurrences? I am not a Catholic, and I neither visit nor receive visits from a priest, but I have sufficient imagination to realise the intense indignation that must be caused in the minds of these people when they see their religious convictions outraged in the way that is described by that lad in that interview.
    I want to give two other cases. Military law, I am informed, prevails throughout the country, and in all political cases the civil law is suspended. Persons accused are taken before a court-martial and charges against them are decided by army officers, some of whose sentences can only be described as brutal and blackguardly. A professional singer was sent to gaol for two years for singing a song called, "Felons of the Land." I am informed that the song has been sung in Ireland for forty years, and four years ago it was sung in the dining room of this House and highly applauded by the Prime Minister. Yet under military rule in Ireland, at the present time, men are being sent to prison for singing a song of that description.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): Will my hon. Friend give me that case in which he says a long term of imprisonment was imposed for singing a song?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I have not got them here, but I am willing to supply particulars.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Surely as the hon. Gentleman has made that charge I am entitled now to ask for the particulars.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: If I had known I was going to be questioned about anything I said I should have come prepared. But I have got sufficiently reliable data for what would be a most damning indictment of the Government. I have only selected three or four cases which I am sure are thoroughly reliable.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I presume my hon. Friend, who speaks of a "damning indictment," has produced the two worst cases he can find.
    Colonel THORNE: There are plenty of others.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The right hon. Gentleman will be entitled to describe in any way he thinks advisable what I have said, but I want to put this other fact. Captain Stephen Gwynn, formerly a respected Member of this House, went down to Newry to address a meeting in support of a federal settlement of the Irish question. Both the chairman of the meeting and Captain Gwynn himself invited free and open discussion. A small band of Sinn Feiners accepted the invitation, and there was a great deal of good-humoured interruption, but no breach of the peace. Both the chairman and Captain Gwynn said they had no complaint whatever to make as to the character of the interruptions. Yet four of these men were dragged from their beds in the early morning, taken before a resident magistrate, and sent to prison for six months in default of giving bail for good behaviour. These men have since been released in consequence of the persistent protests of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh). These two cases, which are merely given as an indication of what is going on in Ireland at the present time, constitute, in my opinion, a disgrace to the Government of Great Britain, and I trust that the Government will be prepared to tell us to-night that it is their intention to do something to wipe out the stain which is besmirching our reputation as far as Ireland is concerned throughout the world wherever free peoples gather. One of my correspondents asks me this: What would you think of the infamous system of declaring districts to be military areas? Does anyone suggest that if a policeman were shot in Birmingham that city would be declared a military area, that thousands of troops would be poured into it, together with tanks, armoured cars, aeroplanes and machine guns; that soldiers would be stationed in the streets of Birmingham, that workmen would not be allowed to move in or out except within limits prescribed by the military authorities, that machine guns would be mounted on house-tops, and all in order to establish a reign of military terror over these people? What would be thought if working men were required to obtain military passports to enable them to go to and from their work? But all this has happened in Limerick, and I want to say we are heartily sick in this country
    1696
    of military rule. We want to get rid of it not only in this country but in Ireland as well before long.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Do you agree with the Limerick strike?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not know whether I do or not. That does not touch the issue I am raising. I may or may not agree with it. It is true, as I gather from the Press, that the Government has been deliberating and considering the advisability of using the military in the streets in this country. We do not propose to accept that in this country or in Limerick.
    Mr. JOHNJONES: Let them try it on!
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Dealing with the wrongs of Ireland, I got a letter from one correspondent who told me that according to history books the conquest of Ireland took place in 1172.
    Mr. JONES: And it is going on yet!
    Mr. HARTSHORN: My correspondent said that a lad was asked to write an essay on this subject and he started by stating that the conquest of Ireland commenced in 1172 and has been going on ever since. Truly, it is going on there at the present time. The Labour party feel, and I hope all Britishers feel, that the state of things which now exists in Ireland is no credit to this country or to the British Government. My object in moving this Motion to-night, and the object of the Labour party, is not to deal particularly with a long series of these grievances, but we want to try and arouse the conscience of this House and to induce it to insist on the Government taking such steps as will wipe out the stain which besmirches the reputation of this country before all the free peoples of the world. We are anxious that such action should be taken as will enable us to repudiate the charge of hypocrisy which is being brought against us by our critics abroad. We are anxious that the principles of the Government of all these Islands should be brought into line with the principles which we have been advocating for alien races. It does not matter what list of wrongs may be drawn up in relation to Ireland, the one supreme wrong which Ireland has suffered has been the refusal on the part of powerful reactionaries in this country to grant her the right and opportunity to express her nationality, her

    1697
    ideals, and her culture in her own way and by the only method of government in which Ireland or any other country can express its nationality, that is, by the principles of self-government and self-determination.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: That is practically independence.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I will try to explain what I mean. The system which I describe as self-government and self-determination is a system of government for which we have just fought successfully through the bloodiest war the world has ever seen. We have been fostering aspirations in the Poles, the Czecho-Slovaks, and other alien races, yet it is the very aspirations we have fostered in other people which we treat with intense hostility when we find them in our Irish brethren. [An Hon. Member: "Why did not the Irish fight?"] I shall want to know what we have done to Ireland. What we want to know is, why should the sentiments of nationality which are admirable in the Poles be execrable in the Irish? I want to say very deliberately that for the conditions which now prevail in Ireland this country of Britain and this representative assembly is responsible, and upon certain well-known public men blood guilt lies heavily. I am not an Irishman. I am not approaching this problem from the standpoint of an Irish Nationalist or of a Sinn Feiner or of an Ulster Unionist. I approach it from the standpoint of a democrat, as one who believes that the principles of democracy are invariable and should be applied all round. Above all, I approach it from the standpoint of a Labour leader, as one who has had considerable practical experience of the organised working-class movement in this country. The Irish question is becoming more and more a labour question. It has become peculiarly a labour question, because the Irish problem in its effects goes right down to the very roots of representative government and of Parliamentary institutions. It would be well for this House to remember that Parliamentary institutions are on trial before the workers of the world. They form a system that is being scrapped in several of the countries of Europe, a system that has not yet justified itself either in relation to the wrongs of Ireland or in relation to the wrongs of labour. I say, with regret—I
    1698
    am not pleased to say it and I wish it were otherwise; I am simply giving expression to an unquestionable fact—that the organised workers are being slowly but surely forced to the conclusion that Parliamentary Government is a fraud. [An Hon. Member: "Who says so?"] I think I know what I am talking about. The workers of this country are being slowly but surely forced to the conclusion that Parliamentary Government is a fraud and that the real power rests, not with the Government itself but with a compact and organised gang of aristocratic military men and reactionary political partisans by whom the Government is being swayed. [An Hon. Member: "It is not aristocratic!"] These reactionaries thwart the will of the people. In the case of Ireland the methods by which they have thwarted the will of the people there has been by the threat of civil war. In all seriousness I say that what has taken place in Ireland in relation to Home Rule is producing a line of thought in the minds of the workers which will inevitably lead from constitutional procedure to methods of a reactionary and a wrecking character. I do not know how many Members have seen the document I hold in my hand, which is called, "A Complete Grammar of Anarchy." It is a little book that has been turned down by the Irish Government and, I am told, also by the Irish military power. [An Hon. Member: "Who published it?"]
    Mr. JONES: It does not matter who published it—it is true.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: It is about the most complete text book of revolutionary utterances—
    Mr. JONES: It contains the truth that you do not like.
    Mr. HARTSHORN Mr. HARTSHORN—with which I have ever come in contact. It is a collection of speeches, or of parts of speeches, in which the authors incite men to all sorts of things. Among other things, the people are incited to hang up Members of the Government on lamp-posts. They are told that if they will fight and resist the considered judgment and decision of Parliament, they will have certain support. Army officers are invited to refuse to carry out the decisions of Parliament. All sorts of indictments, and all kinds of revolutionary utterances are contained in that document. Where are the gentlemen who delivered those speeches to-day? The first given here is said to have been made

    1699
    Attorney-General for England in 1916, the First Lord of the Admiralty in December, 1916, and a member of the War Cabinet in 1917. Another of these revolutionaries was made Secretary to the Colonies in 1915, and has been Leader of the House since. Another is sitting on the Woolsack as Lord Chancellor of England. Still another is Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Another has been made Treasurer of His Majesty's Household, and another has been made a Judge of the High Court. The position that exists in Ireland to-day is due more to the speeches delivered by those men, and to the actions of the men who backed their speeches by the military organisation than to any other cause.
    What did these gentlemen do? In effect they said: "It is true, Parliament has expressed its decision, but we will set Parliament at defiance. We will get hold of the Army and we will organise resistance in every possible direction. Although there is a Government with Parliament behind it, we have the military forces of the realm and we will use them in resistance to the public will." It is now the policy of those who are declining to concede Home Rule to Ireland to talk about the rebellion of 1916, as though that were the outcome of a sort of special dose of original sin that is in the Irish. As a matter of fact, it is the natural consequence of thwarting the Irish hopes by methods which are the exact antithesis of democratic government. Before the War, Ireland had given the representative system of these Islands a long and patient trial. The late Mr. John Redmond, that great and wise Irishman, devoted his unexampled influence to keeping his own country in the path of peaceful propaganda and constitutional action. He believed he could depend upon the democratic conscience of this country. He believed he could depend upon the word of statesmen in this country, and that ultimately he would be able to win for Ireland the possession of that right which he had been striving for for generations. After years of patient and devoted work, he secured the passage of the Home Rule Bill. The will of the British Parliament had been expressed, but it was the will of the Ulster Unionists, backed by the military party, which was the ruling power in this country. The Parliamentary system was revealed as impotent. The real power was with the determined, organised gang of men who were prepared, if necessary, to run this country into civil war,
    1700
    even at a time when we might have been attacked and defeated by Germany, in order that they might get their way.
    Democracy so dominated by an armed and reckless minority is not a democracy at all. It is simply an oligarchy based on armed force. The Curragh scandal finally made that clear. Ireland was disillusioned. Many of the Irish people lost faith in constitutional methods and in politics and they swung over to rebellion. Their claims, from being moderate in the extreme, became more or less extravagant. That is the necessary development that takes place, not merely with Irishmen. I have seen that mental process gone through over and over again in the Labour world. Whenever working men have their reasonable, just claims met by a blank denial, up go their claims at once, and they immediately adopt more ruthless methods in order to secure them. What is the position in Ireland to-day? I am not quite sure that I can tell. I asked the Secretary of State for War to-day how many troops were in Ireland, and he is going to let me have an answer to-morrow. I do not exactly know how many there are, and I do not expect I shall know after I get a reply. But I am told from other sources that we have about 40,000 troops. Whether it be 40,000, 50,000, or 60,000, you cannot keep Ireland peaceable without a great Army of British troops. Does the Government imagine that when peace has been signed with Germany there is going to be quiet and content in this country while conscripts in peace time are to be used for suppressing the natural aspirations of the Irish people? If they do, they do not understand the working-class movement in this country. There are those among my colleagues who say we ought never to use an industrial weapon for political ends. I am prepared to go a long way with them, but suppose the working-class movement decides, after the declaration of Peace, that they will organise a week's holiday from the North of Scotland to the West of Wales, organise great monster mass meetings, and concentrate upon the issue of Home Rule for Ireland, and the policy of Conscription—
    An HON. MEMBER: They will not do it.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Follow out the business after Peace has been declared and we will do it, and very effectively, and if the sixty men who sit on these benches agree to leave this House any week, and

    1701
    co-operate with our colleagues in the industrial world on the question of Conscription, and the government of the people of Ireland, we could create a public feeling in this country which would make it impossible for the Government to live another day. Throw down the challenge if you like and we will accept it. I want to know where the Government got their mandate.
    An HON. MEMBER: From the people!
    Mr. HARTSHORN: From the people! They did not get a mandate from the people at the last election to introduce Conscription in this country in peace time. They are not acting on delegated power at all; they are playing the part of usurpers, and they have no right to complain of any action we take as industrialists on the ground that it is unconstitutional, having regard to the way that they themselves have flouted constitutional government in this matter of Conscription for peace time in this country. We have just about had enough of it. What I want to know from the Government is this: Are the Ulster Unionists to be allowed to paralyse the British Executive and the overwhelming majority of the Irish people, and to thwart the operations of democratic government? If not, why are the Government not carrying out the will of the people? [An Hon. Member: "What is it?"] What is it? You have the declaration of the Irish people more than once, and if you want to know what their will is, put it into operation when you get it and do not resist them and continually thwart them until they make further demands. I understand now that the Government say, "We will have a settlement by agreement." I do not know whether that is part of the Parliamentary system. I do not know whether that is part of democratic government. I understood that representative government meant rule by the majority, the carrying into effect of the expressed will of the people. Now we are told that we must have an agreement of all sections before a settlement can be effected. I wonder what the Welsh people would have said if when they were agitating for the Disestablishment of the Church the Government had said to them, "You go and get the Welsh churchmen to agree on the question of Disestablishment and then we will introduce a Bill." If such a proposal had been made to the Welshmen it would have been laughed to scorn. That
    1702
    is exactly what we are told is to be done before a settlement can be effected in the case of Ireland.
    We have here a Report which has been submitted to the Government. It was sent in in April, 1913, and the Chairman in submitting it to the Government said:
    "For the immediate object of the Government the Report tells all that needs to be told. It shows that in the Convention, while it was not found possible to overcome the objections of the Ulster Unionists, the majority of Nationalists, all the Southern Unionists, and five out of the seven Labour representatives, were agreed that the scheme of Irish self-government set out in paragraph 42 of the Report should be immediately passed into law."
    What is Clause 42? This is what it says:
    "We propose an Irish Parliament with full powers of legislation in all Irish affairs, subject to the religious safeguards contained in Section 3 of the Act of 1914; all existing disabilities to be removed in the Constitutional Act, and with full powers of taxation, but with no powers to make laws on Imperial concerns, on the Crown, on foreign relations, on pence and war, on the Army and Navy, and other allied matters duty specified."
    9.0 P.M.
    What less than that could the Irishmen have suggested to this House if they were to have any sort of Homo Rule? The Prime Minister said that he would introduce legislation in order to carry that into effect. Nothing has been done, and now we are faced with the position of very much more extreme demands. We are told in one of the London daily papers today that nothing less than Dominion Home Rule will satisfy the Irishmen. Why should they not have Dominion Home Rule? What is there in the Irish people that they are not entitled to the same right to work out their own destiny as the other people who are part and parcel of the British Empire? I am inclined to think that the longer we resist the reasonable demands that are made to this House by the Irish people the more extreme the demands will become. I hope the day is not far distant when we shall realise that Ireland is entitled to this measure of reform which it is asking for, and I hope we shall treat them generously. I hope we shall try for once to do a big thing in a big way, and to give to Ireland all that a free, responsible, and intensely national people can wish in the way of self-government.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Does that mean by "independence"?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: What do you mean by independence?
    Lord H. CECIL: The same independence that has been given to Poland, for example.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not know that Dominion Home Rule is exactly that.
    Lord H. CECIL: Then you do not mean independence?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not know that it is exactly the business of myself or of the Labour party to determine the exact lines upon, which this should be done. [Laughter.] You get hilarious directly, but what have we been contending for? Not that the Labour party are entitled to determine what Ireland should do, but that there should be self-determination for Ireland itself, that the people of Ireland should determine for themselves. I hope that we shall not be met to-night with the usual reply from the Government. [An Hon. Member: "You will get no reply!"] I would rather have no reply than a sham reply. It would be very much better. One thing certain is that the moment the position of Ireland is made known to the people of this country, intense dissatisfaction and discontent will be created unless a real and genuine effort is made to discharge the obligation which devolves upon us to do our part to settle it. If, having done that, we find a position among the Irish which makes it impossible for us to apply a solution, then it will be time for this House to say, "We have done our duty. We have offered you what is fair, just, and generous. You have refused to accept the best that could be done." Then we shall have some excuse for putting up some resistance. But until we have done that I say that this House has not done its duty. I hope that, as a result of this discussion, the Government will determine seriously to consider what can be done in Ireland to remedy the state of things existing there at the present time.
    Mr. SEXTON: Although this is a Labour Resolution, emanating from the Labour party, and I happen to be a member of that party, I want to be perfectly frank with the House and to say without any hesitation that I cannot approach it from a purely Labour point of view. Though born in perfidious Albion myself I am the descendant of Irish grandparents, and not only myself but two generations of my family have been born in this country—my father and mother. I
    1704
    was reared and nurtured, so far as economic conditions would allow, in an essentially Irish atmosphere, brought over here by my grandparents who were chased out of Ireland by the famine of 1847. Therefore I shall be excused if, labouring under that memory, I do not treat the subject with altogether an un-biassed judgment. I have made up my mind as far as possible to eliminate all the bitterness that was instilled into my youthful mind by the mournful history of the country, of which, notwithstanding the fact that I was born in England, I claim to be a descendant.
    An hon. Member below the Gangway wanted to know why did not Ireland fight. I do not know whether to admire more his colossal ignorance or his colossal impudence. I would remind the hon. Member that for more than a century Ireland has been fighting—unfortunately for England, fighting against the brutal "Yeos," and against the oppression of the Irish people themselves. I have sat at the feet of my grandfather, and I have heard him relate the history of the pitch-cap and the gallows which were the fate of the Irish people who dared to teach the Irish language and the Irish religion to the Irish people. I have heard him state over and over again the methods of the brutal "Yeos." Talk about Prussianism strikes horror into hon. Members in this House, but I have heard of innocent children who were bayoneted and carried on the points of the bayonets of the "Yeos," previous to the rebellion of 'Ninety-eight. [An HON. MEMBER: "After the rebels did it."] But I want to forget it all. [Laughter.] I do not see what there is to laugh at or what is the reason of the hilarity. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know why did not Ireland fight. I am telling him, and I am telling him that for more than a century Ireland has been fighting against the kind of thing that existed in Ireland. I am old enough to remember the Clerkenwell explosion, the mistaken raid on Chester Castle—and it was a mistake—and the smashing of the prison van in Manchester. I have a vivid recollection of that, and with my father I stood beneath the gallows when Allen, Larkin and O'Brien were swung off for a pure accident—for it was never intended to kill or murder anyone. [Laughter.]; Again I can only pity the colossal ignorance of the Gentleman who laughs. I do not know who the Gentleman is.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall): I hope that the hon. Member will address the Chair.
    Mr. SEXTON: I am old enough to remember the Fenian movement. In fact I do not mind confessing that my own father was a Fenian head centre in the very district which I now represent. I remember how the Army and the police of this country were infected by the fighting spirit which the hon. Gentleman denies to the Irish people, and I only quote my own case as an example, because it is typical of that of millions of men of Irish descent all over the world. And yet we have the Chief Secretary the other night, with all his historic facts before him, showing that Irishmen take their lives in their bands every day, performing heroic actions, as was proved in the unfortunate rebellion of 1916, getting up in this House and threatening the Irish people with force My God! after all these years, with all these examples of fearlessness, fearlessness of any cost, knowing that they were going into a business in which it was impossible to succeed, we had the spectacle of the right hon. Gentleman the other night again threatening the Irish people with the forces of the Crown and an army of occupation in Ireland. I can only sympathise with him in that respect. I can remember the time when you could not pick up a newspaper in this country or read an advertisement for a situation without seeing the footnote, "No Irish need apply." In the face of all this, can you expect any particular gratitude from a people and a country who are treated in that way?
    In my early days as a lad I was attracted by the physical force movement in Ireland, but as I grew older I began to see the folly of a physical force movement, and the first gleam of hope we got in this country was the rise of the constitutional movement in Ireland and the gradual disappearance of the physical force movement. Personally I welcomed that. I lived in the days of Butt and Shaw and Parnell and the first time I exercised the franchise, being a Radical and revolutionary and as far as possible a Liberal all my life, was when I voted on the advice of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, at whose feet I sat at that time, in response to Gladstone's challenge, for the Tory Government which turned Gladstone out of this House, The Tory Government
    1706
    came into power There was the point made of destroying physical force and encouraging constitutional action. What was the reply to Mr. Gladstone's appeal? Ireland spoke solidly and returned to this House seventy-five or eighty Members, and amongst them were convicts and felons who had been in gaol and whom the Irish people honoured for that reason. From that day to this, as an eloquent example of the incapacity of the British Government to rule Ireland, if you send an Irishman to gaol to-day he is a hero no matter what he goes to gaol for. You had men in this House who were sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. You had J. F. Z. O'Brien a Member of this House, and he had been sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. You had my dear old friend Michael Davitt, a convict from Portland and a prominent figure in this House. You had John Mitchell, who was also sentenced to death and exiled, returned for an Irish constituency, although you refused to recognise the right of the Irish people to elect him. With those examples you go on blundering in the same old way and expect Ireland to be conciliated. It never will be. We have had Chief Secretary after Chief Secretary. Some of them, and indeed most of them, found their political graves in Ireland. We had the stern W. H. Foster; we had the man who followed him, and who is now in Paris negotiating peace, in which I hope he succeeds. We had the humane man, Mr. Birrell, a humanitarian, who like Lanna Machree's dog, went a bit of the road with everyone and never got anywhere. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded the present Chief Secretary was wise in his generation and gave it a miss in. balk for the short time he was there.
    I want to approach this subject now without any bitterness. I do not think I have been bitter so far; I am merely quoting historic facts. I want to approach this question from the purely Labour side. I have had to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division, although I was a member of the United Irish League when the mandate went forth that the Irishmen in this country must recognise the alliance which then existed between the Liberal and Irish parties. Occasionally, being a bit of a rebel myself, I have kicked over the traces when we have been presented with a political adventurer who suddenly displayed, a love for Ireland he never had.

    1707
    before and who took advantage of the alliance in order to get into a city or town council. They might be sweating employers or the like, but I stood alone in my objection. I only quote that as an example of the loyalty of the Irish trade unionists in this country and to show that they were prepared to suffer even that infliction rather than endanger the probability of securing the principle of Home Rule for Ireland, which was on the banner of the Irish people all over. There is a greater danger than that. When constitutional action was adopted by the Irish people the result was that the Coercion Act was introduced, and the men who were acting constitutionally in Ireland were arrested and sent to gaol. What happened? Though the men were in gaol they were more powerful in Kilmainham than outside. I think it is recorded as an historical fact that the then Government had to go to Kilmainham Gaol to make a treaty with Parnell, who was imprisoned there before peace could be obtained in Ireland. I am speaking now of what I know really happened during the agitation. Then we had the introduction of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill, and again we thought the Irish question was going to be settled, and that the British and Irish workers would unite in order to improve their industrial conditions, because the Home Rule question was keeping this back. Let me give an example. I represent an organisation composed of what is generally known as unskilled workers; they are not unskilled workers, but they are generally accepted as such. We have, in Ireland, Catholics and Protestants in our ranks, as we have them in England. We are not singular in that respect, for other trade unions have the same experience. From one year's end to the other these men, without any thought as to what shrine they worship at, or the place of their nativity, went on paying their contributions, having on their cards, under the clasped hands, "United we stand, divided we fall"; and fraternising with each other in the trade union lodges, except on two illucid intervals, the 17th of March and 12th of July, when one crowd cursed the Pope and the other cursed the King of Great Britain.
    The War came, and the War has been very very liberal education. The Orangemen and the Nationalists in the North of Ireland, and the Orangemen and the
    1708
    Nationalists in Britain fought side by side in the trenches. They fraternised and exchanged opinions, and if the Government had only taken their courage in both hands when this new spirit was developing, and had put the Act, which is now on the Statute Book, into operation, the difficulty in Ireland would have been overcome long ago. What do we wish for? So far as I am concerned, this Resolution is a very tame Resolution. Without hesitation I now say that nothing short of Dominion Home Rule would satisfy me as being applied to Ireland. I may be asked what I mean by Dominion Home Rule. I will leave that to the experts. But I know this, that what is good enough for South Africa, which fought England vigorously and bitterly, ought surely to be extended to the neighbouring isle of Ireland. As a matter of fact, it was so extended. This; House discussed, and deliberately passed an Act, which gave power to this country and to the Government to declare Home Rule for Ireland, without any partition. I do not think that can be denied. What happened? A section of the small corner of the North-East of Ulster objected, and said they would not submit, and that they wanted their own way. May I give an illustration of how that principle would apply in other cases? My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool represents, in the city to which I belong, a purely Irish constituency. The Irish Nationalists of Liverpool return to the City Council sixteen or seventeen Irish Nationalist Members. If it is right for the small North-East corner of Ulster to claim a separate Government in Ireland, it surely ought to be right for the seventeen Irish Nationalists of Liverpool to want a city council for themselves. To me it appears that the same principle applies to either. If this Government had applied the Act which was passed there would have been no difficulty in Ireland with respect to the response of that country for the defence of the country. If hon. Gentlemen ask why Ireland did not fight at that time I want to say that nobody regrets more than myself that the general, policy of Conscription was not applied to Ireland as well as to England. Why was it not applied? The Government, with the awful record behind them, dared not apply it to Ireland, because they knew the response would be meagre unless they gave them the justice which this House had said they should get and which they never had. History is repeating itself

    1709
    again. The House deliberately passed an Act for the self-government of Ireland. The country expected it to be put into operation. It was the Treaty of Limerick over again. The Irish people have long memories, and very vivid ones, and they know how they have been treated in the past.
    May I be allowed just to refer to a cutting from the "Times" of yesterday? A gentleman, writing under the signature of "Sir West Ridgeway," puts what he calls five pertinent questions to the Labour party. He asks for definite answers to these crucial questions, and that they should not be evaded. I am going to attempt to answer them, and I am not going to attempt to evade them. The first question was:
    "Is the Labour Party in favour of separation; that is to say, of the establishment of an Irish Republic?"
    If I know the Labour party at all—and from an association of over thirty years I think I ought to know it—I should say that the Labour party was not only not in favour of separation, but, from the point of view of economic tradition and geographical and social conditions, it would be very much opposed to the separation of Ireland from the United Kingdom. Why? Let any student of geography, sociology, or economics just consider that question for a moment. The separation of Ireland from the United Kingdom would, in my opinion, mean social and economic ruin for Ireland. I do not think there is a member of the constitutional Irish party who would deny that for a moment. The next question was:
    "If not, is it in favour of this grant of full Dominion rule; that is, the right of the Irish Government to maintain an Army and Navy, to enter into treaties with foreign Powers, to take exclusive possession of harbours and other strategic points essential to the safety of the United Kingdom, and the right to secede?"
    I think Sir West Ridgeway must be possessed of a very vivid imagination. I thought I knew the conditions of Dominion rule, and I have yet to learn that either the right to secede or to enter into treaties with foreign Powers was any part of the conditions of Dominion Home Rule. The next question is:
    "If not, what other settlement of the question would they propose, and would they impose it on Ireland even if the majority of the Irish electorate refused to accept it as a final settlement?"
    1710
    But that is not the case. The vast majority accepted the Home Rule Bill, and it was only a minority who opposed it. The fourth question is:
    "If Ulster refused to submit, would the Labour party coerce her?"
    That is paying a great tribute to the Labour party. But I think again I can answer for the Labour party, and to console Ulster and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who represents Ulster, the Labour party, if it had the power, would not attempt to do any more to Ulster than is done to every faithful citizen of the Empire, and that is to obey the laws made in this House and administer them for the good of the community and not for a section. You talk about coercion, but is there alaw passed in this House that does not coerce a minority? Are we to give the right to minorities to rebel against every Act of Parliament passed in this House? That is the privilege which the right hon. and learned Gentleman from the North-East corner of Ulster claimed to exercise.
    Sir E. CARSON: No; I did not. The hon. Gentleman says we claim to set at nought every Act of Parliament passed by this House. I say we have never claimed any such thing. We claim to refuse to be driven out of our British citizenship.
    Mr. SEXTON: Well, of course, I think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in that, not to be driven out of the United Kingdom, but has anybody suggested that he should be? I have never heard that the Home Rule Act would drive any man out of the United Kingdom, and, if I thought that, I should vote against the Home Rule Bill.
    Sir E. CARSON: I do think it.
    Mr. SEXTON: But I do not think it, and I do not think there is any ground or justification for the right hon. Gentleman assuming that that would be so. What did happen? The minority did rebel. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—I am not saying whether he should or should not, I am only saying he was wrong, in my opinion—led the rebellion, and his understudy, Mr. Galloper Smith, like John Gilpin, has now been rewarded with the highest honours that the King of this country can bestow upon him.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: He did not get his bath!
    Mr. SEXTON: Anyhow, the result is that, of those two gentlemen, one is elevated to the War Cabinet and the other to the Lord Chancellorship of England. The next question is:
    "Would they employ the British Army for this purpose, or would they allow the Nationalist Government to make the attempt with its own troops; or, in other words, would they encourage civil war in Ireland?"
    I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he thinks is happening in Ireland now? The British Array is employed in Ireland, not to coerce a minority, but to coerce a majority, the very antithesis of democratic Government. I know the Sinn Feiners are in a majority, but I hope it will not last. I say this without any bitter feeling against the Sinn Feiners. I do not think it will last, because I think that the men who are following the Sinn Fein policy to-day are following it because they are disgusted with political action and with the action of this House towards Ireland. It has gone farther. It has affected the loyal Irishmen in this country. I know I am speaking truly when I tell you that in my own Constituency and in my own union men with all the bitter memories I have mentioned sank them all, did not wait for Conscription, and joined the Colours when the War broke out. The old cry used to be, "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity," but that was all forgotten, when this country was in danger, by the Irish residents in England. [An Hon. Member: "And in Ireland!"] Yes, and in Ireland. [HON. Members: "No, no!"] The only thing you can throw at Ireland is that they did not agree to Conscription, but the Government had not the courage to apply Conscription. If they had applied Conscription and granted Home Rule at the same time, there would have been no objection in Ireland to taking up this country's battles as their kith and kin did in this country. Further than that, it is affecting the British trade union movement, and the whole industrial unrest today, and that is what makes me plead with the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they want to build up peace and to secure the future of this old country of ours, of which I am as proud as they are, they will recognise that, all this bitterness must be forgotten and that there is only one way to do it, and that is by an intelligent and determined interpretation of the franchise, the recognition of the true spirit of democracy. When the majority
    1712
    of a country declares for a policy, the minority, in the true spirit of democracy, must fall into line.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I rise to express my sympathy with the Resolution which has been brought forward by the hon. Members opposite. I have been all my life a member of the Unionist party, but I am free to confess I have now completely changed my opinions, and, what is more, I have the entire consent of my Constituents to speak my mind upon the Irish question. For a great many years I used to believe all the shibboleths which passed current about the Irish people. I used to believe that they were an impossible people, that they were entirely incapable of governing themselves, and that it was quite impossible ever to reconcile them. Well, I have entirely changed my views. I believe that if we cease to thwart the deeply inherited instincts of the Irish people, and we have the wisdom to throw upon them the responsibility of governing their own affairs, and allow them free leave to develop their own national individuality, there will be no more contented, happy, prosperous, and well-governed community within the British Empire. I have no desire to say anything which will hurt the feelings of any Member in this House, or to say anything disrespectful of any Member of this House, but I would, with all humility, make an appeal to those Members of the party with which I have been so long associated, and ask them if it is not possible for them to take a somewhat more sympathetic view of the aspirations of the Irish people, and particularly of the action of the constitutional movement, which I am sorry to see represented by so few Members in this House. And I am emboldened to do so by the recollection that seventy-live years ago Disraeli made in this House exactly the same appeal. I would like to read to the House what he said:
    "He could find no ground in history for the common assumption that hostility to the Irish people was a characteristic of the Tory policy. At a time like the present, when those who had been their leaders no longer lead, it was their duty to recur to the principles of their party. Believing that Ireland is governed in a manner which conduces only to the injury of both countries, I hope that the time will come when a party framed on true principles will do justice to Ireland by really penetrating into the mystery of this great misgovernment, and so to bring about a state of society which shall be advantageous to both England and Ireland, and which

    1713
    will put an end to a state of things which is the bane of England, and the opprobrium of Europe."
    I do not want to enter into the question of what, is the traditional policy of the Tory party, but I do not think it can be denied that the result of an indifference and our hostility to the constitutional movement in Ireland has been to destroy the constitutional movement, and project the Irish people into Republicanism and violent courses. Neither can it be denied that the condition of Ireland, just as it was seventy-five years ago in Disraeli's day, is still the bane of England and the opprobrium of Europe. It is more than the opprobrium of Europe. It is the opprobrium of Canada and Australia and of the United States. [Hon. Members: "No!" and "Yes!"] And, inasmuch as it is the only white nationality which has not yet been given the power of self-government, it causes us to stand in the eyes of the world convicted of the grossest hypocrisy.
    I should like also to make an appeal to the Liberal members of the Government—those Liberal Members who are such an ornament to their present Government. I do not wish to hurt the feelings of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I have reason to know his courtesy, and I have every reason to believe in his sincerity and his honesty, but I would like to ask him, with all humility, how long does he think it really possible to continue the government of Ireland upon the present lines? How long does he think it possible to continue to hold down the Irish people by an army of thousands of men, and with tanks, barbed wire, bombs, and machine-guns? It was Edmund Burke who said that it was the first duty of a statesman to consider the temper of his people, otherwise the government becomes a mere scuffle between a Minister and the multitude, in which one alternately yields or prevails in a succession of contemptible victories and scandalous submissions. I do not think there could be a more accurate description of the present system of government in Ireland. My right hon. Friend is not really and truly governing Ireland at all. He is engaged in a mere scuffle with the Irish people—a scuffle in Limerick to-day and Dublin to-morrow. One day there is a contemptible victory and another day a scandalous submission. I would submit to him that he and his Government must make a beginning some day, and that it is impossible to browbeat and to kill the
    1714
    spirit of a proud, independent people with a great history. If we are, in the words of Disraeli, to penetrate into the mystery of this great misgovernment, we cannot hide from ourselves the fact that the unhappiness and misery of the Irish people at the present time is caused by the fact that Ireland is not being governed in the interest of the majority but in the interest of the minority. I do not want to say anything at all which is distasteful to hon. Members from Ulster. I would only repeat this assurance, that neither I nor anybody else wants to coerce Ulster into a Home Rule Bill, but I would ask them this: How long do they think really and truly that the government of Ireland can be conducted in the interest not of the majority but of the minority?
    There is really no difference between the Irish question and the question of the settlement of Eastern and Central Europe. All these nationalities we have freed have subject nationalities, minorities within their own borders—Poland, the Czecho-Slovaks, and the Jugo-Slavs have all subject nationalities within their own borders. Is it really believed for a moment that we can arrive at a settlement of the Central European question if we allow these national minorities to hold up the national aspirations of the majorities? It is not possible to arrive at any peaceful solution of the Irish question if we allow the people of Ulster to hold up, retard, and thwart the aspirations of the majority of the Irish people. Again I repeat, nobody wishes to coerce the people of Ulster, but what I do submit is that England expects the people of Ulster to show some spirit of compromise. We are in a vicious circle in this matter in Ireland. Violence leads to repression, and repression leads to violence. Yet there is a way out of it, a door to be unlocked. It is the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary who sits there on the Front Bench who has the key. I would appeal to him most urgently and sincerely to put that key in the hands of the Government.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: At this late hour I must not take up unduly the time of the House, which, as I know, anxiously awaits the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. The Motion that has been brought before the House has been brought by the Labour party, and the speakers representing the Labour party have covered a great quantity of ground, much of it only remotely connected with

    1715
    the present situation in Ireland. I do not propose to follow them over that ground, but I must be allowed to say that their view of Irish history, so far as my reading can inform me, is an entirely incorrect and untrue view. It is a misrepresentation of the facts arrived at by looking at only one side of the question and greatly exaggerating that one side. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion was so little informed of the subject upon which he was instructing the House that he actually believed that the Home Rule Act now on the Statute Book is the same thing as Dominion Home Rule, and he apparently believed that it would be acceptable.
    Mr. SEXTON: I never said anything of the kind!
    Lord H. CECIL: I accept the disclaimer of the hon. Gentleman, but he said precisely what I have said. His arguments depended upon that.
    Mr. SEXTON: I am not responsible for the memory of the Noble Lord.
    Lord H. CECIL: No; probably if the hon. Member would be guided by my memory he would be more accurate. But what I say was indeed the ground of a good deal of his argument. The Home Rule Act is, in fact, an entirely different proposal from Dominion Home Rule, and all that part of his argument which went to show that his solution was that Dominion Home Rule might be adopted by enforcing the Home Rule Act falls to the ground.
    Mr. SEXTON: May I interrupt the Noble Lord? I myself would go further than the present Act. I would prefer Dominion Home Rule.
    10.0 P.M.
    Lord H. CECIL: Neither the one proposal nor the other would meet the principle laid down by the Mover of the Resolution. The argument is that you must give the Irish people all they ask. The Mover of the Resolution based his arguments on this: you must treat Ireland precisely as you would treat the Czecho-Slovaks or as the Noble Lord said. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Very well, that is independence. I quite understand the different line. Are you going to treat Ireland like Poland or like Bohemia, as a country, and going to give it absolute independence—that is the proposal—or an Irish Republic?
    1716
    Moreover, the hon. Member who seconded the Motion saw that the position was bound to arise that if you do that you cannot upon that hypothesis leave Ulster outside and force her from her allegiance to the British Crown. Therefore, you are at once faced with all the difficulties of the problem, and the hon. Members who jointly spoke for one hour and a half really shed no light whatever upon the difficult parts of the problem. They contented themselves by reciting in general terms a completely false view of Irish history, and declaiming against the present Government. That really does not assist anyone in solving the problem Let me come now to my Noble Friend (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), whose heart has steadily grown stronger than his head in recent years. He is entitled to respect for the sympathy which he feels for subject nationalities. He assured us he had changed his opinions. That is always an interesting and sometimes an attractive declaration to hear announced. But he really did not tell us why he had changed his mind. I waited to hear, on the lines of Newman's famous "Apologia," how he had developed from point to point and become a Home Ruler. Nor did he tell us exactly what his present opinions were, except they were different from his past opinions. He told us very little about them. He did not tell us whether he was in favour of independence or of Dominion Home Rule, or of the Home Rule Act, or in a sort of compromise between the three. He merely said that in general something ought to be done.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: It h the speeches of the Noble Lord that to a large extent have converted me.
    Lord H. CECIL: I am tempted to make a reference to the throwing of pearls—but that would be delibertely discourteous to my Noble Friend. I really wanted to illustrate what seemed to me the essential lesson we have to learn, and that is that the Irish problem cannot be solved merely by rhetorical phrases. There are definite conditions to which you have to conform. I do not think seriously that any one proposes that you should force the North-East of Ireland to conform to a Government which it despises. My Noble Friend says that that is happening in Eastern and Central Europe. If so, I very much regret it. I do not believe you will find a single instance either in Eastern or Cen-

    1717
    tral Europe, or anywhere, where there is a district in the country made to conform by a Government to that Government which it hates so intensely that it would be prepared to take up armed resistance to avoid it. That, after all, is a plain fact. No one who has looked into the question doubts the sincerity of the repugnance of Ulster to a Home Rule Government, and still more, to any government by an Irish Republic. I cannot help saying that the extreme reluctance of the Nationalist party of Ireland to acquiesce in the partition throws a serious reflection on the reality of their demand itself. The difficulties of national independence are not helped by the position that if you cannot emancipate the whole of their country you are not to emancipate any part. What, for example, would Cuvier and Garibaldi have thought in 1860 of the proposition that because you could not deal with Venice and Rome you were not to have any part of Italy liberated? I am trying to put the case to those with whom I am not in agreement, that in this matter Ireland resembles the position of Italy under the Government of Austria. Cuvier and Garabaldi in practice were ready to accept the liberation of certain parts of Italy, and to leave the problem of the remaining districts to be solved as opportunity offered and time permitted. Why do not the Irish Nationalists, and the Irish Sinn Feiners take a similar line? I cannot help thinking that at the bottom of their hearts, in the case of a good many of them, there is a wish to have Home Rule rejected. They wish to go on under the Union under protest. They do not wish to have a new settlement in respect of three-fourths of Ireland and then see whether afterwards by good government they can win over the dissentient part of Ireland. They do not wish to do that, but they wish to take up an irreconcilable attitude so that they may say that Great Britain has refused their demand, and so they wish to go on under the Union with a grievance.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman serious in making that statement?
    Lord H. CECIL: Yes, I am.
    An HON. MEMBER: Ulster was offered county option.
    Lord H. CECIL: There is no doubt that a large part of Ulster would be left out under a system of partition. I under-
    1718
    stand that the whole of the Sinn Fein party and all those who sat on the Convention representing Nationalist opinion repudiated partition as impossible and a thing which they would not look at. [Hon. Members: "Yes!"] I do not doubt the sincerity of hon. Members opposite or the Roman Catholic Episcopate, and there are a good many people in Ireland who are not sorry that the Home Rule Bill was wrecked.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I thought it was the minds of English bishops that the Noble Lord understood.
    Lord H. CECIL: I will not vie with the hon. Member as regards the confidence of the Irish Episcopate, because he has studied it more closely than I have. There is not the least doubt that the establishment of Home Rule in any part of Ireland has been wrecked by the obstinate opposition to partition of the Nationalists and the Sinn Fein parties. Is it possible to make any suggestion that would afford any light on the subject? My suggestion to the Government has always been that the Irish people should be asked to submit their own proposals, and for that purpose they should be given such a measure as would set up assemblies to formulate their proposals. I do not think the Convention was satisfactory from the point of view that the Sinn Feiners did not sit on it. The Convention was appointed not to formulate a scheme for Irish government but to try and find some agreement between the Ulstermen and the Nationalists, and in that respect it failed.
    I should like to see four provincial councils set up in Ireland with power to sit together if they please or to sit separately, and leave them to formulate whatever form of Irish government they like in a Bill, and not in general resolutions, which do not advance matters. They should draw up a Bill with all the difficulties worked out in regard to finance, and their form of government adjusted in all its details. That Bill could be brought here and considered by this House. Obviously, this House has to consider not only the interests of Ireland but the interests of Great Britain as well, and the House would be inclined to judge the matter not only in the light of Irish wishes but also in the light of British wishes. We should then know what the various bodies of opinion in Ireland did think, and we should have before us not general phrases

    1719
    and resolutions but a definite authoritative programme of the Irish people, the practicability of which we could judge.
    I am afraid we should first see a demand for Irish independence so far as the three Southern provinces are concerned. I think hon. Members will have to make up their minds whether they will grant independence. Personally, I think total independence less objectionable than Dominion Home Rule, and I would rather see the three Southern provinces independent than subject to a Dominion form of Parliament, which would only be the means of a new agitation with endless perturbation and no finality. But you must have something like a persistent demand. The Irish people only decided to demand independence at the last election, and before you could grant it you would have to find out whether it was really the deliberate purpose of the Irish people, and you would have to find out whether that demand had existed for a long period of time and that the Irish people really wished to have independence in the sense I have indicated.
    Irish history is entirely different from the history of Poland or Bohemia. I do not myself think that historically you can find any real claim for Ireland to be a nationality. If you study Irish History you cannot reasonably maintain Ireland as a nation, but the real truth is that history does not very much matter. We have heard a great deal about the atrocities of the past, but we have now to deal with the difficulties of the present. I quite agree that if for a period of time long enough to make it clear that it was the persistent desire of the Irish people, and if the three Southern provinces persisted in that way with a demand for an independent nation and would accept separation and part of Ireland preferred to remain under the British Government it would not be policy to resist the demand for independence, and you would gain nothing by persisting in resisting it. But that would involve a great many difficulties, and it would be a certain naval and military danger to this country. It would also be a very great hardship on all those innocent Irishmen, whether Nationalists or Unionists, who would be reluctant to choose once and for all between British and Irish allegiance.
    It would also involve a completely different trade policy in regard to Ireland, and a completely different financial policy, because we could not be expected
    1720
    to give British money to assist Irish difficulties any longer. It would involve a number of consequences which ought to be very carefully considered, and we shall gain nothing by not facing the fact that, as Irish politics now stand, there is no appearance that anything except independence would be of any use. There is no appearance even in respect of independence that the Irish people in the South-west have accepted the obvious necessity of partition. There is no appearance that the Irish people, or at any rate those of the Irish people who make their voices heard, have faced the realities of the situation, and until they have done so we cannot legislate in regard to Ireland. The first thing we should do is that we should set up assemblies which will oblige the Irish people to form their own judgment and frame a policy which we could criticise from a British point of view
    Major Sir KEITH FRASER: My only reason for speaking is that for the last four years I have been quartered in Ireland, and I have had exceptional opportunities of studying this Irish question. I have travelled over the provinces of Ulster, Munster, and Leinster, and I have come a great deal in touch with the civilian population, especially when employed on recruiting duties in the counties of Wicklow and Kildare in the winter of 1915–16. I never met anyone in Ireland who understood the Irish question, except one man, and he was an Englishman, and had only been in Ireland a week. I want to point out one or two false impressions that have been created about this Irish question, and also to make a suggestion which I hope may help in some little way to solve the present difficulty. In the first place, it is a very popular fallacy to say that they have not done well during this War. I think I am right in saying that there is no part of the United Kingdom that has sent more men in proportion to population than Ireland, except the Highlands of Scotland. We know what Ulster has done. We know how well they have served. You can hardly go, however, into a cottage in most of the villages in the provinces of Munster or Leinster without finding that someone has gone to the War, many of whom have never returned. In spite of that, they would not have Conscription in Ireland. I well understand that. It was due to the mismanagement of the then Government. They did not

    1721
    introduce the Derby scheme in Ireland at the time that it was in operation in England, and Conscription became a party question there. The Unionist party wanted Conscription, and because they wanted it the Nationalists said that they would not have it. Nevertheless the Nationalists and Unionists both joined up equally well. I am very optimistic about the Irish question. This Sinn Fein movement is not half as bad as we think it. There is not one man in a hundred in Ireland who would have an Irish Republic, and Ireland as foreign to this country as Spain. They know that there would be chaos, civil war, unemployment, starvation, and ruin. That, however, does not influence them; it is their loyalty to the British Empire which prevents Irishmen from wishing for a Republic. I do not for a moment think that they want a Republic. They have such a grip on this Empire for which they have fought so well. It is a question of sentiment with them. The Irish are among the most loyal people in the Empire. It is a strange thing to say, but it is a fact: The growth of the Sinn Fein movement is the natural outcome of the sequence of events. If those events had occurred in any country in the world, the same result would have followed. In most of the constituencies in Ireland the same party have been in power for the best part of a hundred years. Fancy that happening in this country. If a Roman Catholic in Ireland was not satisfied with the local authority he could not vote Unionist. There was only one party in the south of Ireland. Is it to be wondered at that after this long time the Irish are getting fed up with their Members. If a man did not happen to belong to a particular clique in his parish then goodbye to his ever getting a soft job. That was the foundation of Sinn Fein. It was born in corruption. It started at the time of Larkin before the War, and they worked it very cleverly. They worked as trade unionists. They got a certain number of members to join throughout Ireland. It was a trade union movement.
    Then came what the Government of the day called the Irish Rebellion. It was the Liberty Hall crowd who were responsible for that; a crowd consisting of about 3,000 boys. Remember there were very few troops in Ireland at the time, and had it really been a rebellion spreading over
    1722
    the whole of Ireland it would have gone bard with them. But, as I say, it was the Liberty Hall crowd in Dublin who were responsible. What happened? The Government came along and almost promised Home Rule and thereupon the bulk of the Nationalists declared "these Sinn Feiners are splendid fellows. They have got us Home Rule." They promptly joined the organisation. And the Sinn Feiners, having thus been established by the Government of the day, proceeded to play their cards well. They organised on trade union lines all over the country. They put up the wages of the agricultural labourers by something like 100 per cent., and, indeed, they put up wages all round. They thoroughly organised that question, and if the Government had followed their example things might have been different. Can one be surprised that when the election came a few months later, in December, Irishmen voted Sinn Fein? In so doing, they thought they were voting for higher wages. They were not voting for Germans. They were not disloyal. They were as loyal as any men to be found in this country. It was purely local matters in Ireland which actuated thorn, and I have the greatest confidence that by the use of proper diplomacy we could still secure peace and prosperity for Ireland. I have spoken longer than I intended. I want to make one suggestion. I make, it seriously. I give it for what it is worth. We have hoard a good deal lately about Devolution. There have been alterations in our methods of legislation in this House. Grand Committees are sitting upstairs. Why not have a Grand Committee of Irishmen to deal with Irish Bills in Dublin before they come to this House? Let Irish Members get together, with power to add to their number, choosing their own president, and dealing with these Bills, drafting, discussing, and amending them, then sending them to this House, which would act as a safeguard for the Ulster people. If these matters were dealt with in Ireland, it would do much to allay the feeling against this House, because they would feel they were dealing with their own interests. If there is going to be Devolution for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, it will not be a success unless this House acts as a sort of Second Chamber in command of them all. I make this suggestion for what it is worth. I believe the Irish to be a loyal race, loyal to their King, to their country, and to the Empire, and if ever

    1723
    they have an opportunity they will show it, as the majority of them have shown it during this War.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I did not intend to take part in this Debate, because I thought it was about time that Englishmen should have a chance of saying something about Ireland. I should not have risen had it not been for the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). I would like to get into the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson). I would like to know what he thought of this Debate?
    Sir E. CARSON: I think it was a very poor one.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: That is exactly what I thought. I am perfectly sure that my hon. Friends from Ulster have only to hear a number of English Debates on Ireland to be perfectly convinced that the best place to get the affairs of Ireland dealt with would be on the floor of an Irish Parliament. I turn to the speech of the Noble Lord. He always reminds me of the famous passage in Carlyle where he describes the visit of the women of Paris to Versailles, when those wretched creatures cried out for "Bread, bread, bread!" Such little respect had these wretched creatures, says Carlyle, in his sardonic style, for Parliament. The Noble Lord can always treat us to bursts of Parliamentary eloquence which have as little relevance to the realities as if we were discussing the politics of the planet Mars. Tonight he committed himself to two extraordinary statements. He says—I am paraphrasing his academic language—that Ireland pretends to be in favour of Home Rule, but that is only Ireland's way; that she really does not want Home Rule; that she is like the hysterical and misunderstood wife. It is a case of the tyranny of tears. Since 1800, from the hour the Irish Parliament was destroyed to this hour, Ireland, by every means, by rebellion, by constitutional agitation, by Parliamentary elections, has declared that she wants the government of her country by herself, and that, according to the academics of the Noble Lord, in his burst of Parliamentary eloquence, is all play acting. I assure him that we are built on more robust lines than is believed in the somewhat ethereal atmosphere of Oxford, and its dons in the practical affairs of life. Then he comes forward with a practical proposal. I
    1724
    should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) thought of that. The Noble Lord has become a revolutionary—aSinn Feiner. A poor moderate old Constitutionalist like myself must hide my head in shame since the Noble Lord has formed an alliance with Mr. de Valera and the Sinn Fein party. He now declares that all that is necessary for Ireland to get a Republic are two things. He says, "They have declared in favour of a Republic, but they have only done it at one election. Let them do it at two or three, then we shall begin to know their demands and, of course, we shall consider them, but on one condition. We are quite willing to give Ireland a Republic if she declares for it, not in one, but in two or three or four elections, and if she allows a portion of Ulster to be excluded." Is that the programme of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson)? Will he support an Irish Republic if Ulster be left out of it? These are the stupid futilities with which in a grave moment of national danger the Member for a learned university thinks it right to amuse and to insult the intelligence of the House of Commons.
    We are face to face with most serious things. What is the state of opinion in Ireland? I asked a question of the Chief Secretary two days ago. Most extraordinary incidents have been happening in many respects in Ireland lately. There was a reception of some delegates from America, men of great repute and high position, at the Mansion House. There was a meeting between them and members of the Sinn Fein party. Just after they had gone away, to return later in the evening—at seven o'clock, I believe—all the thoroughfares to the Mansion House were occupied by soldiers and police. The soldiers came there as if they were facing the German Army—armoured cars, all the modern appliances of war, fixed bayonets—and some of the police entered the Mansion House. The streets were empty up to that time. When they saw this large body of soldiers and police talking together, a great deal of excitement and curiosity was excited. People began to gather to the thoroughfares leading to the Mansion House. There was serious danger of riot and collision, and perhaps severe bloodshed. When the delegates from America came back at seven o'clock they found themselves faced by this cordon of soldiers and police. A nice portrait for them to take back to America of the

    1725
    manner in which Ireland is governed! The Commissioner of Police, I believe, offered the delegates the right to enter the Mansion House if they would go alone. They very properly refused, and said they would not go unless accompanied by their friends. Eventually they and their friends were allowed to enter, and the soldiers and police disappeared. On that night, if the Government had an intention of provoking riot leading to bloodshed, they could not have adopted better methods of doing so. Supposing bloodshed had taken place. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman had any idea of provoking riot. There is a certain place the road to which is paved with good intentions, and I am sure his intentions were good. I do not know who his advisers were, but the man who ordered soldiers and police there, in the excited state of Dublin, and on the occasion of the reception of these gentlemen, ran the risk of provoking bloodshed the result of which would have rang all over the world and would have brought more shame upon this country and upon its administration in Ireland. The excuse given was that there was a man there against whom there was a warrant, and that he had presented a revolver at a policeman. The man was disarmed, according to the right hon. Gentleman, by the Sinn Fein volunteers themselves. To order the arrest of one man in the Mansion House, which was full of police, while the thoroughfares were full of soldiers and an excited crowd was almost sufficient to bring the crowd into collision with the police. There is another feature. In times like these rumour is very busy, and there is all sorts of exaggeration. There were a number of American soldiers in the crowd and the report went round that the delegates from America had been imprisoned in the Mansion House. That was quite untrue, but such a report was quite enough to excite the feelings of the American soldiers, many of whom declared that if their fellow countrymen were detained in the Mansion House they would go in and rescue them in spite of the soldiers and police. A nice picture! I hear some interruption from hon. Members. I do not know what it means. Do hon. Members think I would not regard that as a most deplorable occurrence? What would have been the feeling in America, where we have not all friends, if these American soldiers had got into collision with the British soldiers and the
    1726
    Irish police and bloody riot had occurred? More reckless conduct I do not think any Chief Secretary could be guilty of.
    Make up your minds—it is one thing or the other—whether it is to be self-government in Ireland or militarism in Ireland. If it is to be militarism in Ireland, say so. [An Hon. Member: "If it is, it will be revolution here!"] If it is to be militarism in Ireland, say so and then withdraw your pretence at the Peace Conference, and describe yourselves to the world as Pharisees and hypocrites in demanding liberty for other nations while you refuse it to our nation. I appeal to all Members of this House to rise to the reality of the perils by which we are surrounded. The situation in Ireland, according to my information, is most dangerous. I hope that my apprehensions will not be realised, but every day, every hour that the present system continues is full of danger to Ireland, to England, and to all these hopes of good feeling between America and England with which our hearts were filled when we won our victory a few months ago.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Macpherson.
    Mr. DONALD: I rise to a point of Order. There has been a discussion on the present condition of Ireland, and not a solitary representative from Ireland has spoken yet.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Macpherson.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I need hardly tell the House that I agree with the abstract liberty all over the world which has been adumbrated in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I do not think that that particular point of view is in question. I have been by conviction a lifelong Home Ruler, and I have never at any moment, even since I took up my present office, receded from that position. But there is a primary duty laid upon anyone who accepts the office which I have accepted. It is a primary duty, which has been asserted by every Liberal Government that I have ever known, that wherever the law is broken, whether in Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom, the law must be maintained. [An Hon. Member: "Ulster!"] I was really astonished to find that in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment there was scarcely a word about the condition of Ireland to-day. The whole Debate is a trumped-up affair.

    1727
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] It was—[An HON. MEMBER: "Your Home Rule Bill was a fraud!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Chief Secretary has only about a quarter of an hour in which to speak. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion occupied an hour and a half. Surely hon. Members will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making his statement.
    Mr. WATERSON: On a point of Order. Is it Parliamentary to refer to the Debate as being "a trumped-up affair"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly. It is not an unparliamentary expression.
    An HON. MEMBER: It is a provocative expression.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I did not interrupt the speeches of any of those who preceded me, and I have been left with hardly a quarter of an hour in which to deal with the action of His Majesty's Government at present in Ireland. I came here to meet a case. That case has not been presented. That is one of the reasons I made the remark. I came here to hear some suggestions from hon. Members in any part of the House of assistance in any attempt which the Government might make to provide a helpful solution of this ever-present Irish problem. There has been no attempt on the part of either the Mover or the Seconder of this Amendment to give any reasoned explanation as to how they would proceed to solve the Irish question. All that I have listened to was a series of outrages, and not a single one of them in my judgment has been substantiated either in substance or in fact. The first outrage that was mentioned was the outrage which was enlarged upon by my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. O'Connor). He attempted to picture to the House the extraordinary effect all this would have in America so far as the Irish delegates are concerned. His Majesty's Government dealt with enormous patience with those delegates in Ireland.
    Mr. DONALD: They should never have been there.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: What was the outraged? In the midst of the morning two police-constables were standing in front of the Mansion House, to arrest, if need be, two or three men who were fugitives from justice. The charge against them was
    1728
    cruelly inciting men to murder the police. One of the constables very gallantly approached those men, to arrest them, and one of the men whipped out a revolver. That was a felonious act, an attempt against a humble member of His Majesty's Forces, and the moment I heard that act was committed I unhesitatingly came to the conclusion that, Mansion House or no Mansion House, if that man were there he should be arrested.
    Mr. D. IRVING: Twenty years of resolute government.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Member not to interrupt. He must be prepared to listen to the other side sometimes.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: We heard of the other outrage and the charge as to Tipperary. The charge was, in this case, the abduction—the word used was the "arrest"—of two small boys. What are the facts? We know the facts were these. Two boys, who might or might not have been able to give evidence, were taken into the care of the police, in order to preserve them from the menacing attitude of the Sinn Feiners of that district. When the hon. Gentleman recited some statement of the case he forgot to mention the explanation of the boys as to their treatment. They were kindly treated by the police, and the moment that their fathers and mothers requested the police to hand them over, and they were assured there was no further danger, those boys were sent to their homes. I am not going to recite once again the proclamation of the Sinn Feiners of that particular district. It is a well-known fact that they had made up their minds to shoot or kill anybody who would give any information to the police about two or three dastardly murders. So bitter is the feeling at the present moment in that part of Ireland that no man's life is safe who endeavours to come forward to help the Government to maintain law and order and preserve the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens. It has gone to this miserable extent that the two white crosses that were placed at the grave of those two policemen who were murdered have been taken away in the dead of night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] What has happened since then in that particular area? Hon. Members who speak from the opposite side of the House seem to think that there is no reality in the difficulties and dangers of Irish govern-

    1729
    ment at the present time from Sinn Fein and its attempts at assassination and intimidation. What happened to-day? A Sinn Fein prisoner was being taken from Thurles Gaol to Cork Gaol, when armed men attacked the train. They killed one constable, another is wounded; nothing has been heard of a third, and the other is in one of the barracks, and the prisoner has been rescued. And we are asked to-day that the Irish Government should stand aside and do nothing when innocent men who are doing their duty on behalf of the Crown are being massacred and murdered wholesale in every direction.
    The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution drew a picture of Limerick as a place, quiet in itself, but which, by the action of the military, was made a military base, with machine-guns and so on. What for? The hon. Gentleman forgot, and so did his colleague, to express a single word of sympathy with the relatives of the murdered policemen. Not a word. Limerick was made a military area because of the brutal and dastardly murders of men who were performing their duty, and not a single word came from the Labour Members of this House of sympathy with these men.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: My point was that whatever was done in that way in this country would not have involved making the place a military area. If a man had committed a murder he would be hung, and the place not put under military rule.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Everyone in Ireland knows perfectly well what happened. They are not the same law-abiding body of citizens in that district in Ireland as they are in the district of Wales which the hon. Member represents. [Hon Members: "Why?" and "Thanks to you."] That is for them to explain. I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's two friends to find out what was the explanation. I have never been able to get any explanation of any sort or kind. The reason we placed Limerick under the military was because the Sinn Feiners and certain irresponsible members of the Labour party were attempting to curb the rights of law-abiding citizens in that city by proclaiming a strike, not for any legal reason—after all, a strike is a legal weapon—not to increase the wages of the workers or to obtain better hours, but simply to resist as an act of open defiance the lawful decrees of His Majesty's Government. I am perfectly, certain that
    1730
    the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution would be the first to deny the right of anybody to effect a strike for that reason, and I am quite convinced of this that, as a law-abiding citizen, my hon. Friend would be the first to realise that on this occasion the Government were justified in safeguarding the rights of the law-abiding citizens. The hon. Gentleman devoted almost the whole of his speech to reminiscences, and the only thing I could find in it of modern application at all was that he remembered the day when the folly of the physical force movement was in existence. That is exactly what we are saying to-day. The physical force movement in Ireland at the present day is the entire folly of the whole Irish policy.
    Mr. SEXTON: For which you are responsible.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I am not responsible more than anyone else. But when the hon. Gentleman was asked what he meant by any specific, by Dominion Home Rule or any Home Rule proposition which he and his party could place before the country, all he could say was that he left it to the experts. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution, and his Seconder, both said that they would have nothing whatever to do with an independent Irish Republic. But at the present time the one party in Ireland of any force or significance is the very party which demands, in their literature, in their. Press and on the platform, an independent Irish Republic, separate entirely from the British population, having a Republican president of its own, and without any connection, material or otherwise, with the British Empire. My hon. Friend who seconded the Resolution has, I know, done magnificent work during the War. I am perfectly certain that he would not ask us at the present moment to give Home Rule to those who claim to be in a position to determine the future of Ireland.
    Mr. SEXTON: I would not!
    Mr. MACPHERSON: He says so. We are not going to bargain with Sinn Fein because they have defied us. This is what they say:
    "Membership shall be open to adults of Irish birth or parentage, irrespective of sex, class or creed, who accept the constitution of Sinn Fein, save that no member of the British armed forces nor pensioner thereof, nor any person who has taken the oath of allegiance to the British Government, shall be eligible."

    1731
    And they go on to say that it must be entirely independent and have nothing to do with British legislation or the British Crown.
    Mr. SEXTON: I do not agree with that.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad to hear that. What would the hon. Member suggest, then, if he were in my place?
    Mr. SEXTON: The Home Rule Act is now on the Statute Book.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am an anxious inquirer, and I have been trying to find a solution myself. Can I bargain now with the approval of the Labour party with Sinn Fein? Will the Labour party, as a party, ask me, as a representative of the Government in this House, to bargain with a set of revolutionaries who are determined to have nothing to do with the British Empire in any shape or form? [Hon. Members: "No!"] That is the problem I am up against. It is all very well for hon. Members to come forward, utter pious reminiscences of days that have long since gone by, and never attempt to deal with the actual and vivid realities of life in Ireland as it is to-day. It is all very well to criticise the Government. The Government, believe me, is only too anxious to find a solution of the Irish problem. There is not a single Member of this House, to whatever party he belongs, who is not anxious to heal this sore of the body politic in Ireland, but to come forward now and to ascribe to the present Irish Government all the grievances which Ireland has at the present moment is to me an extraordinary fact. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Resolution said he would be no party to any economic separation from the United Kingdom, and that is of great significance. How does that tally with the record of brutality and murder that was given to us in the earlier part of his speech? Here is, in my judgment, a direct contradiction. The fact is that Ireland is more prosperous at the present time than any country in the world. I assert that without fear of any contradiction at all. Ireland is a contented country except for the rebellious acts of revolutionaries, which are now growing steadily. Every one of us at the present time is anxious for the revival of constitutionalism. All I can say is that unless constitutionalism is revived, we can have no parley with Sinn Fein, which endeavours to destroy
    1732
    our Empire, a thing which right-minded citizens of this great kingdom will never tolerate.
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I should like to say a word of congratulation to the Chief Secretary for his courageous speech. When the House saw on the Order Paper that we were going to have an Irish Debate, it was generally expected that we should hear something of the extraordinary happenings in Ireland owing to the action of the Prime Minister during the last few days. The Chief Secretary deserves the sympathy of this House in the difficulty in which he has been placed by the very unfortunate action of the Prime Minister in having given facilities to these American delegates to go over to Ireland and stir up rebellion and discontent.
    Mr. ADAMSON Mr. ADAMSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Sinn Fein in Ireland was dying down, and by this ill-advised action the Government have done very much to revive it. It is an extraordinarily unfortunate position for the Chief Secretary to find that the careful work which he has been doing—
    Mr. ADAMSON Mr. ADAMSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: During the weeks he has been in office Ireland has been entirely—
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

    ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) [MONEY].
    Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the Supply of Electricity; and of authorising the Treasury to borrow money for these purposes by means of Exchequer Bonds—(Kind's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
    Adjourned at One minute after Eleven o'clock.