Commons Sitting of 18 November 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the district of the Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board and to Warrington," presented by Dr. ADDISON.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193 a be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

SAVINGS BANKS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "containing the following Tables:

(I.) Table, arranged according to counties, showing for each Post Office Savings Bank in Ireland remaining open on the 31st day of December, 1918 (1) the number of accounts of depositors therein; and (2) the total amount, inclusive of interest, standing to the credit of those accounts on the 31st day of December of the years 1912 and 1918, respectively, with a summary showing the like particulars for each county and for all Ireland;

(II.) Table, arranged according to counties, showing for each Trustee Savings Bank in Ireland remaining open on the 20th. day of November, 1918 (1) the number of accounts of depositors therein; and (2) the total amount, inclusive of interest, standing to the credit of those accounts on the 20th day of November of the years 1912 and 1918, respectively, with a summary showing the like particulars for each county and for all Ireland;

334

(III.) Table for each county and for all Ireland showing (1) the number of depositors' accounts and the total amount of deposits in Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks combined on the dates given in Tables I. and II. in the years 1912 and 1918, respectively; (2) the percentage by which the total deposits so arrived at for 1918 exceeded their total for 1912; (3) the percentage by which the total rental dealt with under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts in the period from the 22nd day of August, 1912, to the 31st day of March, 1918, has been reduced for a first statutory term;

(IV.) Table showing the total amount of the deposits and private balances (exclusive of Government deposits and London accounts) in the Joint Stock Banks in Ireland on the 30th day of June in the years 1912 and 1918, respectively, and the percentage by which such deposits and balances on the 30th day of June, 1918, exceeded their amount on the 30th day of June, 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 272, of Session 1913)."— [Mr. Archdale.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    AFGHANISTAN (NEGOTIATIONS WITH BOLSHEVISTS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any further information regarding the state of affairs in Afghanistan and the negotiations now being carried on between the Afghan Government and the Bolshevik authorities in Moscow; and whether any Afghan forces are now in occupation of territory in the tribal area on the British side of the North-West Frontier of India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. An Afghan colonel who with a few Irregulars penetrated into Wana, in Waziristan, during the hostilities with Afghanistan, is understood to be practically detained with his men as hostages by the tribesmen owing to their dissatisfaction with the Afghans for making peace without obtaining an amnesty for them.
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any news of the negotiations in Moscow between the Afghans and the Bolshevists?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid I am not in a position to give any information at present, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would put a question down on another day.

    CIVIL SERVICE (PROPORTIONATE PENSIONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the recommendations of the Government of India on the subject of the proportionate pensions to be granted to the Civil Service in India in the event of the Government of India Bill becoming law have yet been received; if so, will he state what those proportionate pensions are to be, so as to enable both the Government of India and the officials concerned to make their arrangements in time; and, if not yet received, will he call for them to be submitted at once?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend possibly has in mind the remarks of the Government of India published in Parliamentary Paper Cmd. 123, in which, however, they expressly say that they do not propose to make any general offer of proportionate pensions. I can add nothing to the answer given to him on the 2nd July.

    OFFICERS' WAR GHATUITIES.
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the war gratuity is now being paid to officers in India at the rate of 1s. l0d. to the rupee; whether those gratuities were mainly earned when the rupee was at 1s. 4d. or at 1s. 6d.; and whether, seeing that officers have been penalised because in many cases the authorities have been very late in paying their gratuities, and in many cases have note even paid them yet, he will take action in the matter?
    Colonel YATEasked on what grounds the war bonus and gratuities due to British officers of the Army in India are paid at the current rate of exchange while the bonus and gratuities due to the non-commissioned officers and men are paid at the fixed rate of 1s. 4d. to the rupee; and, considering that a soldier is a Soldier whether he be officer or man, if he will direct all war bonuses and gratuities to be paid in India at the fixed rate of 1s. 4d?
    Mr. MONTAGU: After communicating with the Government of India, I have decided that the payments of war gratuity to the officers shall be readjusted at 1s. 4d. to the rupee. The ruling does not apply to the Army of Occupation bonus.

    CIVIL SERVICES (LEAVE, PAY AND PENSIONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of India if he has yet come to any decision regarding the leave, pension, and pay of the Indian Civil Services?
    Mr. MONTAGU: New rates of pay for the Imperial branch of the Indian Police, the Public Works Department, and the Forest Service have been sanctioned. The improvement of the general civil pensions and the Indian Civil Service annuities have also been settled.
    As regards Indian Civil Service annuities, I have approved the retention of the present uniform rate of £1,000, but the annuity deductions will, with effect from 1st April last, be founded for the benefit of the officer. I have also approved certain improvements in the scale of invalid annuities.
    In regard to the pensions of the ordinary Civil Services other than the Indian Civil Service, I have accepted proposals under which officers concerned will be eligible on certain conditions for retirement after twenty-five years' service on a pension of Rs.3,000. rising by Rs.200 per annum for each additional year of service up to Rs.6,000 for thirty years. Additional pensions may be earned in certain high appointments up to a maximum of Rs. 1,500 for five years' service in some and Rs.2,500 in others. These benefits will be applicable to officers who retired on or after 23rd July, 1913, but arrears will be admissible only from 1st April, 1919.
    Considerable progress has been made towards a decision on questions of leave and the pay of the other services, and I hope that a definite announcement will be made very soon.
    Colonel YATE: Does that mean that members of the Indian Civil Service will not be able to retire till they have completed their twenty-five years' service?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There is no alteration in the term of retirement. The only difference with regard to the Indian Civil Service is that their contributions to-

    337
    wards their annuity will be funded to provide them with an extra annuity over and above the £l,000.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of giving time pensions up to twenty-five years' service Why is it necessary that a man must remain for twenty-five years' service or else go off with no pension whatever?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think I can ask my Council to reconsider the question again. This is the outcome of careful consideration of the proposals made by the Public Services Commission in 1915.
    Colonel YATE: Do not present circumstances necessitate a further reconsideration of this matter?

    PUNJAB RIOTS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India how the Punjab Inquiry Commission is supposed to deal with the cases of those prisoners tried in batches by Summary Courts when no evidence favourable to accused was recorded?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have every confidence that sufficient evidence will be forthcoming to enable the Committee to discharge satisfactorily the task they have undertaken, which is to investigate the recent disturbances, their causes, and the measures taken to cope with them.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand from that that they are not going to reconsider the sentences passed upon the various offenders?
    Mr. MONTAGU: They are not a body for the revision of particular sentences. As my hon. and gallant Friend is probably aware, the sentences which he has in mind are being, and I think have been, completely reviewed by a special tribunal appointed, consisting of one European and one Indian judge.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: They have only dealt with them, as I understand, in the way of reduction of sentences, and have not considered the justification of the condemnations themselves?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is not proposed to do anything further in the revision of sentences unless that is recommended by Lord Hunter's Committee, but that Committee would not in itself revise them.
    Colonel YATE: Will the Committee revising these sentences be empowered to increase the sentences as well as to decrease them?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think I had better refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the speech made by the Home Member in the Viceroy's Legislative Council, but I have not yet heard any suggestion that the sentences passed in the Punjab were not sufficiently severe.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is distinctly understood then that Lord Hunter's Committee can recommend that these sentences be reviewed entirely?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Oh, yes.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary for India whether he is aware that the Punjab methods of dealing with political suspects are causing racial hate in India; and what steps he proposes to take to cause a change of method in the Punjab?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I really do not know what is in my hon. and gallant Friend's mind. If he has any definite charge to make, I will attend to it; or any proposal to make I will consider it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I suppose he is aware that racial hate has been caused by the. operations in the, Punjab, but would it not be desirable to support the Governor in his measures for alleviating the situation in the Punjab against the Simla Government which is pressing on the old system of Sir Michael O'Dwyer?
    Mr. MONTAGU: This is the first indication I have had from any source whatsoever that there is any difference of opinion between the Government of the Punjab and the Government of India. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any information which I do not possess, perhaps he will let mo have it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to make inquiries from Sir Edward Mac-lagan on this point, because it is of vital importance that the Governor of the Punjab, who is in touch with the conditions there, should have the freest possible hand in dealing with this problem?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. and gallant Member is aware that a Committee is-sitting to inquire into these matters, and I

    339
    do not propose to interfere with the discretion and the responsibilities of the Government of India.
    Colonel YATE: Is it not a fact that this racial hatred is entirely due to the action of the agitators in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not propose to express any opinion, and I hope the House will not express any opinion, upon matters which are now, at this moment, being investigated by a Committee appointed for the purpose.

    KURDISTAN (MURDER OF BRITISH OFFICERS).
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India whether the recent murder of the British political officer at Mosul and another British officer by a band of Kurds was a sporadic outbreak, or whether it was part of a general rising in Eastern Kurdistan; whether reinforcements have been pushed up into Kurdistan; and whether he can make a general statement as to the situation in Kurdistan?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. An, official announcement regarding this regrettable incident appeared in the Press this morning. The disturbance appears to have been a purely local one, and, while there are no signs at present of its spreading, the local authorities are taking the necessary steps to meet any situation which may arise.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Could my right hon. Friend inform me whether in future any question about Mesopotamia should be addressed to the India Office or the War Office? Is the War Office in authority or the India Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: There may be questions which are appropriate to the War Office and others which are appropriate to the India Office. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down his questions either to me or to my right hon. Friend he is sure to get an answer.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When may we have some expression of policy, either from the War Office or the India Office or others concerned, on this -question of Kurdistan and of our commitments there?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the Secretary of State for War replied to a similar question yesterday.

    BURMA RICE HARVEST.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to his statement that it is hoped it may be found possible shortly to dispense with Government control of rice in Burma, whether he is aware that Mr. Mant, Revenue member of the Indian Government, has stated in the Viceregal Legislature that control will probably be maintained until the next harvest is available; whether, if control is maintained, he will direct that, besides the maximum price fixed by the Government, the Government will also fix a minimum price for purchases from the cultivators, such minimum price to cover cost of production, and prevent the exploitation of native cultivators; and whether he will also direct that the maximum price be fixed by the Government after consultation with the representatives of the cultivators?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am aware of the statement made by Mr. Mant. The Burma rice harvest is gathered during November, December, and January. If it should prove necessary to control the new crop, the hon. Member's suggestions will be considered,

  ROYAL NAVY.

    H.M.S. "HOOD" (COST).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the total cost of the "Hood"; and what sum hat been paid to contractors for breaking the contract for the building of similar ships?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The estimated finished cost of the "Hood," excluding guns, ammunition, and stores, is £5,025,000. Nothing has been paid to contractors for breaking the contract for the building of similar ships.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total cost of the "Hood," including guns?
    Mr. LONG: I cannot say that, of course, without notice.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I have asked for it.

    NAVAL DEFENCE IN PACIFIC (LORD JELLICOE'S REPORT).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Lord Jellicoe's Report upon the question of naval defence in the Pacific will be circulated to the Members of the House of Commons at an early date?
    Mr. LONG: The Report in question is addressed to the Commonwealth Government, and not to the Admiralty. It will certainly not be possible to publish the whole of the Report, as it necessarily contains references to strategic considerations which cannot be disclosed. I will ascertain, however, what portions of it, If any, the Commonwealth Government are publishing, in order that similar information may be given to this House.

    OFFICERS' UNIFORM.
    Viscount CURZONasked whether the Admiralty have come to any final decision with reference to the uniform to be worn by officers of the Royal Navy; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to dispense with full dress?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Full dress need not be provided until further orders, except by officers attending His Majesty's Levees at home. On all other occasions of ceremony for which full dress was prescribed, frock coat with epaulettes will be worn in lieu for the present.
    The undress tail coat is no longer a compulsory article of uniform, the mess jacket with epaulettes being worn in lieu.
    Other alterations have been made in matters of detail with a view to simplifying the uniform and reducing the cost involved in changes of rank.
    Orders regarding the approved changes generally have been issued, and officers are required to provide themselves with all types of uniform, as now approved, by 1st February, 1920.

    ATLANTIC FLEET.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many capital ships compose the Atlantic Fleet; and how many Flag officers are employed in that force?
    Mr. LONG: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is fourteen; and to the second part, six.

    "KIL" BOATS AND MOTOR LAUNCHES.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total cost to the nation of the sixty odd vessels of the "Kil" type lying in Southampton Water, and what he proposes to do with them; and whether he can state the total cost to the nation of the 500, or thereabouts, M.L. motor launches lying in the Hamble River, and what he proposes to do with them?
    Mr. LONG: In regard to the first part of the question, the cost of each of this class was approximately £42,600, exclusive of guns. There are now fifty-two "Kil" boats in Southampton Water, and, as stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Kingston-upon-Hull on Wednesday last, proposals are under consideration for utilising such of these boats as are surplus to naval requirements for commercial purposes. With regard to motor launches, the approximate cost of each boat is £8,000, exclusive of guns; and, as stated in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Dorset on the 27th October last, some 100 boats of this class have already been sold, and arrangements are actively proceeding for the disposal of such of the remainder as are not required for naval purposes.
    Mr. HOUSTON:Will the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to greater accuracy, have these vessels recounted; is he aware that they were of very little use during the War, and that they entail a very serious loss to the nation; and can he state whether the £8,000 for these motor boats was the price paid for them in America, to which has to be added the cost of transport and alterations on this side?
    Mr. LONG: In answer to my hon. Friend's further statements, some of the information obviously I must obtain, but I have -no reason to doubt that my figures are correct. As to whether these vessels were of any use during the War, I do not know whether the reference is to the first or the second part of the question.
    Mr. HOUSTON: The second part.
    Mr. LONG: I think that is a statement which requires to be qualified It is quite possible that my hon. Friend may have counted these boats and arrived at a different conclusion from that to which I

    343
    have arrived. It is just possible the explanation is that they have been counted on different days.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman count them himself, as I did last Saturday?
    Mr. LONG: No, Sir; I have a great deal more important work to do.

    DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if the scale of disablement pensions which came into force in September, 1919, applies to the Army and Air Force only, or does it also apply to the equivalent ratings in the Navy and Marines; and, if the scale is not applicable to the Navy and Marines, how are the disablement pensions assessed in their case?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. The total disablement rate of pension for seamen and Marines has been increased from 27s. 6d. and bonus to 40s., as in the case of soldiers and airmen of private's rank. I would remind the hon. Member that the Order in Council regulating the disablement pensions of seamen and Marines does not provide a scale of pension according to rank, but authorises certain additions for length of service, good conduct badges, etc., as specified in Regulation 1 (4). The increase in the rate of disablement pensions does not affect these additions.

    OIL CRAFT.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many oil tankers the Admiralty now have for disposal; how it is proposed that they should be disposed of; and is it intended to retain or build any such ships for use with the Fleet in future?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Six oil craft employed with the Fleet are now available for disposal, and six oversea tankers will be available after March next.
    As regards the mode of disposal, oil tankers will be placed in the hands of the Shipping Controller, and oil barges in the hands of the Small Craft Disposal Board of the Ministry of Munitions.
    The Admiralty will require oil craft for attendance on the Fleet, and will retain
    344
    oversea tankers for replenishment of stocks. There is no necessity, and, therefore, no intention, at present to build oil craft of any kind for the use of the Fleet.

    MESSING ARRANGEMENTS, DEVONPORT.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is. aware that dissatisfaction still exists at Devonport in relation to the messing arrangements for those employed in the Navy; that they are not equal in suitability to the arrangements which exist at Chatham and Portsmouth; whether in this connection engine-room artificers at Devonport have cause to complain of the arrangements made for them; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the messing accommodation at the Royal Naval Barracks, Devonport. If so, a report shall be forthwith obtained. If that is not the accommodation he has in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH NAVAL CASUALTIES.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what have been the casualties to date, in men and material, suffered by the Royal Navy in operations against the Russo-German forces under Colonel Bermondt, General von Eberhardt, and other successors of General von der Goltz, as distinct from casualties suffered in operations against the Soviet forces; whether he is aware that Colonel Bermondt claims to be acting for Admiral Koltchak; whether the clearest-possible instructions have been given to our naval officers in the Baltic in view of the extreme delicacy and difficulty of their position; and whether ships going to or sailing from German ports in the Baltic are being stopped or only those attempting to trade with Soviet ports?
    Mr. LONG: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is one officer wounded, nine men killed, and four wounded. Small material damage has been sustained to the upper deck of one of our light cruisers, details of which, however, have not yet been received.
    The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative; but Colonel Bermondt has been repudiated by General Yudenitch, who has declared him a traitor.

    345
    The reply to the third part of the question is in the affirmative.
    As regards the last part of the question, all German vessels trading in the Baltic, whether in neutral interests or not, are stopped unless they have obtained permission previously from the Allied Armistice Commission.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether these men were killed and wounded by German or Russian artillery?
    Mr. LONG: I cannot answer for the particular gun from which the shell came. They wore killed in action like other men doing their duty, and died most gallantly.
    Mr. JAMES BROWNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of ships have been lost since the Armistice in operations in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and at Archangel and Murmansk?
    Mr. LONG: The information asked foils as follows:
    In the Baltic Sea—

    One Light Cruiser.

    Two Destroyers.

    Two Mine-sweepers.

    One Submarine, and

    Three Coastal Motor Boats.

    No ships have been lost since the Armistice in operations in the Black Sea.
    At Archangel and Murmansk—

    Two Mine-sweepers, and

    Two Monitors.

    GENERAL DENIKIN AND COLONEL BERMONDT.
    Mr. SWANasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether General Denikin has formally repudiated all acquiescence in Colonel Bermondt's attack on Latvia; and whether Colonel Bermondt is in constant wireless communication with General Denikin?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I have no information on either subject.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman observed the statement in the Continental Press that Colonel Bermondt is acting in close conjunction with our enemies, and may we have some statement of the facts of the case—denial or otherwise?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH:I do not feel called upon to take notice of everything of the kind that appears in the Press.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Colonel Bermondt was formerly acting as a subordinate to General Denikin, K.C.B.; and whether he has official knowledge that he is still in relations with that general?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Colonel Bermondt has, so far as I am aware, never been under the orders of General Denikin. The answer to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to communicate with General Denikin and find out whether he is in communication with Colonel Bermondt, seeing that the Latter is a commander of troops fighting against our friends?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is not the slightest foundation that that is so, according to the information we have.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to send a wire to General Denikin urging him, in view of the material support we give—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—that he should not co-operate with Colonel Bermondt, seeing his troops are firing on our Navy?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon, and gallant Member will have seen that General Denikin has repudiated Colonel Bermondt.
    Mr. BILLING: Is there any obligation on the part of the Treasury Bench to answer any questions put on behalf of those who deserted us?

    PETROGRAD (ARREST OF MERCHANT SHIP).
    Lieut. - Colonel MALONEasked whether merchant ships (other than British ships) trading to and from Petrograd or other ports held by the Soviet Government have been arrested by British warships; if so, whether His Majesty's Government have now decided to consider the Soviet Republic of Russia as a belligerent State, or, if not, if he will state under what principles of international jurisprudence the commanding officers of these ships receive their authority?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: One Swedish ship sailing from Petrograd was recently

    347
    intercepted by His Majesty's Naval Forces in the Baltic. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The Allied Naval Forces in the Baltic are applying the measures in question in accordance with instructions which have been issued under the authority of the Supreme Council in Paris, and which, in the opinion of the Allied Governments, are not contrary to any principle of international jurisprudence.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Will my right hon. Friend publish a copy of those instructions, so that shipowners may know what regulations their ships are sailing under?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that is more properly a question for the Admiralty. I could not say offhand whether that will be done or not.

    DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES (ESTHONIA, LATVIA AND LITHUANIA).
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked whether indications of British policy are conveyed to the Governments of Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania through the accredited diplomatic representatives or through the Baltic Military Mission; whether instructions are sent direct from the War Office and Foreign Office to these persons; and, if so, what steps are taken to ensure co-ordination?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The views of His Majesty's Government in regard to the Baltic States are conveyed to the Provisional Governments of Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania through the head of the British Mission to the Baltic States. In the case of the Government of Finland, His Majesty's representative at Helsingfors is the channel of communication.
    As regards the second part of the question, such instructions are sent direct from the Foreign Office to the Commissioner. The War Office communicate direct with the head of the Military Mission on matters affecting local military questions.
    In answer to the third part of the question, I may state that the head of the Diplomatic Mission and the head of the Military Mission work in the closest co-operation.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the question of a separate peace come under the heading of local military questions?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should say obviously not.

    FINLAND.
    Mr. SWANasked the Prime Minister whether the Entente is putting pressure on Finland to take active operations against Soviet Russia, and, if not, whether he will issue an official denial of this?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is no truth in the report to which the hon. Member refers. This denial was given to the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme on 30th October, and should be sufficient.

    RUSSIAN EXPEDITIONS (EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. J. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War whether the statement of expenditure in connection with Russian expeditions includes the cost of separation allowances to the dependants of menserving on those expeditions?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War whether the statement of cost of the Russian expeditions since the Armistice includes all liabilities incurred for shipping and transport or is merely a statement of the cash payments made to 31st October?
    Mr. FORSTER: The statement includes an estimate of all liabilities incurred for shipping and transport up to 31st October, and is not merely a statement of the cash payments made to that date.

    DRIFTERS (RECONDITIONING).
    Sir HENRY COWANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the action of the naval authorities in discontinuing the reconditioning of drifters at the ports of Peterhead and Fraserburgh; whether vessels owned at these and other Scottish ports are being sent to English dockyards for reconditioning; whether he is aware that additional expense is incurred by this procedure, coal unnecessarily consumed, and large numbers of Scotsmen who have served their country during the War thrown out of employment; and, having regard to these circumstances, what steps, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. Vessels owned at the two ports mentioned and other Scottish ports have been sent to the Royal dockyards in the South for reconditioning. I am assured that the cost involved in this transfer is counterbalanced by the saving in hire that would be incurred by the delayed reconditioning at the Scottish ports referred to, and by the saving in connection, with the maintenance of a staff of naval and technical officers at these ports if the reconditioning work were undertaken there. As regards the unemployment of Scotsmen referred to, I am advised that the ordinary work on vessels of the fishing fleet, as in pre-war days, together with the additional work of reconditioning where owners of fishing craft have accepted lump sum settlements, should help to employ the firms in each of the ports mentioned.
    Sir H. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this new-born zeal for economy now pervades all Departments of the Admiralty or is confined to questions connected with Scotland?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This particular question is not altogether a matter of economy. It is distributing the work as well as we can according to the necessities of the case.
    Sir H. COWAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while to throw men out of employment in Scotland in order to provide employment in England?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply, and, in any case, I observe that Fraserburgh has twelve drifters and Peterhead one drifter reconditioning now.

    NAVY AND ARMY CANTEENS (DISCHARGED SOLDIERS).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour the reason why discharged soldiers, some of whom have families to maintain, are being discharged from the Navy and Army canteens, Royal Air Force camps, Kidbrooke, in favour of women from eighteen to twenty-five years of age; whether the work is suitable for women; whether the discharged soldiers who are being dispensed with will be thrown upon the country's unemployment fund; and whether he will use his influence to get such discharges cancelled in the interests of the ex-soldiers and of national economy?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed that on the recommendation of the Officer Commanding, Kidbrooke Camp, four male employés of the Navy and Army Canteen Board are being replaced by women, for whom the work is considered entirely suitable. The men were civilians, and not ex-soldiers. The manager, who is a discharged soldier, is being retained. The latter part of the question, therefore, does, not arise.

    PASSPORTS FOR AMERICA.
    Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs; whether he is aware that the British Consul in Chicago, United States of America, is refusing passports to British; subjects desiring to get home on the ground that they had failed to offer their services as soldiers to this country during the War; and whether, in so doing, he is acting in, accordance with instructions sent from this-country?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information to that effect, but am making immediate inquiries.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (HEAD -QUARTERS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Swiss Government was consulted and. gave its consent before Geneva was named in the Covenant as the seat of the League of Nations; whether arrangements have-been made for the offices of the secretariat at Geneva; how much money, if any, has been expended in this way or in other preliminary expenses of the secretariat; whether funds are provided for this purpose in tile Estimates adopted by this House, and, if so, to what amount; and how much is expected to be the British expenditure in a normal year on the secretariat of the League of Nations?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first part of the question, the Swiss Minister in Part informed the President of the Peace Conference in an official note on 22nd March that the Swiss Government would warmly welcome the establishment of the League on Swiss; territory.

    351
    The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, so that that part relating to what money has been expended in this manner does not arise.
    In accordance with a Resolution of the Organisation Committee of the League of Nations (a body appointed by a Plenary Session of the Peace Conference), the Acting Secretary-General was authorised to incur certain preliminary expenditure in connection with the provisional organisation of the secretariat. I understand that an official statement of expenses will be published in due course.
    In the Supplementary Estimates 1919/20, paragraph 10, under "Diplomatic and Consular Services," there is a Vote K/3 League of Nations E24,000.
    This is all that it is expected will be asked of His Majesty's Government as their share of the expenses in the period ending 31st March, 1920. No estimate has yet been made regarding the probable expenditure after 1st April, 1920.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When will this Vote be put down for discussion?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question to the Leader of the House?

  HOUSING.

    UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Labour whether, as the labour shortage for the building of houses is acute, he could arrange that instead of unemployment donation work should be found for the unemployed workmen?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I agree with the suggestions contained in the question of the right hon. Gentleman. The position in the building trade is that there is at present a general shortage of bricklayers, carpenters, and joiners, and a general surplus of most other grades of building labour; but this is not true of every locality. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Employment Exchanges are making every effort to secure that all unemployed labour is offered for any jobs for which they are suitable.

    DEBATE (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfac-
    352
    tion throughout the country owing to the difficulties and delays incidental to the provision of houses under the Housing Act, and, in particular, that many authorities are unable to raise the necessary capital and do not approve of subsidising tenants of houses costing from £800 to £l,000 each, either from local or national taxation; and will he give the House of Commons an early opportunity of discussing the present situation in order to ascertain whether amending legislation should be introduced with the object of providing the accommodation so urgently needed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Member that an opportunity should be given to the House to discuss the present position of the housing scheme. I am aware that the provision of houses on an unprecedented scale at the present time is attended by numerous difficulties. Many of these difficulties have already been overcome, and I am glad to say that many of the local authorities are making substantial progress in the carrying out of schemes. The question whether further measures can be taken to accelerate the provision of housing accommodation is receiving consideration.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty in regard to housing is profiteering in building material, and will he take some stops to put cement, bricks and building essentials at prices which will enable houses to be built more economically?
    Mr. BONARLAW: That is one of the difficulties, but there are others connected with labour. The Government are now considering whether or not it is possible to take any further steps to secure the more expeditious building of these houses.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Considering the immense urgency of this question, particularly in the rural districts, where the situation is really tragic, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the House to sit on Friday?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In reply to my Noble Friend's question, as I have already stated, the Government are now considering what further steps should be taken. We should be glad to have a discussion, but the Government are not in a position yet to announce their steps, and surely

    353
    under the circumstances, it would be better to wait until the Government can state what further steps can be taken.
    Lord R. CECIL: Can we have a discussion reasonably soon, as the matter is very urgent? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise that, and I notice that the whole House does. I do not know whether it will be possible next week, but if it be, I will arrange a day for it.
    Mr. HOHLER: Has the Minister of Health issued Regulations for enabling these people to obtain materials for that purpose under the Act dealing with these matters?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think my hon. and learned Friend expects me to reply to that question, and he had better put it to the Minister of Health.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Are the Government considering any means whereby the help of private individuals can be enlisted, in view of the fact that private individuals built all the houses in the past?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is precisely the form to which the consideration of the Government is now being given.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does that mean the repeal of a portion of the 1909–10 Finance Act, which is undoubtedly preventing building by private means?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend knows that a Committee is sitting on that question.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that certain Government Departments have considerable supplies of bricks, cement and timber, and can the Government throw that upon tie market?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is being done and that is within our power.

    LIVERPOOL DOCKS (CONGESTION).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the great congestion which prevails in the Liverpool docks and that at times as many as thirty inward steamers have been waiting for considerable periods for discharging berths; whether he has received repre-
    354
    sentations from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to the effect that this congestion is in a measure due to vessels in, or which 'have been in, Government service being sent to the port of Liverpool to be repaired and reconditioned; whether he is aware that Liverpool has always been a commercial port and a great centre for distribution; and whether he can arrange for these Government vessels to be transferred to other ports where there is not the same congestion and so afford greater accommodation at Liverpool for the discharge of vessels bringing inward cargoes of food and other commodities and thereby relieve congestion?
    Dr MACNAMARA: The Admiralty has received representations from the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board on this subject, and they 'have been informed that there is no immediate prospect of sending further vessels to Liverpool to be reconditioned. There are at present three armed merchant cruisers, thirty-two trawlers and drifters, and two salvage vessels being reconditioned at Liverpool. They are all in course of completion and, I am afraid, cannot be transferred to other ports.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the presence of these boats, already mentioned, is hampering the docks and that quite recently a steamer that arrived at Liverpool occupied thirty-four days before she could obtain a berth to discharge, while a similar steamer with the same kind of cargo only occupied six day's at Antwerp, and is not this reducing the efficiency of the steamers that serve Liverpool and add very largely to the cost of food and other commodities?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That may very well be. I will take it that it is so from my hon. Friend. But the reconditioning of the trawlers as rapidly as possible is a very urgent necessity from the point of view of the fishing industry.
    Mr. HOUSTON: There is a great demand for food.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I agree.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction at

    355
    present exists amongst workmen in Lanarkshire at the manner in which claimants for out-of-work benefit are treated by the chairman, of the Mother-well Court of Referees; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the whole matter in the district affected?
    Sir R. HORNE: No, Sir. I have no reason to suppose that Mr. Thomson, chairman of the Motherwell Court of Referees, performs his duties otherwise than impartially and efficiently.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Is there not a case for inquiry?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am constantly in touch with the local officers, and I do not think there is any need for any special inquiry.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to continue the present system of unemployment donation; and, if not, in what way it is proposed to modify it?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The proposals of the Government on this matter will, I hope, be laid before the House next week.
    Sir S. HOARE: Do I understand that the House will then have an opportunity of debating this question, in fulfilment of the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Sir R. HORNE: I think my hon. Friend had better wait until he hears the statement. Undoubtedly any pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be fulfilled.
    Sir S. HOARE: But how is the House to express its opinion on the proposals?
    Sir R. HORNE: I think after my hon. Friend has heard the statement he can raise the question. I repeat that any pledge given by my right hon. Friend will be fulfilled.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only about ten days ago, in response to a question I put, I got an assurance that when any proposal was made with regard to the unemployment dole there should be a full debate in the House?
    Sir R. HORNE: Undoubtedly before any proposals are carried out any assurance given will be fulfilled.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES (APPRENTICES).
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Labour the amount of money paid by the Government to apprentices in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales under the heading of Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department for tools, etc.?
    Sir R. HORNE: No statistics are available in the Civil Liabilities Department of grants made for tools to apprentices, as distinct from other ex-Service men.
    Mr. DONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction with the disbursement of money in some of these cases? I could tell the right hon. Gentleman of one extremely hard case where the apprentice volunteered and went through the War for four and a-half years, and has neither father nor mother. Will the right hon. Gentleman give this case favourable consideration?
    Sir R. HORNE: I shall be very glad to look into the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I have personally been going into the whole question of the administration of civil liabilities in connection with tools, and I hope it will be more satisfactory in the future.

    APPRENTICESHIP.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Labour the amount of money paid up to the present by the Government to employers of labour in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales towards increases to apprentices who had their period of apprenticeship broken during the War?
    Sir R. HORNE: The total amount so paid up to 31st October, 1919, was £85,873. The figures for the four countries separately are not available.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will do everything in his power to re-establish the apprenticeship system in this country on pre-war basis; and is he aware that it was only because of that system that British trade has the name it has throughout the world?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Ministry of Labour is doing everything in its power to encourage apprenticeship.

    RETAIL BUSINESSES (LICENCES).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Labour if the licensing of retail businesses can now be dispensed with, as the system hinders the return to normal business conditions and also necessitates the employment of a staff which involves a considerable cost to the State?
    Sir R. HORNE: This matter is at present under consideration, and I hope a decision will be reached very shortly.

    FLAXDRESSERS' AND LINEN WORKERS, BELFAST.
    Mr. THOMAS BURNasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a resolution from the Belfast Flax-dressers' and Linen Workers' Trade Union alleging that the flax-dressers of Johnstone and Kilbirnie are paid 63s. 6d. for a forty-seven-hour week and that textile workers in England are paid on a forty-eight-hour week, and urging that; flaxdressers and textile workers in Ireland should be put upon a similar basis as to wages and hours; and what action he proposes to take in respect of this resolution?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have received the resolution to which reference is made, and inquiries are being made into the matter.
    Mr. DONALD: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an appeal from a Court of Inquiry into the circumstances at Belfast to set up a branch of the Industrial Council there, whereby these questions in dispute can be settled favourably both to employers and workmen?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am not cognisant, at the moment, of the particular circumstances of Belfast, but if it is sought to set up a Joint Industrial Council I have not the slightest doubt but that it will be encouraged in every possible way.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does not the whole thing arise from the fact that these workmen are from this country, instead of from their own country?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of that fact.

    DISABLED MEN (TRAINING).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of a resolution passed by the Shepherd's Bush Local Employment Committee regarding the delay in dealing with the training of disabled men; whether he is aware that since the 1st of August last the Shepherd's Bush Committee have submitted 171 candidates for training, and that up to date only two of this number have commenced; and whether action will be taken to remove the cause of this delay?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the resolution in question, and the facts appear to be as stated. The cause of the delay is the insufficiency of training accommodation. Every effort has been, and is being, made to increase as rapidly as possible the facilities available for training disabled men.

  BELGRADE.

    OCCUPATION BY AUSTRIA.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked if, prior to the commencement of War in 1914 and subsequent to the delivery of Austria's ultimatum to Serbia, Viscount Grey, the then Secretary of State, made a proposal that Austria should occupy Belgrade and the neighbourhood and hold it until she had received complete satisfaction and await the results of the efforts of the Great Powers to mediate; if Austria delayed even an acknowledgment of this proposal until 1st August, taking steps in the meantime that must necessarily precipitate war; and if he will state on what grounds knowledge of these proposals of Great Britain to preserve peace and their rejection by the Central Powers have been withheld from the public, in view of the evidence they afford of the responsibility of Germany and Austria for the outbreak of war?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: On 29th July Sir Edward Grey proposed that it might be possible to bring some mediation into existence if Austria, while saying that she must hold Belgrade and some Serbian territory until she had complete satisfaction from Serbia, stated that she would not advance further pending an effort of the Powers to mediate between her and Russia. This proposal was made to Prince Lichnowsky on 29th July and

    359
    communicated by him to the German Government; it was also communicated to Sir Edward Goschen and to Sir George Buchanan; it was communicated by the German Government to the, Austrian Government; no answer was received from Austria until 1st August. The whole correspondence dealing with the matter, so far as it was in possession of the British Government, was included in the White Paper which was laid before the House on the outbreak of war on 4th August, 1914, and all available information from other sources was included in the "Collected Diplomatic Documents, relating to the Outbreak of the European War," published by the Stationery Office in 1915. There is no ground, therefore, of any kind for the suggestion that "knowledge of these proposals of Great Britain to preserve peace and their rejection by the Central Powers" have been withheld from the public.

    ASIA MINOR (ITALIAN MILITARY GARRISONS).
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked whether there are now any Italian military garrisons on the mainland of Asia Minor; and, if so, in what towns?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There are Italian military garrisons at a number of towns in S.W. Asia Minor. But I should not like to commit myself to a more precise statement as to their numbers or identity.

    TREBIZOND (MILITARY REPRE SENTATIVES).
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked whether there are any British or Allied civil or military representatives in Trebizond; and whether there is any Allied naval support at Trebizond?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I believe that there is at Trebizond a British military control officer and a representative of the French High Commissioner. As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the roadstead at Trebizond is not one where vessels can he permanently.

    VEGETABLE OILS (RESTRICTIVE DUTIES).
    Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHYasked whether the present restrictive
    360
    duties on the export of raw materials for vegetable oils will be applied to the mandatory areas granted to this country under the covenant of the League of Nations; if so, whether this House will be given an opportunity of discussing this departure from the historic policy of Great Britain of recognising the rights of native races to sell their produce in the open markets of the world; whether the League of Nations aspect of this question has been fully considered; and whether an appeal by dissatisfied producers in these mandatory areas to the Council of the League of Nations will be permitted by His Majesty's Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The hon. Member is incorrect in his assumption that there are restrictive duties on the export of the raw material for vegetable oils generally, but I presume he is referring to the special case of palm kernels exported from the West African Colonies, on which product there is a differential export duty of £2 a ton on kernels exported outside the Empire. In any case, the answer to the first part of his question is in the negative; the rest consequently does not arise.

    SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVES (UNION- CASTLE LINER).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked whether four South African natives were recently turned out of their cabin and forcibly removed from a Union-Castle boat, on which they had booked their passage, by other passengers; if so, why they were not protected from this outrage; and whether any steps have been taken to compensate them for the loss of their luggage and delay, and to find them some passage to South Africa where they will be safe from violence and race hatred?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Consett on the 30th October. The unfortunate occurrence was quite unforseen and in the circumstances no steps to guard against it appear to have been practicable. On the question of compensation I am unable to add anything to my previous answer. I understand that passages will be found in an early boat.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I under stand that there is no compensation to be paid to these men, who have been forcibly ejected, not being protected by the police, for the loss of their clothes?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I understand that the Union-Castle Company disclaim liability, but that the immediate needs of those men have been met as to the cost of living and clothes.

    TERRITORIAL TROOPS (BOUNTIES)
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that bounties due on the retention or re-enlistment of the Territorial soldiers demobilised as long ago as April and May last is being withheld on the ground that their final accounts have not yet been received from India; and will he at once take steps to see that these men are paid forthwith?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware that the bounties are being withheld, but if my hon. and learned Friend can give me particulars of any cases I will have them investigated.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE. (SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT).
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure (Ninth Report, of Session of 1918, on Forms of Procedure); and whether, if so, the Government is prepared to propose to the House the setting up of one or more Estimates Committees in accordance with the recommendations therein contained?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Financial Secretary to the Treasury): It is not practicable to set up special Estimate Committees for the current year; but the question will receive further consideration as regards the future.

    WHISKY (ISSUES FROM BOND).
    Captain O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the result of basing the issue of spirits from bond on the year 1916 is that the returned
    362
    soldier has no title to share in the distribution, and finds great difficulty in getting supplied; whether he is aware that potent doses of spirits are the best prophylactic against influenza and that many people perished last winter for the want of supplies; and whether he will now allow those who are in a position to deliver larger quantities to do so without reference to the datum year?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of the supply of whisky is under consideration, and I hope to be able to announce a decision shortly.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Prime Minister whether, for the information of Members of the House, he will state what is the position regarding the Home Rule Act now on the Statute Book; and what are the Government's intentions in relation thereto?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Unless legislation is previously enacted, the Government of Ireland Act will come into operation on the ratification of the last of the Peace Treaties. As regards the last part of the question, I am not in a position to make any statement.

    IMPERIAL WAR CABINET.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Imperial War Cabinet, as described in his statement of 17th May, 1917, modified by the announcement of 16th August, 1918, is still in being; and, if so, when it last met and of whom it is composed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 5th August last.

    COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION (EVIDENCE).
    Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the promise made by Mr. Justice Sankey, printed at page 432 of the minutes of evidence of the Coal Industry Commission, that speeches by counsel will be placed at the end of the evidence so that they may appear as part of the pro-

    363
    ceedings; whether he is aware that this promise has not been carried into effect and that those who desire to form an impartial opinion on the proceedings are much hampered thereby; and what measures, if any, are proposed to be taken in order to supply such an important omission?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed that the evidence has not yet been fully issued. The third volume has yet to be published, and speeches by counsel will be included in it.
    Mr. BRACE: Is it fair or proper for the Government to use the medium of a Blue Book to publish the coal-owners' case against Nationalisation at the nation's expense?
    Sir R. HORNE: What we propose to do is to publish the proceedings. If, unfortunately, they contain documents adverse to my right hon. Friend, I am afraid he must suffer.
    Mr. BRACE: My point is that the House had better rely on the evidence. I should like to raise that point.
    Mr. G. DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue the report of the speeches in a separate volume? Or will the whole of the proceedings appear in one volume?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The speeches to which my hon. Friend refers occurred at the conclusion of the evidence, and they will be printed in their order in the ordinary way.
    Mr. BILLING: Are speeches evidence?
    Sir R. HORNE: They are part of the proceedings.
    Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the printing of the speeches affords one section of those deeply interested in the Committee their only opportunity of having their case put before the public?

    TURKISH TREATY.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister what is the reason for the delay in the conclusion of the Turkish Treaty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The reason is that it has not been found possible to proceed with the conclusion of the Turkish Treaty until the United States has signified whether or not it will share in the responsibility for protecting the peoples inhabiting the former Turkish Empire, and for assisting them until they can stand alone.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is it not possible to-make a treaty with Turkey merely providing that she shall give up the sovereignty of certain States, leaving it to the Allies to settle their future?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My Noble Friend knows quite as much about that subject as I do. It would be but a very small step in the direction in which we desire to go.

    DARDANELLES COMMISSION (REPORT).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister when the Second Report of the Dardanelles Commission will be published;-and whether it will be published without alteration?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is hoped that copies of the Report will be available for Members by the middle of next week. The printers are only waiting for the delivery of certain maps from the Ordnance Survey. The Report is being published without alteration.

    UNDERGROUND WORKINGS (DAMAGE FOR SUBSIDENCE).
    Mr. ROBERT MCLARENasked the Prime Minister when the Bill dealing with damage to property on the surface caused by subsidence due to underground workings is likely to be introduced?
    The PAYMASTER - GENERAL (Sir J. Tudor Walters, for Dr. Addison): I am not at present in a position to state when the Bill will be introduced.

    WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS (DEATH FROM SPOTTED FEVER).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the case of Jean

    365
    Roberts, who joined the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps at Kinmel Park Camp on the 28th November, 1917, and who died of spotted fever in Bangor Military Hospital in January, 1918, contracted during her period of service; whether he is aware that she was the main support of a widowed mother and five children, one of whom is a cripple, and that no compensation is recoverable under the Workmen's Compensation Acts nor under the Regulations governing the terms of her enlistment in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps; and, as the mother has been compelled to seek Poor Law relief, whether His Majesty's Government, in the exceptional circumstances indicated, will afford adequate financial assistance and so remove from the mother the stigma of receiving parochial relief?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply. The circumstances of this case have been brought before the War Office. I regret that I have no power to extend to dependants of members of the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps who die of disease in this country more generous treatment than that accorded to the dependants of other women employed on Government work during the War, but I am considering whether it is possible to grant exceptional treatment in this case.

    1914–15 MEDAL (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
    Major Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether any efforts were made to ascertain the views of serving and demobilised combatant officers and men who fought on any front from 1914–15 on the decision of the War Office to grant the 1914–15 Medal to the Young Men's Christian Association workers; and if he is aware that some of those workers who have received the 1914–15 Medal were afterwards found to be conscientious objectors to combatant military service?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): With regard to the first part of the question, the award of both the 1914 Star and the 1914–15 Star to certain personnel of the Young Men's Christian Association who fulfilled specified conditions in the theatre of war was decided upon by the Army Council after full consideration. With regard to the
    366
    second part of the question, the Star was awarded in respect of service rendered during a prescribed period.
    Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that persons who were afterwards found to be conscientious objectors received the 1914–15 Medal and are put on the same basis as those who did combatant service in France and Italy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; the medal is given in respect of certain definite services, and if those services have been rendered the holding at a later date of particular opinions does not deprive the recipient of the right to the medal. That can only be done by a Civil Court for certain definite offences.
    Captain W. BENN: Is it not a fact that many of these Young Men's Christian Association workers and conscientious objectors actually served in the firing line as stretcher bearers and in other capacities?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The 1914–15 Star and Rosette are only awarded to people who actually came under the fire of the enemy.
    Mr. BILLING: Are not the circumstances referred to here exceptional?
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted any associations of ex-soldiers and sailors on this subject? Is he aware there is widespread dissatisfaction among combatant officers and men of both Services throughout the country at this astounding decision?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The decision was taken by the Army Council, which had among its members officers who were engaged in all these operations. I cannot believe myself, there can be any widespread indignation because there can only be a very few cases—possibly a score at the outset—and I do not feel justified in altering the general rule governing the distribution on account of these few cases.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How many of these men were killed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not carry that in my head.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      OLD SOLDIERS.
      Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is considering,

      367
      the question of granting an increase to all old soldiers in receipt of pensions for services prior to the recent War; and whether he can hold out any hope of these men being granted a concession to enable them to meet the present cost of living?
      Mr. FORSTER: I fear I can add nothing to my reply on 27th October to the hon. and gallant Member for Edmonton.

    DEMOBILISATION.

      DISPENSERS.
      Mr. TOOTILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Quartermaster-Sergeant Brown, No. 91920, acting as dispenser, Royal Army Medical Corps, 20th Stationary Hospital, Constantinople, is entitled to demobilisation, together with several other men acting as dispensers, but cannot get released until their places have been filled by substitutes; whether dispensers are being sent out to relieve these men; and whether he will take whatever action is necessary to secure their early return and demobilisation?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: The dispatch by specific dates from their overseas stations of all men demobilised has been authorised, subject to the necessary shipping being available, and it is hoped that all such men, including the man referred to in the question, will arrive home at an early date.

      MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
      Major FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the total number of medical practitioners who Have been demobilised since 1st April,19191
      Mr. CHURCHILL: The total number of medical officers demobilised since the 1st April, 1919, is 4,823.
      Major FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary of State for War how many medical practitioners holding temporary commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Royal Army Medical Corps, T. F., and the Royal Army Medical Corps, S. R., respectively, are still detained under the terms of their contracts in Mesopotamia, India, and Egypt, respectively; and do the numbers given include day officers in respect of whom special
      368
      recommendation had been made for early release by the Ministry of National Service prior to April, 1919?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to give separate figures for the several categories of officers referred to in the first part of the question, but the total figures I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The figures are as follow:

      Mesopotamia.

      India.

      Egypt.

      175.

      152.

      244.

      These totals include the following in respect of whom a special recommendation for early release was received from the Ministry of National Service prior to April, 1919:

      Temporary Commissions.

      Territorial Force.

      Special Reserve.

      Mesopotamia

      9

      —

      1

      India

      12

      1

      2

      Egypt

      5

      2

      1

      The figures are only approximate, as a large number of officers are at present embarking for the United Kingdom from the countries in question.

      HOSIERY AND CLOTH (WAR OFFICE).
      Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for War how many yards of cloth (various) his Department still retains over and above the amount handed over to the Ministry of Munitions?
      Mr. FORSTER: Seven million yards of cloth of various kinds are at present held in stock. As soon as the requirements of the Army, the Dominion Governments, and the Government of India are definitely ascertained, any further surplus will be reported for disposal.
      Mr. HOHLER: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how the Government are keeping up prices by retaining this cloth?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not satisfied about that last statement. The Disposal Board have disposed of an enormous quantity of cloth. I am not sure that the trade has been able to absorb it all.
      Mr. HOHLER: The Disposal Board have only disposed of 500,000 yards out of 11,000,000, and the Army is holding it up.
      Mr. FORSTER: No; we are not holding it up. Ten and a-quarter millions is the

      369
      amount placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Munitions. If they have not bet' able to sell that quantity it does not seem to be a very sound proceeding to add to it.
      Mr. HOHLER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Army authorities have only recently handed it over?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by recently. It has been handed over in the course of recent months. I think it is a perfectly sound policy that we should have definite information as to what our requirements are going to be before we part with further cloth unless, indeed, they have been able to dispose of what they have got.
      Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give particulars of the hosiery now held by his Department and of the amount, if any, which has been handed over to the Ministry of Munitions since the 1st of April last?
      Mr. FORSTER: The quantities are as follow:

      Present stock.

      Reported for disposal since 1st April, 1919.

      Socks, worsted, pairs

      11,242,700

      2,500,600

      Drawers, cotton "

      714,487

      210,587

      Drawers, woollen "

      2,553,400

      Nil.

      Caps, comforter

      599,400

      Nil.

      Gloves, woollen, pairs

      2,079,000

      1,000,000

      Vests, woollen

      1,536,900

      Nil.

      It may be possible to report further quantities of certain items for disposal when the requirements of the Dominion Governments and of the Government of India have been ascertained.

      HIS MAJESTY'S FOROES (ORNA- MENTAL CERTIFICATE).
      Mr. F. C. THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is still the intention of the War Office to issue an ornamental certificate, in addition to a discharge certificate, to each member of His Majesty's Forces who served in the War; and, if so, when the issue of the certificate is likely to begin?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I greatly regret that in view of the large expenditure of time
      370
      and money involved it has been found necessary, in present circumstances, to abandon this proposal.

      TROOPS FOR SILESIA.
      Mr. TOOTILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the 52nd Royal Warwickshire Regiment, stationed at Gladbach, near Cologne, is under orders to proceed to Silesia; whether he is aware that men of this regiment were given to understand that they would not be sent further than the bridgeheads of the Rhine; whether it is in order to send youths of nineteen years of age to Silesia; and whether he will have this matter reconsidered?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Units are being sent to the plebiscite areas in accordance with the Peace Treaty, and these are being furnished from the Rhine Army. As regards the remainder of the question I can add nothing to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member.

      TRADE UNION SECRETARIES, MONMOUTHSHIRE.
      Mr. T. GRIFFTHSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries as to the reason why the military authorities in Monmouthshire recently secured the services of the chief constable in that district to obtain for them the names and addresses of the secretaries of trade union branches in the area?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the military authorities in South Wales approached the Chief Constable of Monmouthshire in the spring of this year with a view to obtaining the names and addresses of the secretaries of trade union branches in the district, in order that the information might be available in case any occasion should arise for communication with the trade union secretaries. The request implied no sort of hostility to the unions.

      VOLUNTEERS (GREAT COATS).
      Mr. HAYDAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that

      371
      men who served as Volunteers and have been disbanded are now being requested to return the great coats supplied to them or pay the War Office £1 in lieu; whether he is aware that in many cases the coat has been worn out and thrown away; and whether, in view of the services rendered by these men, he will have this requisition cancelled?
      Mr. FORSTER: It has been clearly laid down that these great coats remain the property of the State, as they do in the Army, and of course have to be surrendered or properly brought forward for condemnation if and when worn out. The permission given to the regular soldier to purchase his great coat for £l if he so desires has been extended to the Volunteer; but this is a separate question from that of a charge against any Volunteer who has thrown away or otherwise disposed of Government property.
      Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the work done by the Volunteers in the War and to the fact that they received no medal or compensation of any kind, and having regard to the difficulty the War Office are having in disposing of their cloth, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider letting them keep their old ragged coats?
      Mr. FORSTER: The question was carefully considered, and I do not think I can go back on the decision.

      PROCLAMATION OF MEETING, COUNTY TYRONE.
      Mr. DEVLINasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds the military authorities issued a Proclamation forbidding the holding of a public meeting in Caledon, county Tyrone, on 1st November?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no special information. I have asked for a report.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman's answer that he knows nothing of the proclamation of the constitutionally called public meeting proclaimed by the military authorities?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The military authorities in Ireland act in accordance with the wishes and policy of the Irish
      372
      Executive, and although I am prepared to answer questions about them I have in. the first instance to call for a report, which I have done on the question appearing on the Paper, and I have not yet received that report.
      Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has had some experience of having political meetings proclaimed in Ulster by the same people who proclaimed my political meeting in Ulster, and I defended him when he was proclaimed, I now want him to give an answer to my question.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I am entirely ready to give such an answer, but in order that I may do full justice to the subject I propose to wait for the report.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the answer at the Adjournment to-night so that we may discuss it as brothers in misfortune?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: If we are going to approach this question fraternally I should ask for a little longer delay than that.

      AIR SERVICE.
      Captain W. BENN (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether the Government adheres to its pledge to maintain the unity of the Air Service?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

      BRITISH TROOPS (GERMANY).
      Mr. ADAMSON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether any British troops are under orders to proceed to Silesia, Dantzig, Poland or any other district apart from the places for which provision is made in the Feace Treaties; and, if so, will he state the destination of these troops, the number of troops concerned, and the objects in view?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: No troops are under orders to proceed to any district other than the plebiscite areas in accordance with the Peace Treaty. The lat part of the right hon. Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

RESIGNATION OF MAJOR-GENERAL SEELY.

  PERSONAL STATEMENT.
  MAJOR-General SEELY(speaking from the Front Opposition Bench):The House generally wishes to know the reason for the retirement of any of its Members from the Ministry and in a very few words I will endeavour to tell the House the reasons which have impelled me to resign the high position which I have hitherto held. When the Government was first formed the Prime Minister asked me to go to the Air Ministry, and in a curious phrase, as announced officially, to "preside over the Council." It was a curious arrangement in that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Churchill) was to hold the seals of both offices as Secretary of State for both War and Air. It had the obvious anomaly that the Admiralty was left out of the business altogether. But I accepted it because I had a very deep interest in the Air business for a very long time. Indeed, I was charged by Mr. Asquith, then Prime Minister, with the task of being President of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which laid the foundations of our present Air Service. Also we were not then at peace with Germany, and I thought it my duty to take any office in which one could be of service. It involved, obviously, the dangers of dual control. Dual control is a dangerous thing anywhere, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would be the first to admit, it is peculiarly dangerous in the air. Nevertheless, I undertook the duty gladly, and endeavoured to work it, but it very soon became apparent that the thing would not work, not for any personal reason, but because by actual fact and by statute the only man who can preside over the council is the Secretary of State. He cannot divorce himself from his responsibility, even if he wishes to do so. All questions such as these, submissions to the Sovereign, memoranda to the Cabinet, dealings with the responsible heads of other Government Departments, where any question of controversy arises, and, above all, on questions of high policy, must be the duty of the Secretary of State, and of him alone.
  As soon as this became apparent I informed the Leader of the House, through my Noble Friend the Member for Chichester (Lord Edmund Talbot) that
  374
  the arrangement was bound to be inefficient and wasteful and that I would ask for a change. He begged me to wait until after peace was made with Germany. I accordingly did so. When the Prime Minister returned in July I then put the case before him, and in very precise terms stated that the present arrangement for the reasons I have shortly given, was one which I thought was not in the interests of the State, and, above all, inimical to the interests of the Air Service, and I asked for a change. The decision was delayed, first owing to-the Prime Minister's absence in France, having a much-needed rest, and then owing to the railway strike. The matter came up finally for decision twelve days ago. The Prime Minister treated me with the utmost courtesy and consideration, begged me to reconsider my position, and finally told me that he had decided on the present plan after due consideration and that he did not propose to abandon it. The only possible course for me to take, as I am sure the House will agree, whoever of the two of us was right, was for me to resign and be no longer responsible for an arrangement which I was convinced was wasteful and inefficient.
  There is no personal question involved. There is no personal question between myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. If any man could, have done two things he could have done, with his boundless industry. I have never met so industrious a man—and with his care for the Air Service as a whole, than whom it has had no better friend. If any man could have done it he would have done it, but the thing is obviously impossible. The War Office is a whole-time job, as I have reason to know, and the duty of the Secretary of State for Air—this service, with its vast possibilities—is a whole-time job too. A man cannot be in two places at once, even if he is the Air Minister. The very fact that the offices are distinct, that the Air Ministry is a distinct office, makes it quite impossible for the responsible head of one to be also the responsible head of the other. Still less is there any personal difficulty in the Air Ministry itself. I can say truly, and I have had some experience of public life, that never has a man been so faithfully served by loyal and devoted servants as I have been in my position by the members of the Air Council, and especially by Sir Hugh Trenchard and General Sykes, whom I

  375
  think the State is fortunate in having at the head of their respective Departments. The issue involved is very clear and very definite and involves questions of vast importance. By deciding as the Prime Minister has done that the Air Ministry is to receive its guidance from its responsible head, from a man who can only give a fraction of his time to it, it seems to me that three certain consequences follow. First of all, because such a man, however industrious, cannot possibly give enough time to enable business to be efficiently conducted, and it must mean delay, and delay must mean waste—waste of time, waste of energy, waste of money. Secondly, the fact that the Admiralty is left out of the business must make it difficult to work in with that great Department. How can the First Lord of the Admiralty appeal to the Air Ministry for a proper allocation of funds and a proper allocation of energy, with the infinite possibilities of air effort in regard to the Navy, when all the time he finds that the man he is addressing is the Secretary of State for War?
  Over and above all, the result of this decision must be that the Air Ministry is condemned definitely to be a subordinate office and an annexe of the War Office, with results, I am sure, inimical to the good of this country. We must be involved in waste of our commercial possibilities. We must be involved in waste of money on a gigantic scale by not taking advantage of the new inventions and of the new power that the air has given us, to enable us to undertake our great and increased responsibilities throughout the world. If anybody doubts that, let him consider what is the possibility of the air. One aeroplane has saved a war in Afghanistan, and in future aeroplanes may do much more. If it be said, on the plea of economy, that it is wise to combine the offices, then I would say that it is wasteful in the extreme. We cannot possibly hope to maintain our position throughout the world unless we use science to the utmost, and especially the science of the air. I could no longer consent to agree to a plan which I thought would have these fatal results, and I so told the Prime Minister. Believing as I do that the result must be a loss of millions of money and of thousands of lives, I asked him to relieve me of that duty. He may say that he knows better. He may say that this is the old dispute between brigade head-
  376
  quarters and general headquarters, and that from that there can be no appeal. In that case there is no appeal, but here there is an. appeal. There is an appeal to this House, and to this House, accordingly, I appeal.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: In view of the importance of the statement; to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman, shall we be given an opportunity of discussing the statement, and the circumstances in which it has arisen, and, if so, on. what day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not usual, I think, for a Member of the Government to say anything in reply to a personal statement such as my right hon. Friend has made, and I should not have done so except for the Noble Lord's intervention. Since I am on my feet, however, I desire to say, on behalf of the Government, how much we regret that our right hon. Friend has found it necessary to resign, but at the same time to say that it is simply a question of difference of opinion; he takes one view and we take another. As regards time for discussion, we shall, of course, follow the wishes of the House. I cannot name a day, but if there is a desire for such discussion we shall be very glad to afford the opportunity for it.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House can say if it is the policy of the Government to appoint another Air Minister?

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Granton Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,
  Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
  Fraserburgh Harbour (New Works) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, entituled "an Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Wick Harbour." [Wick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, entituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Scottish

  377
  Amicable Life Assurance Society." [Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill [lords],
  That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill [Lords], without Amendment; they disagree to one of the Amendments, for which disagreement they assign a reason; and they agree with one other Amendment, with Amendments.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Wick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
  Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  INDUSTRIAL COURTS BILL
  Considered in Committee. — [Progress, 10th November.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  INDUSTRIAL COURTS BILL

    CLAUSE 6.—(Continuance of 8 and 9 Geo. 5. c. 61.)
    The provisions of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918, which are specified in the Schedule to this Act shall, subject to the modifications specified in the second column of that Schedule, continue in operation until the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty.
    The MINISTER Of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): I desire to draw attention, to a point of Order with regard to the first two Amendments on the Paper, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson). The first Amendment, to leave out the words, "which are specified in the Schedule to this Act," would have the effect of re-establishing the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, and of continuing it from the date when it expires, namely, the 21st November, until the 30th September of next year. That would incidentally have the effect of continuing in existence the Interim Court which has been dealing with these questions in dispute for the last year. In the first part of the Bill we have set up a new Industrial Court—a permanent Industrial Court, which is intended to deal with the very same questions; and accordingly I venture to suggest that these Amendments are now out of order, looking at what has been passed in connection with the initial portion of this measure. It would obviously be impossible that you should have two Courts set up under the same Act which were to exercise the same functions but which would have contradictory proposals attached to them. For example, the Interim Court would be entitled to make certain decisions compulsory upon employers, whereas the very scheme of the Bill as adopted has been to set up a purely voluntary Court. Upon that the Committee was agreed, and indeed the House was agreed upon it on the Second Reading. Therefore I venture to submit that the first Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, and also his second Amendment, to leave out the words, "subject to the modifica-
    412
    tion specified in the second column of that (Schedule" are out of order, considering what we have already done in relation to this Bill.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Before you, Mr. Whitley, reply to the point of Order raised by the right hon. Gentleman may I be permitted to ask whether it is not in order for the Committee to continue all or part of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act referred to in the Clause with which we are about to deal? The Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act deals with a considerable number of subjects, amongst them being the setting up of prescribed rates and the arranging for hearings whereby awards may be given; and when those awards have been given they become the substituted rates in place of the prescribed rates. Our object in moving to amend Clause 6 is to secure, not the machinery part, because we are aware that new machinery is being set up, but to maintain the power of the employers on the one hand, and of the workmen on the other, the one to go for a change of rate by way of reduction and the other to go for a change of rate by way of increase. That has been possible ever since the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act was first passed, and that is the power which we seek to maintain and which we were led to believe by the right hon. Gentleman still remained in his present Bill. I hope that I shall be given an opportunity of stating my case with regard to that. I now merely put the point as to whether if this carries on the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, it is not possible for us to carry on that part which we desire to carry on, and to retain the powers of both parties which they have had since the Act was first passed.
    Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I have not made myself quite clear to my right hon. Friend. His first Amendment proposes to drop out words which, if they were excluded, would make Clause 6 read as though the whole Act should be continued, and not merely the powers which we propose to continue. That is the point I wish to make. We propose that only certain sections of the Act shall be continued, those sections being consistent with what we have done in previous parts of this Bill. It is perfectly plain that if you continue the whole Act you are going to have two inconsistent things in this Bill, because we set up first of all an Industrial

    413
    Court of a voluntary character, which is to deal with the very same questions as the Interim Court at present deals with. Accordingly it would be impossible, as it seems to me, to consider my right hon. Friend's Amendment as being now in order without making the Bill absolutely nugatory. If his only desire is to secure that the new permanent Industrial Court shall be able to deal with applications for increases, I can assure him at once that it will. If he looks at what the subsequent part of the Bill proposes he will agree as to that. What it cannot do, of course—and I wish to make this point perfectly clear—is to make compulsory a decision which it gives. The Interim Court was entitled to issue compulsory decisions with regard to wage questions—decisions, at least, which were compulsory on the employer, but not on the workman. As I stated to the House on the Second Reading that was one of the things which we desired to get rid of, and the House accepted that. The whole scheme of the Bill is one which enables the decision of, and the coming to, the Court, to be voluntary on the part of both parties. What my right hon. Friend is now asking under this Amendment is to have two Courts which are to do the same thing, and that, I venture to submit, renders the Bill either a mass of inconsistencies or an entirely unworkable measure.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I should like, if I may, Sir, to offer a suggestion to you. To the ordinary Member it is quite impossible to understand, owing to the system of legislation by reference and schedule, what really is going to happen under even such an Amendment as this, and what I venture to suggest to you is a course which you have more than once adopted to my own knowledge, where a large amount of dubiety has existed in the Committee, as I venture to say is the case on this occasion. It is that you might allow the Amendment to be moved, and see, by the explanation of it given by the Mover, what his intention is, and what reply the Government make to it. By that time the Committee themselves will be fully seised of the point, and, if I may say so with much respect, perhaps you yourself will also be better informed of what the Amendment may mean. I therefore respectfully put forward the suggestion that you allow the Amendment to be moved, so that the matter may be made somewhat more clear to the Committee as a whole.
    The CHAIRMAN: These two Amendments have been tendered to Clause 6, and I notice that there are also two Amendments to the Schedule standing in the same names, and also an Amendment to the Schedule in the name of the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill. I do not feel that it is my duty to say that it is impossible to modify Clause 6. I could not take it upon myself to give a ruling as to the exact legal effect of certain Amendments. It would seem to me that if the Amendment first offered, to leave out the words, "which are specified in the Schedule to this Act," be read along with the Motion to leave out the Schedule, that would leave the Bill in an inconsistent condition; but I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson) is entitled to put his case on that point. It may be that he proposes to read some of these other Amendments into the present one, and in that case I think the Committee will deal with it on its merits.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "which are specified in the Schedule to this Act."
    I do so in the hope that I may raise the question as to the future operation of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act. It will be necessary for me to explain, first of all, what has been the position of both employers and workmen under the Act since it was passed last year. It was there laid down that the rates of wages, including war advances and war bonuses, paid in November, 1918, should become what are known as the prescribed rates They were statutory rates which an employer must observe as minimum rates. There was nothing, however, in the Act to prevent the employer from paying more than the minimum so laid down, but he was compelled to pay the minimum. It was also provided that the Court of Arbitration which succeeded to the powers of the old Committee on Production were given power to hear applications for variations of the prescribed rate, and in their award they could either award a further advance or they could make a reduction. Where an award provided for a new rate, that became the substituted rate, and had the same force in law as the prescribed rate originally agreed upon. I think it has worked out in practice that where the Arbitration Court did vary the rate it was usually in the way of an increase of the original

    415
    prescribed rate; I do not know that there was any case where it resulted in a reduction.
    I think I am right in saying that it was possible for the workman to go to the Court without the consent of the employer. If the Bill now before the Committee is agreed upon as proposed by the Government, I think the position will be completely changed. I think it will be no longer possible for the workers to go to the Court, even to the new Court and with the new machinery that is provided under the Bill, without the consent of the other party. What the Bill does is to stabilise the wage as it is at present. I may say in passing that we have an Amendment down, which we hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept, making quite sure that the award issued a few days ago will be so safeguarded that it will hold good just as if it had been given several months ago.
    Sir R. HORNE: I have myself an Amendment down to that effect.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I was going to say that is a point upon which we are agreed, but I think I am right in saying that wages will be stabilised without variation up or down until 30th September next year. This is one of the most glaring cases of tacking that I have ever seen. The trade unions asked for a continuation of the Temporary Wages Regulation Act. It must be admitted that there is very little in the Bill of the old Act, but there is a good deal of new matter, for which the trade unions and for which the employers never asked, tacked on to it. This does very seriously affect their position. Wages will be stabilised, and the right of one party to go and ask for a reduction and the right of the other party to go and ask for a further increase will be lost. This is one of the most serious parts of the Bill. We know how the cost of living varies. We know, when the trade unions about four months ago went to the Interim Court of Arbitration, that they were refused any advance because there had not been a sufficient change in the cost of living. When they went again at the end of the week before last, an award was promulgated giving them an increase of 5s. because of the increase in the cost of living. I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to tell the Committee that there is no prospect between now and 30th September of a
    416
    further increase in the cost of living. I do not think that he will be prepared to tell the Committee that we have now got to the position when there is no possibility of a further and serious increase. Unless he can give us some such assurance, is it wise, with the present temper of organised labour, not only as we see it in this country, but also in other countries, to expose the workers to the risk of a further increase in the cost of living, and yet take away from them for the next twelve months the power of going to the Court or to any form of arbitration?
    We ask that the position under the Temporary Wages Regulation Act should continue in order that they may have the opportunity of presenting their case and asking for a further increase owing to the cost of living. We are all exceedingly anxious to encourage arbitration and to prevent strikes. We constantly hear, and rightly so, about the need of increased production in the interests of the nation as a whole. Is it going to make for increased production if the cost of living goes up and these men are told that they are no longer to have the right of going to the Court to state their case? I must emphasise the fact that under the Government Bill no applications can be considered without the consent of both parties. The right hon. Gentleman admits that point. It has been said more than once in the Committee that the Bill, because of this tacking and because of the introduction of this new matter, has received a considerable amount of opposition from the trade unions. They have agreed to fix their final attitude towards it when they have seen what the Bill is like as it emerges from Committee, and an important conference is to be held on Friday next for the purpose. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider that aspect. I know of nothing in the Bill that will exercise such an influence upon that conference as his position with regard to the appeal that I now make to leave in the possession of the organisations this right to go to the Court without the consent of the employer, if they think that the cost of living has increased. We have given the right hon. Gentleman, without very much opposition, the new form of machinery that he desires, and we have agreed to these Courts of Inquiry. Surely, remembering that the trade unions asked for a further extension of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act till 30th September next year, it is not asking too much that

    417
    he should amend the Bill, and return to the workers this very important power which they feel is being taken away from them.
    May I explain why we are moving our Amendment? If the Government want to do no more than that which is represented by their Amendment, there is a very much simpler way of doing it. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not want the machinery of the old Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, and, in view of the fact, also, that there is not much in the Bill except machinery and the laying down of the principle that the employers on the one side shall be able to go for a reduction and that the workman on the other side shall be able to go for an increase, why did he not in one single Clause clearly and explicitly do what was done in the railway agreement? One paragraph of that agreement, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, merely says that the wages will be stabilised till 30th September, 1920. When the railway representatives were negotiating with the Government they clearly understood that language. Here, instead of that, we have a short Clause, and then we proceed by the objectionable method of reference to a Schedule. I have had this Clause and the reference to the Schedule interpreted in different ways. I am going to charge my right hon. Friend with interpreting it in the first instance as we interpret it. I myself spoke to him and asked him a question as to whether the power remained to the trade unions to go and ask a Court for an advance owing to the cost of living, and whether the power remained to the employers to go and ask for a reduction, and he said that I was right in my interpretation.
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes.
    Mr. HENDERSON: It is so?
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The Solicitor-General, who is here, will tell us that it is not. We could not do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests unless we had the consent of the employer. Let us be quite frank with each other. Is that the position that has obtained since the passing of this Act? I am asking, by way of Amendment, that we should continue the position in which we have been since November last year, when the Act was passed, and that as workmen we should have the right, without the consent of the employer, to go to the
    418
    Court because of the cost of living. If we are to be asked to go to arbitration and to try and prevent strikes, is it right that we should not be able to go to arbitration without the consent of our employers? Is that the position into which we are going to be forced? If we are forced into that position it will create an amount of unrest. The workmen will feel that some advantage has been taken of them, because all that the employer will have to say will be that he does not agree, and then, in spite of an increase in the cost of living, wages will remain as they have been fixed until 30th September next year. I want to press that point home. On the Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes) said:
    "I would like the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever may reply in the later stage of this Debate, to express some view on the point as to whether, should the Bill become law, they will continue and guarantee in law only those rates which now exist, or will they make legal the payment of those rates which might be secured as the result of further awards or further arrangements between employers and employed?
    Sir R. Home: I may say at once that the latter position of my right hon. Friend is right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1919, col. 1719, Vol. 120.]
    My right hon. Friend put that question in order to elucidate this very point to which we attach so much importance. The right hon. Gentleman's answer led us to believe that our interpretation was right, and that we should be in a position to go to the Court. Imagine our surprise when we read the memorandum that has been circulated to-day, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman to find that that right to which the trade union movement attaches so much importance is to be taken away. The promise of stabilisation is obviously meaningless if wages are to remain at the present level. We feel that the machinery whereby we have been able to get some relief from the cost of living should remain open to us, free and unfettered, without our having to ask the employers for their consent.
    I would especially appeal on this point for women workers. After all, unfortunately, in many trades, the organisation of the employers so far as women workers are concerned, is not nearly so good as in the more highly organised employers' federations and associations. Those of us who have had to do with sweated trade legislation and with the Trade Boards know how difficult it is to get some em-

    419
    ployers to respond at all to public opinion —these employers who are in trades that are either sweated or are on the borderline of sweated trades. The right hon. Gentleman knows the appeals we have been making to increase the number of Trade Boards, because of this difficulty, and yet here we are getting on very slowly with the Trade Boards, and now this machinery that the women have been using and that the other great organisations have been using is going to be taken away. I hope even now the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position and let us have, if not our Amendment, at least some Amendment or modification of his own Amendment in the Schedule that will restore this right to the trade unions. I believe nothing would contribute more to industrial peace than the granting of this condition.
    Sir R. HORNE: I take great blame to myself for the way in which I have presented this Bill, first of all, on the Second Reading, and later in Committee. It is perfectly apparent from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—I admit it is my fault—that he has not yet appreciated what is the main characteristic of this Bill as distinct from the Interim Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act. At the risk of wearying the Committee and with the desire to make the matter clear, I will re-travel some of the road which I travelled on the Second Reading, and to some extent in the Committee discussion. First, what was it the Interim Wages Act did? It stabilised the wages—I use the phrase generally because it did not stabilise all, but it stabilised wages up to the 24th November of this year—wages which were in the form of prescribed rates, speaking generally, district rates. But it did more than that. It gave an opportunity to apply to a Court for an increase or a reduction of those wages, to have, indeed, a rate substituted for the prescribed rate. In general that was taken advantage of in this way. Workmen applied for an increase owing to the increased cost of living, and, on the other hand, on one occasion at least, the employers applied for a reduction because the cost of living was going down. At the time when the Interim Act was passed most people thought that the cost of living was going to come down, but what the Act did was to make it certain that without a reference to a Court no employer could reduce wages. That was the advantage which was given
    420
    to the workmen. The Act operated only one way. If the workman wanted an increase in his wages he could hale his employer before the Arbitration Court, and the employer was bound to come. After the Court had decided, the employer was bound to act in accordance with the decision of the Court. An employer who wanted to bring his workman to the Court to get a reduction of wages could not compel the workman to come, and the workman could stay and use his opportunity of striking. Again, where a decision was given, while the employer had to abide by the decision, the workman was not compelled to abide by it. That is the reason why we have had during the last two months a strike of ironmoulders which has been of the greatest disservice to the country.
    The trade unions came to me and asked me to have the Interim Wages Temporary Regulation Act changed. I told them quite frankly on 20th October, at a meeting they had with me, that from what I knew of the temper of the employers, especially after the experience of the iron-moulders 'strike, that they were no longer going to consent to a lopsided Act and that they would not agree to any further stabilisation of wages if the Act was to be in that form. They were perfectly prepared to agree to the workman getting the advantage of knowing that his wages would not be lowered between now and 30th September and that the employer should be under compulsion to pay those wages till that time, but they were not going to be in such a position that the workmen could force them to a Court for increases, while, if the decision was given against the workman, he might still strike.
    I explained all this on the Second Reading Debate. I thought the House understood it. The principle upon which the present measure depends is that both parties are on the same footing, except this—which is an enormous advantage to the workman—that the workman can legally compel the employer to pay the the present wage right up to 30th September, no matter how much the cost of living may fall. That was chiefly what the trade union organisation wished. Why was it we had a railway strike? Was it not explained on the ground that the men feared that their wages were going to be reduced? I hope the Committee clearly understand that the basis of the present Bill is purely voluntary arbitration, and that there

    421
    would have been no stabilisation of wages unless the arbitration was voluntary. We provide first of all a rate of wages which cannot be reduced till 30th September; we provide that if the workman wishes to get an increase he can ask his employer for an increase. If the employer refuses, there is then a difference between the parties. That difference being reported to the Minister of Labour is a matter for him to deal with. He sees if he can contrive a settlement by conciliation or any other arrangements which are in existence in the particular trade. If he cannot, he may refer to the Industrial Court. If he refers it to the Industrial Court, it is true that neither party is compelled to go, but both parties can go if they wish, and, therefore it is quite erroneous to say that the workmen may no longer go to a Court of Arbitration. The Court is there for the workmen to go freely to, for both parties to go voluntarily to. But what my right hon. Friend has been asking is that the employer should be compelled and the workmen not. It is impossible to continue that system in the present conditions.
    I think it only requires honest explanation to the trade unions to make them clearly appreciate what has been done and to enable them to realise that there is here, as ready a means for the settlement of these disputes as there has been during the last year. I do not expect that any case will arise in which a workman says to his employer, "We want to go to the industrial Court," and that the employer will refuse. He will be only too glad to take advantage of the opportunity for a peaceful settlement of the question. It is because of that hope that I look with the greatest anticipation to the efficiency of the Courts which it is proposed to set up. I hope I have made it plain that the means of resort to a Court of Arbitration is here within this measure. Nothing is dropped out of the scheme which was necessary for that purpose. All that has been dropped out is that element which compelled the employer and did not compel the workman. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson) has misunderstood the passage in which I replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). He did put a question which, as I understood it at the moment, was precisely the question which I thought the right hon. Gentleman himself originally asked me when he began his speech, I understood both the ques-
    422
    tion at the beginning of his speech and that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes), which has been quoted, to be this: "Is the means for reference to a Court of Arbitration to be taken away?" My answer was: "No, it is not. It is still here." It appears to me that my right hon. Friend now, as always, has got behind his head, if he does not say it, that a decision once given must be legally binding on the employer and not on the workman. If that had been added I should then have given a totally different answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). I certainly never understood him to be asking a question which involved this. Immediately afterwards, when I was informed that there was some misapprehension, I saw the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes), and explained to him the whole matter. He perfectly understood, and I am very glad my right hon. Friend has given me an opportunity of explaining to the Committee. I venture to submit that the scheme of the Bill is totally contrary to the Amendment which is now proposed, and that the provision of the Bill which the Committee so readily accepted would be wholly inconsistent with the Amendments which are now on the Paper, and accordingly, Mr. Whitley, I venture to ask you to give the ruling which I originally submitted.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already put the Question, and I think the very course of the Debate shows how wise I was in allowing the Debate, for it is apparent that there has been a genuine misunderstanding as to the effect of the Clause. Certainly I understand it in a way in which I did not half an hour ago.
    Mr. R. YOUNG: I was under the impression that in the Second Heading Debate we had secured a continuance of the operations of the Wages Act. The difficulty we are in to-night is this: We are supposed to be discussing a Bill which is of a voluntary character in relation to arbitration, but we find that the Bill has in it something that is voluntary and something that is to be compulsory for a year. We also find in it something that is of a really temporary character and something which is meant to be more permanent. We argue that it was a great mistake to mix these two things, and consequently we are anxious to impress the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Home) with the necessity of separating these things

    423
    and of making the Bill such that the workers can understand that the privileges they had under the temporary Act would still apply. Now the right hon. Gentleman has circulated a Paper and he says he is going to stabilise wages for a year up to 30th September next. But it is still possible for the workers to make application, with the consent of their employers, for an increase of wages, and, on the other hand, I assume it is still possible for the employers, with the assent of the workers, to make application for a decrease in wages. I want quite frankly to say that, in spite of what my right hon. Friend has said, I do not think any employers during the next year would readily consent to an application of that character, and I am going to be equally candid and say that I do not think any trade union would consent to an application for a reduction of wages during the next year. Apart from that, what is the good of one side or the other making an application and going before this Board to get a decision which neither side is under any necessity of carrying out? I see no good in it at all. Therefore, we are forced back to the position that it is necessary the workers should have some safeguard against the economic conditions which may arise during the next year.
    The cost of living, for all practical purposes, may remain just as it is now. On the other hand, the cost of living may increase through the operations of this House in relation to subsidies. Is it contended that real wages are stabilised for twelve months if the subsidy for bread is removed? The removal of that subsidy would mean an immediate increase in the expenditure of thousands of working men's homes, and there will be nothing to make up for the loss. The working man would then be suffering an actual reduction in real wages outside the operation of the Bill. I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Henderson) is justified in raising this matter now. I regret the speech of the Minister of Labour in relation thereto. Had he separated these two parts, he would have had a voluntary Bill which would have been of great use in future, because it would have done something to draw together the employers and the employed. The whole operation of the Bill for the next year, at least, is prejudiced because of this dual condition, namely, that it has within it that which is com-
    424
    pulsory and that which is non-compulsory, that which is temporary and that which is meant to be permanent.
    Major GREAME: The last words of the hon. Member seemed to be a most convincing argument against the Amendment. He has asked the Committee to reject the principle of preserving voluntary and compulsory features side by side. The very object of the Amendment is to perpetuate a one-sided compulsory system side by side with a voluntary one. I know I can speak on behalf of a very large number of employers who are most anxious to see this Bill go through and to give every possible opportunity to arbitration and conciliation. It is always difficult when statements are made in Debate or in Committee referring to understandings reached at meetings between Ministers and other persons, or as to undertakings that have been given. But I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill has never once gone back on any undertaking he has given and he is always clear in the statements he makes. The issue here really lies in a very narrow compass. Hon. Members opposite cannot blow hot and cold. They cannot argue, as they did with force in the Debate two days ago, against compulsion—argue that every shadow of compulsion ought to be taken out of this Bill, and then come here to-day and argue that a most unfortunate and one-sided compulsory feature should be allowed to remain. I am glad this is not decided as a point of Order but as a point of principle. It goes to the root of the whole Bill, and it is a principle which we established on the Second Reading, namely, that the time is not yet ripe for compulsory, but that every possible opportunity ought to be given to voluntary, conciliation. We are advisedly substituting for compulsion in a Statute the compulsory force of public opinion. It is at the bar of public opinion that these differences are to be judged in the future, if there is one test which public opinion is going to lay down and insist upon it is the acid test that the same principles should be applied to employers and employed in industrial disputes and settlements. I am certain that the great majority of employers and of workmen, who want to see their way to industrial peace, agree that unless that principle is established we shall not even make a. beginning in getting our problems settled.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, add:
    "(2) Where, before the passing of this Act, any matter has been referred for settlement under the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918, and has not, at that date, been settled by the person or persons to whom it has been so referred, the Minister may by order transfer the matter to the Industrial Court, and where any such matter is so transferred the award of that Court shall have effect as if it were an award of the Interim Court of Arbitration made under that Act."—[Sir R. Home.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Definition of "Trade Dispute.")
    For the purposes of this Act, the expression "trade dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers or workmen, or between workmen and workmen connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment or with the conditions of labour of any person.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, to leave out the words "or difference" ["any dispute or difference between"].
    This is the first of a series of Amendments, all more or less related to each other. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have met us on the second of the Amendments. What I rise for is to secure from the Minister of Labour the meaning of the words "or difference," and an explanation of the Clause as a whole. It seems to me that these words give far too wide a definition to a trade dispute, especially in relation to employers and employed or in relation to "workmen and workmen." As far as the workmen and workmen are concerned, we are undertaking a very perilous procedure. You may get the men to assent to appearance before the Industrial Court, or to allow the question to be discussed at a Court of Inquiry, but immediately you commence to interfere in what appears to be trade union, business between workmen and workmen, then you are getting into a very different position. I want the right hon. Gentleman to leave these differences to the men themselves; they will find the best method of squaring the difficulty "What the right hon. Gentleman has to do is to satisfy himself that the machinery he is setting up will clear away disputes between employers and employed, and in that way he will accomplish a good deal. I am almost certain that some employers will resent this interference in a difference between them and their workmen. When is the Minister going to intervene? The difference may be of a very petty character. We do not
    426
    desire to see the Minister on each and every occasion, if he so thinks fit, interfering on the differences. We have no guarantee that successors to the right hon. Gentleman will exercise the same discretion as he exercises. His successors may give the widest possible interpretation to the words "or differences," and by doing so undo the good work which the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to carry through, Under the Trade Union Act we were safeguarded from any interference in relation to our domestic matters, and I trust that nothing is now going to be done that will in any way limit that safeguard. At the same time I confess that on certain questions, such as demarcation, employers of labour have to put up with a great deal. But there again you are introducing a third party. I say most decidedly that in matters of that kind it is dangerous to introduce a third party like the employer. The workmen generally, both sides, are in the right, that is to say you have to make arrangements between the two parties. Those who discuss these demarcation questions have usually arrived at a solution to their satisfaction. In demarcation questions in which I have taken part I have, found that the attitude of the firm or of the manager or even the attitude of the foreman was held suspect in relation to one or the other, and, therefore, it was always better to go by an arrangement between the two parties. We trust that in relation to demarcation questions the position which will be taken up will be, "you are both right or wrong, fight it out for yourselves." I want to draw attention to these words "or difference" in relation to employment or non-employment. What had the Minister in his mind in using those words? They cannot refer to discharges or cases of victimisation, because those will become a dispute and are amply covered by the closing words of the Clause. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by these words to refer to the question of trade unionism versus no trade unionism? If he does, he is adding danger to danger, and is probably going to turn what is a purely parochial or local matter into a national question and dispute, and we all know that national disputes are more or less national disasters, at least that is my opinion. From that point of view the Minister will make a great mistake if he seeks to interfere in. any way with that which we regard as a purely trade union matter to be settled between the trade unions. Although an

    427
    employer on demarcation questions has to suffer, and sometimes unjustly because we do not rapidly come to a decision, yet at the same time he is far better out of the question altogether. I urge the Minister not only to remove these two words but to accept the subsequent Amendments.
    Sir R. HORNE: I appreciate very much what my hon. Friend has said in regard to the use of the words "or difference." I entirely agree with him that it would be most unfortunate if interference were to take place between employers and workmen upon any trivial topic which would not assume the dimensions of real serious trouble. I entirely agree with that sentiment, and I hope that any Minister who occupies my place will take the same view. On the other hand, there are occasions when the difference between the parties does assume an aspect which requires clearing up. For example, you might have a discussion between an employer and the workmen as to whether a man really came within the class of operatives who were asking for a prescribed rate. That point has been raised on many occasions in the Interim Courts of Arbitration. You might call that if you like a dispute, but, on the other hand, it would be more accurately described as a difference which must be cleared up if you are to avoid a dispute. Accordingly, the word "difference" was put in the Bill for that purpose. In addition to that, the phrase itself has certainly got the sanction of previous use. For example, I find in the Conciliation Act, to which there has been so much reference in our Debates, the following words, "where a difference exists or is apprehended." Then the Board of Trade is empowered to take steps towards conciliation and for the appointment of an arbitrator. So that there the Board of Trade was to have its functions brought into operation, not merely when a dispute arose but whenever a difference was either apprehended or in existence. As well as that, I find in the Minimum Rates of Wages Act, 1918, the words "any difference" are also used. Therefore, while I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view, and appreciate the attitude for which he argues, I honestly think it would be somewhat unsafe to leave the word "difference" out, because you might find people, and you always find some people willing to put impediments in your
    428
    way, who would be prone to argue that you had not got to the stage of a dispute, and that accordingly no action should be taken. I think under those circumstances, with all the good will in the world, I must from the legal point of view, and in order to keep the Bill watertight, keep the words in. The other points are substantive and quite distinguishable from the first, and I think it would be well to take them one at a time.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "or" ["employers or workmen"], and insert instead thereof the word "and."—[Mr. Wardle.]
    Mr. YOUNG: I beg to move to leave [out the words "'or workmen" 'and to insert instead thereof the words "and employés."
    I move this Amendment in order to secure that it shall not only include manual workers but staff workers. It seems to me that a subsequent Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman covers the point.
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes, my Amendment to be added at the end of the Clause covers the point and includes the class of people whom the hon. Member desires to bring within the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. YOUNG: I beg to move, to leave out the words "or between workmen and workmen."
    We decidedly object to having a Government Department interfering between us as trade unions in our own trade union or as belonging to different trade unions. We will not tolerate it under any circumstances, and any attempt to do so will only prejudice this Bill in its working, and if you once create a prejudice against this measure in any of these important materials you are likely to find that the good produced under this measure will become discredited. Consequently, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should satisfy himself with what good he can do between employer and workmen without interfering with the trade unions.
    Sir R. HORNE: In using these words I went to a source which I am certain will be appreciated by the benches opposite. The origin of the definition really was the Trades Disputes Act of 1906, where it is defined as "any dispute between em-

    429
    ployers and workmen or between workmen and workmen." Accordingly I felt myself upon a very solid foundation when I selected this method of defining the words "trade dispute" There is also, a very practical point, apart from the sanctity of the origin of the phrase, in its application. I had some experience of trade disputes during the War. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that there were far more disputes between workmen and workmen over demarcation questions than between employers and workmen. So far as the machinery for settling those differences was concerned, I could find none, but those questions came up to me repeatedly and my aid was frequently invoked to bring about a settlement between the various parties in such disputes. For example, there were certain Destroyers hold up for a considerable time during important weeks of the War because of a dispute going on between shipwrights and fitters as to which of them was to perform a particular operation in connection with a bomb thrower on the deck of a ship. I was appealed to by both parties as to my view upon that question. I think it is certainly necessary we should not exclude the possibility of the Ministry of Labour being asked to take some action in such cases. I am perfectly certain no one will wish voluntarily to intervene in such a dispute because one is only apt to get one's fingers burnt. At the same time, I think it would be a great pity if you did not allow the Ministry to be in a position to give whatever aid they could in cases in which they might be of some assistance. Accordingly I venture to ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment upon this point.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. YOUNG: I beg to move, to leave out the words "employment or non-employment or the."
    I desire to get an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether these words mean a dispute as to union or non-union. I can quite understand the position that he may think that on demarcation questions he can render very useful service. I have no reason to doubt that he was called in with great acceptance to both parties during the War, but in this matter you come to a more dangerous question. Who is going to call him in? The employers cannot call you in in this matter. Therefore I
    430
    want to know if you are going to intervene on the question of the employment of union or non-union men.
    Sir R. HORNE: I readily respond to the request of my hon. Friend, and I agree it is a point of substance. I am very glad to have the opportunity of answering questions on these points, and perhaps the best answer I can give in this instance is by giving an illustration of my work in the last week. One of the Members of this House came to me with a notice that had been published by certain employers saying that they were not prepared to take on men, I am paraphrasing the words, who were members of particular unions. I was asked to intervene in that dispute, and the particular works had been shut for some days. I quite frankly say I have no sympathy with that kind of man, and I took means to have an officer of my Department brought into touch at once with the employers in question. The result has been, or, at any rate, if it is not the result of my intervention it has followed, and I think it is partly the result of my intervention, that notice has been withdrawn and, as I understand, the men are now going back to work. I think in that case the Ministry performed a very useful service, and I do not want to be prevented from performing similar service if the opportunity should arise. Personally, I should be sorry if these words were dropped out of the Bill. I realise the point which my hon. Friend made, but I do think on such occasions the Minister of Labour might be able to exercise a genial and amiable influence on a situation which would otherwise give rise to dispute. I find again, on a reference to the Trades Disputes Act, that it deals in terms with that very phrase. One of the occasions of a trade dispute is where it is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment and the conditions of labour. Accordingly, I venture, with all respect to my hon. Friend's opinion, to adhere to the use of this phrase.
    Mr. RENWICK: In these cases of difference between one class of workmen and another, the hon. Member said that the line of demarcation was not a point in which the employers can intervene.
    The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment has been disposed of.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, add the words
    "The expression 'workman,' means any person who had entered into or works under a contract with an employer whether the contract be by way of manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, be expressed or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it be a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour."—[Sir R. Horne]
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: At the end of the Clause, add the words
    "Provided that a, trade dispute shall be deemed to exist or to be apprehended if any justice of the peace complains to the Minister about the hours of employment or conditions of labour of any person, and that such justice of the peace shall be deemed to be one of the parties to such dispute."
    The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment, I am afraid, goes beyond the scope of the Bill. We have not yet made a magistrate a promoter of trade disputes.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Rules as to Appearance by Counsel or Solicitor.)
    Provision shall be made by Rules under this Act with respect to the cases in which persons may appear by counsel or solicitors on proceedings under this Act before the Industrial Court, before an arbitrator or before a Court of Inquiry, and except as provided by those Rules no person shall be entitled to appear on any such proceedings by counsel or solicitor.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words
    "Provision shall be made by Rules under this Act with respect to the cases in which persons may appear by counsel or solicitors on proceedings under this Act before the Industrial Court, before an arbitrator or before a Court of Inquiry, and except as provided by those Rules."
    There are a series of Amendments down to this Clause which clearly show that our anxiety is to remove the lawyers from the conduct of these disputes. I notice with interest that three hon. and learned Gentlemen have put down an Amendment to delete the entire Clause. They evidently agree with us that there are more important and more remunerative duties with which to occupy their time than these disputes.
    Colonel GREIG: On a point of Order. I have handed in a manuscript Amendment which I hope will not be made out of order by a discussion of the series of Amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends. My Amendment
    432
    accepts the first part of the Clause, which he is now moving to omit, and deletes the last part of the Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee is not to leave out the whole Clause.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I was merely referring to the full effect of the series of Amendments we Lave put down. No words are required, and we think that the more the cases are conducted by the employers, who have their practical experience, or by their officials, who after very long service, say, as secretaries of an employers' association or federation, also have the necessary experience on the one side, and by the representative leaders of the trade unions on the other side, the better it is for all concerned. I should like to hear how far the Government are prepared to agree with us on this point.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for moving the first of these Amendments, in order that we may appreciate exactly what the Clause does and how far it is intended to go. I hope he will not think me Mr. Facing-both-ways if I say that I really agree with all the Amendments put down. I agree very cordially with the observations he has made, that in the vast number of cases to place this sort of case in the hands of barristers or solicitors would probably be to defeat part of the machinery which is set up. Persons who can perfectly well state their case want to state it in their own way and want to make it as little as possible a legal question, but, as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill pointed out the other night, you come at times to serious and big questions over a matter of legal interpretation or legal rights based upon a sequence of Acts, rights belonging to either or both of the parties, and on those legal questions you save time very much by having legal assistance. I think those persons who have ever had to sit and hear legal questions argued would say that they had derived considerable benefit from them, and that time had been saved by a careful and succinct exposition of a legal point by persons who, by their training, are well qualified to put it. All that the Clause says is that provisions shall be made by rules with respect to cases in which persons may appear by counsel or solicitors on proceedings under the Act before the Industrial Courts, an arbitrator, or a Court of

    433
    Inquiry; and the latter portion of it is to the effect that, except as provided by those rules, no person shall be entitled to appear on any such proceedings by counsel or solicitor. In one sense I agree that those words are unnecessary, but they are put in to indicate that in a great number of cases no legal assistance should be given, and that legal assistance should be available only in proper cases so decided by the Court. The intention is that under the rules there should be sufficient opportunity for the Court itself to determine whether there is a legal point to be argued on which legal assistance would be useful, and that, if so, that legal assistance could be used. The other cases would fall under the latter part of the Clause. I think that represents a fair compromise, and I hope my right hon. Friend opposite will be satisfied with it.
    Mr. HENDERSON: What about our proposal lower down to insert the words "save with the consent of the parties to the dispute"
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I think it is the Court which would be the best judge, and that you could leave that matter to the discretion of what is an independent tribunal far more safely than you could to that of the parties. I can conceive of cases in which both parties would be quite rightly under the belief that it would be useful to have either counsel or solicitors, or I can conceive that they might refuse to have them because they might not appreciate that a legal point had to be determined and argued, and I think the best course is to leave that discretion where we have to leave so many other points of discretion, namely, in the hands of the Court.
    Sir W. PEARCE: I have had some experience of these arbitrations, and I have also heard accounts from a good many other people. The fact is that it is the business of the trade union officials always to be considering these cases, and so they can put their case with very great force and ability, but the employers concerned very often have neither the time nor the inclination to devote the same amount of attention to the cases, and I am sure the Government want to take some safeguards that in cases of real importance it should be possible to have legal assistance. As a rule, I am against legal assistance, but from the employers' point of view, it not being a whole-time job, as it is for the
    434
    trade union officials, they should not be debarred in certain cases from having legal assistance.
    Mr. WILKIE: I too have had considerable experience of these matters. I know of a case where one side had lawyers and the other had not, and it caused more trouble afterwards than before. I think their introduction is really unnecessary, because these difficulties should be discussed by those who are really concerned, and the moment you bring in the professional gentlemen, our experience has been that it has been of no benefit and only causes greater irritation and more difficulty than if they had not been there. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment to delete these words.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I hope the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment. We have had some experience in dealing with questions of this kind. In order to give an illustration, I entered into an arrangement with the tinplate employers in South Wales some time ago in reference to the forty-seven hours week. I said to the chairman of the employers, "Are you accepting the arrangement made with reference to the forty-seven hour week at the Tinplate Board?" He happened to be acting chairman of the Board and he said, "Yes, we followed the arrangement made at the Tinplate Board." The employers saw that their chairman had made a mistake, with the result that this matter was referred to a committee of two employers and two workmen. They failed to settle, and the matter went to the Committee on Production. The question there was really the interpretation of the promise made by the chairman of the Board. Would you under this Clause permit counsel to be employed in order to interpret the words of the chairman? If so, there would be this position. There are small societies in connection with the tinplate trade in South Wales. I know of one society of 2,000 in number and of another society of 1,500 in number. If employers are permitted to employ counsel, they might employ the most learned man in the land and pay him £100 or £200 for a brief, whereas these smaller societies would be unable, on account of finance, to employ any counsel at all. You will put these small societies in great difficulty if you are going to allow counsel to be employed in cases of that kind. I should

    435
    like to know from the learned Solicitor-General whether in such a case as that which I have cited it would be permissible for any employers to employ counsel.
    Mr. NEAL: I certainly cannot understand the Labour party moving this Amendment. It is an Amendment in favour of blacklegging. They say no lawyer shall do a lawyer's work, but anybody else may do it for him. Transpose that, and see how it fits in with their usual methods of procedure. No joiner may do anything if it is supposed to belong to a plumber, and no bricklayer may do anything belonging to a stonemason. But when it becomes a question of how best to put before these most important Courts and tribunals arguments in favour of the workmen's case or against the workmen's case, questions involving industrial stability and security in this land, then the only persons who are to be debarred from appearing there are to be the persons who, by training, by education, and by profession, are the proper persons to appear there. How this is reconcilable at all with trade union principles I do not understand. But I am not rising in defence of my own profession. Many attempts have been made in Bills that have come before Parliament to strike out the right of the subject—and it is the right of the subject to choose his own adviser and representative—but, so far as I know, they have almost always failed, and I think they always will fail, and for this reason, that it is obviously sound policy to permit a person or an organisation whose interests are at stake to be represented in the way that that particular person or organisation thinks best, and I cannot understand why there should be any limitation upon that right.
    Just consider for a moment the kind of question which may come before the various kinds of tribunals under this Bill. Just consider how far-reaching and important they are. It is quite true that in many of the cases the workmen could have no better advocate than their trade union representative. I have known gentlemen who are ordinary representatives of the trade unions put their case with skill, moderation, and great ability, and always with great persuasion. There is nothing whatever to hinder a trade union from continuing to employ its own representative. I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman in thinking that he would
    436
    be at any disadvantage against any counsel in the land. The fact is that such a person has a distinct advantage, and the tribunal permits him latitude which it forbids to the skilled advocate, and the cause of the trade union in many cases is in perfectly sound hands, but not in all. This is a matter which calls in some cases for expert advocacy of a different kind. It is not connected with the technique of our industry, but with broad and great principles. Why should my hon. Friends who represent Labour wish to take the right away?
    If you turn to the other side, the employers are very often a limited company. There is none of their staff who would consider himself capable of taking part in a controversy of this kind, and employers go before an Arbitration Court very badly handicapped, If you want a recent experience of how desperately unfortunate it is to limit the right of skilled advocacy, you have an instance in the Coal Commission, where there was no freedom of advocacy. Even a learned counsel, an hon. Member of this House, who, by your leave, was permitted to appear before that Commission, was absolutely reduced to a position that was altogether derogatory to himself and the profession to which he belonged, and ultimately he was told to put his speech in writing, and it would be considered. It is not necessary that I should speak in the interests of the profession to which I have the honour to belong. If their claims are not sufficient to commend themselves to those persons who are interested, they will not be approved, and there is an end to the matter, but if the persons who are interested think it is necessary for them to be represented in the best way they know how, then surely they have a right that that shall be done. I do hope the Government will not only resist this Amendment, the character of which I cannot understand as coming from trade unionists, but I hope the Government will listen with an attentive and a friendly ear to an Amendment on the Paper which asks that this Clause shall be struck out altogether
    Mr. J. JONES: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member who has just sat down to the title of the Bill, the Industrial Courts Bill, and I venture to suggest to the Committee that those of us who represent the trade unions are not asking for any new disability to be placed upon the members of the legal profession.

    437
    We are simply asking that the method of procedure that has been adopted up to the present in the matter of arbitration and industrial disputes shall continue to prevail. In matters of law I am quite prepared to admit I am a child. Perhaps my infantility in that direction will be recognised. But I want to point out that, so far as the average member of a trade union is concerned, we have a great suspicion of lawyers when they are out of their proper places. We have been told by the representative of the employers, the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearse), that employers do not know how to conduct themselves before these Courts as compared with the ordinary trade union official. I suggest that an employer who pretends to be interested in his employés would not merely himself take a keen interest in the conditions under which his employés work, but if he had not the time or the opportunity he would see to it that some member of his staff was particularly appointed to deal with the matters which are likely to come before these Courts. The Courts deal with wages, hours of labour, and conditions of employment. There is no question of interpretation of law so far as these Courts are concerned. Trade unionists are not averse to employing the best kind of legal advice they can possibly get when they find themselves in legal difficulties, but we say, sufficient for the day are the lawyers thereof.
    In so far as we are concerned, we want to keep as clear as we can from legal entanglements when dealing with matters of industrial disputes between ourselves and employers. Nearly every employers' association employs as secretaries of their associations gentlemen learned in the law It is becoming more and more the policy with them, and we do not object. They have a perfect right to employ whom they like as secretaries of their various associations. We never employ these gentlemen unless we can help ourselves, as we know it is going to be a great expense and also create difficulty, because very seldom do you get two of them to agree on a particular point when it is placed before them, perhaps because the profession might be injured if they happened to agree. What we want in these Courts is that the ordinary employers and those whom they choose to represent them in the industry shall meet the representatives of the trade union, who are men engaged in the industries and know the interests of the industry. If we are to be compelled
    438
    to have lawyers foisted upon us merely at the whim of the employers, then the trade unions are going strongly to object to this expense and difficulty. We want the Courts to remain as they have been up to the present, places where the employers can represent themselves. I have appeared before the Courts with some Members of this House.
    Sir W. PEARCE: Very good, too.
    Mr. JONES: Having done so, I do not give my opponents credit for less intelligence than myself. If they have not the same interest in the matter, there is nothing to prevent them from having on their staff those with the requisite knowledge of the matters affecting their employés. It would give the employers good employment. Limited liability companies have been described as organisations which have "neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned." Large numbers of employers when they get their position in certain trades and industries well-fixed unfortunately take no particular interest in the men or women employed by them. If you keep these legal gentlemen out of the Courts it might be an incentive to these employers to take a keener interest in the conditions under which their employés are employed, and so be better able to meet the case we may put up against him. We will not have lawyers if we can help it. They are all right in their proper place. They have helped us in time of trouble, and they may help as again in any particular case where we need them.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: In reply lo the last speaker may I just say a. word or two as to how this Clause stands? I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson) that the intention of the Clause is to leave this mutter of rules to the discretion of the Court, and not as my hon. Friend who last spoke seemed to think—but I do not know that he heard me. I will repeat the assurance which I gave to my right hon. Friend that the intention was that in most of these cases, where no legal point arose, they should be discussed as hitherto without legal assistance. On the other hand, as the hon. Member for Stepney said; if the ruling is against having any legal assistance employers might feel a little shy; and I do not quite like offering him any at this moment. He pointed out cases where it was necessary that some legal assistance

    439
    should be available. What I feel in answer to the hon. Gentleman is that you may really trust the Court to see, in the cases where there is no necessity for any legal assistance or guidance, those concerned will do what they have done in the past. Those persons most nearly and closely interested will put their points with the utmost freedom, and the greatest knowledge of the facts. If they can do so, well and good. But as the hon. Member opposite said, sometimes there comes a time of trouble, and there is a necessity for a little legal assistance. If the matter involves a point of law which has to be discussed and upon which the Court would desire to have legal assistance, then as a rule legal assistance would be available. Under these circumstances I propose to leave the Clause as it is, because I think these last two lines, "except as provided by those rules no person shall be entitled to appear on any such proceedings by counsel or solicitor"—that these put plainly in the Bill what the intention is. So that cases will be argued as in the past. Then again, the other words of the Clause will enable those particular eases where legal points are raised to be discussed with legal assistance. In the other cases the present ordinary practice will prevail. I apologise for repeating myself, and I hope, under these circumstances, having made the explanation I have that our desire is to make the Clause a fair one, the Committee will be able to proceed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel GREIG: I beg to move, to leave out the words
    "and except as provided by those Rules no person shall be entitled to appear on any such proceedings by counsel or solicitor."
    In an earlier part of the Debate, the Solicitor-General suggested that the words were, in fact, otiose and unnecessary. I agree to a certain extent with that. I quite agree, too, with the principle that provision shall be made by rule, and that in these rules shall be stated the occasions on which solicitors or counsel may be engaged. Intricate cases might involve the interest of a third party. The Court in that case would not be prepared to exercise its discretion as to whether or not that person should be allowed to be heard by counsel, because such a one is prevented from pleading by Statute. I suggest that the Solicitor-General, in order to make real the discretion of the Court, should
    440
    accept this Amendment, and so provide that in cases for which the rules may not have provided, the Court shall have a discretion to permit counsel or a solicitor to appear.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I am very much obliged to my hon, and gallant Friend for having put his point quite clearly, but I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. I think that the rules properly safeguard the position. Again, after having made the statement I made a moment ago that I was of the opinion that the Clause should be kept intact, and so safeguard the rights of both sides, it would clearly be quite a breach of faith on my part if I was prepared to delete any of the Clause at the present time. Therefore, as I hope the rules and the discretion of the Court will be quite sufficient to prevent any injustice arising, I am afraid I cannot accept these words.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words "save with the consent of the parties to the dispute."
    The point I wish to put is that it is suggested that the Court should decide when legal assistance may be called in. It occurred to me that this may mean delay. The intention rather was this: We have now to come before the Court and ask them to allow legal aid, and so put us in a position to have legal assistance, if the Court desires. But we do not want to engage a solicitor first and then come to Court and the Court refuse to hear him. That is the point we desire to put forward.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making his explanation. It makes plain the point, that the rules ought to provide as to the time when the application for legal assistance should be made. We have a procedure in the ordinary Courts which enables these sort of applications to be made before the actual hearing. I am obliged to him for raising that point. We must see to it that the rules give an opportunity for the settlement of this point before the actual hearing.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10 (Application of Act to the Crown) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)
    (1)In the application of this Act to Scotland reference to an oversman shall be substituted for any reference to an umpire.

    (2)In the application of this Act to Ireland a reference to the Common. Law Procedure Amendment (Ireland) Act, 1856, shall be substituted for any reference to the Arbitration Act, 1889.

    Amendment made: Leave out Subsection (2).—[Sir E. Pollock.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 12 (Report to Parliament) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Short Title, and Repeal.)
    (1)This Act may be cited as the Industrial Courts Act, 1919.

    (2)The Conciliation Act, 1896, is hereby repealed.

    Mr. J. JONES: I beg leave to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    The object of this Amendment is, so far as we are concerned, to protect the rights of the workmen under the existing Conciliation Act of 1896. Nearly every trade throughout the country has a voluntary arrangement whereby they take advantage of this Act. They are firmly of opinion that if any attempt is made to interfere with existing agreements and arrangements under the Act, it is going to make considerable trouble and prevent the successful carrying of the provisions of this Bill. A large number of trade unions are not satisfied with the provisions of the present Bill, consequently they claim the right to remain under existing arrangements. We do not want this measure to affect the unions already covered.
    Sir R. HORNE: I quite understand the position of my hon. Friends opposite to make the claim they do, but I think we have made Amendments to this Bill which provide for all that any of them have either asked for or can ask for. In the initial part of the Committee's proceedings the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton raised the question as to the position of the Bill under the Conciliation Act. I was very glad to adapt from him a proviso to Sub-section (2), which entirely meets the whole point of such agreements under the Conciliation Act. The proviso, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jones) may have noticed, runs as follows:
    "Provided that if there are existing in any trade or industry any arrangements for settle-
    442
    ment by conciliation or arbitration of disputes in such trade or industry, or any branch thereof, made in pursuance of an agreement between organisations of employers and organisations of workmen representative respectively of substantial proportions of the employers and workmen engaged in that trade or industry, the Minister shall not, unless with the consent of both parties to the dispute, and unless and until there has been a failure to obtain a settlement by means of those arrangements, refer the matter for settlement or advice in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section."
    6.0 P.M
    That, along with the other provision with regard to a board of arbitration composed of a chairman, with panels of employers and workmen, entirely covers everything that the Conciliation Act does except that there is no provision made for the registration of conciliation boards. In point of fact, registration does not add anything to the efficacy of the conciliation boards, and out of 400 of those, boards only eleven have been registered. I know that originally there were twenty-four registered, but only eleven have survived; all the rest are unregistered, and they are just as efficacious. If you read the Conciliation Act you will find that it does nothing that is not done under this Bill. On this point I have completely satisfied the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), and I think a careful examination of this measure will show that nothing in the Conciliation Act is omitted. I keep in mind that I have gone even further at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Withies (Mr. Henderson), because the Minister of Labour may set up panels of employés and workmen upon whom calls may be made for service in cases of arbitration.
    Mr. HENDERSON: There is no need to argue this question very much, for it is only a matter as to whether in the case of the Act of 1896 we might allow it to remain. If we did it would be an alternative to the machinery of the Bill we are now discussing. It would have continued to act, as I believe it has acted, in spite of failure to register, as a stimulus to the setting up of conciliation boards. Inquiries go to show that vast numbers of conciliation boards have come into existence since this legislation was passed. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that this Act is superfluous in view of the new Bill, but I think the Committee will be well advised to allow it to remain.

    443
    If organisations desire alternative machinery which alone can be obtained under the Conciliation Act of 1896 why should they not have it? The right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), but that does not encourage the establishment of conciliation boards like the Act of 1896. We have not another day for Report under the arrangements made two nights ago, and we want to observe that arrangement, or I should have asked the right hon. Gentleman to have gone into the matters as to whether there was not some value to be derived from leaving this Act on the Statute Book, and allowing it to be supplementary, and an alternative both to organisations of employers and workmen if they desire to avail themselves of it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether even now he cannot see his way to leave, out this Sub-section?
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the whole thing we emphasised was that he should not interfere with the machinery of the conciliation boards now in existence, and that we should be allowed to carry on our business in an amicable way same as in the past. The Act of 1896 is an inducement for employers and workmen to come together, and nobody knows the benefit of arbitration boards more than the Government. Under this Act you do not give an inducement for employers or workmen to come together to establish these conciliation boards, but if you repeal this Act there will be no inducement for conciliation boards to be established. What is the danger of allowing the Conciliation Act of 1896 to remain in the Bill?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that my legal instincts sometimes get the better of me, and it was really from the point of view of always trying to avoid confusion either between statutes, or different sections of the same statute, that I put in tins Sub-section for the repeal of the Conciliation Act of 1896. I am very much impressed with what my right hon. and hon. Friends opposite have urged upon me, and I recognise the value of the word conciliation. It has had a great advantage over the years in which it has received sanction in the Conciliation Act. I have looked carefully through the Act to discover anything that can clash with the
    444
    provisions of the measure now before the Committee, and I have come to the conclusion that no very great harm can be done, although there may be a certain amount of confusion. On the other hand the balance is in favour of the word conciliation in a statute, and holding it up as a lamp to which people may direct their eyes. I therefore consent to my right hon. Friend's request.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Awards of Interim Court of Arbitration.)
    Any award determining or varying a rate which has been made by the Interim Court of Arbitration under the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918, before the twenty-first day of November, nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall have effect as if it were an award made under this Act, whether such award would have come into operation after the said twenty-first day of November, nineteen hundred and nineteen or not.—[Mr. A. Henderson.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I am anxious to know if it is intended that the award given within the last two days would be included. We think that unless some provision is made there may be confusion and disappointment as a result of that award not having statutory sanction, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider this new Clause from that standpoint.
    Sir R. HORNE: The point my right hon. Friend has made has been clearly in my view ever since we first began discussing the draft of the Bill. Between the two provisions, which I will refer to, the point of my right hon. Friend makes is completely covered. The Amendment which has been made to Clause 6 goes even further than the point which my right hon. Friend put to me, because it not only preserves the legal efficacy of awards already given, but it will not have come into operation before the expiry of the Act, and it gives efficacy to cases which may be referred to the Court before the expiry of the Act. Therefore, the Amendment goes further than the right hon. Gentleman asks. On this point we should take along, with what I have suggested, my Amendment to the scheme, which reads
    "the power to substitute any rate for the prescribed rate shall cease, without prejudice, however, to the enforceability of any rate substituted

    445
    for the prescribed rate before the commencement of this Act, whether the substituted rate has or has not come into operation before that date."
    I think in those two provisions you have the whole matter clearly covered.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Laying of Orders and Rules before Parliament.)
    Any Orders or Rules made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliaments as soon as may be after they are made and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
    Provided that, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order or Rule is laid before it praying that the Order or Rule may be annulled, His Majesty in council may annul the Order or Rule and it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
    Any Order or Rule made under this Act shall not be deemed to be a Statutory Rule within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.—[Mr. G. Locker-Lampson.]
    Brought up, and read the first time
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I think this Amendment is important from the point of view of Parliamentary control. Under Clause 4 the Minister has power to make Rules with regard to Courts of Arbitration and also with regard to Courts of Inquiry. There are a great many precedents for this in former Acts of Parliament where Rules have to be laid before Parliament and no delay whatsoever is incurred. In the National Insurance Act of 1911 it is provided that the Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners must be laid before Parliament, and if eventually Parliament did not agree with them they hold good up to the point at which Parliament disagrees, and so they are valid until Parliament declares them to be rescinded. Then we have the Housing Act and the Ministry of Health Act and the Peace Treaty, and in each one of those the Rules and Regulations made by the Executive had to be laid before the Houses of Parliament, and hon. Members had a chance of saying whether they would have them or not. I do not see why my right hon. Friend should not accept this Amendment in the same way as his colleagues have accepted it under other Bills. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has read my Amendment carefully, but the last paragraph has been put down in order that there should be absolutely no delay.
    446
    Although the Act of 1893 provides for the document being laid before Parliament for at least forty days before the statutory rules become operative, I have taken the pains in the last paragraph of my Amendment to provide that this particular provision shall not apply here, and therefore there will not be any delay at all, and these rules will be perfectly valid unless and until this House decides to alter them. I therefore cannot see any reason why my right hon. Friend should not accept my proposal. I can quite understand certain right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches may not like it. It is a proposal not at all agreeable to the Whips, because it means that at any time of the night, after the general business is finished, any hon. Member can move an Address to the Crown with the object of rescinding the rules. Now that power is a very valuable asset for Members of this House. We have very few privileges and very few powers left. This is one of the few occasions on which an hon. Member, after the general business of the day, can get up and move an Address to the Crown and there is nothing to stop him. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the new Clause, which involves absolutely no delay, and merely ensures that if any hon. Member wishes a particular rule to be rescinded he shall be in a position to ask the House to assent to his view.
    Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend asked just now whether I had read this new Clause carefully. I always do read anything which my hon. Friend puts down, and I may add that I paid the closest attention to all he said in favour of this proposal. Had it been one dealing with such subjects as he referred to, affecting the people's rights and privileges, for instance, under the National Health Insurance Act, I should have been heartily in favour of it. But as this Bill now stands nobody can be affected by any rule which may be made. This Committee has taken out the compulsory powers with regard to calling on people to attend the Court and produce documents, and therefore these rules will only be the ordinary routine rules of procedure providing for the way in which people may go to the Court. The procedure there followed will be the ordinary procedure which any Court makes for itself, and the Court may have to vary them in order to facilitate its proceedings. I quite agree that every

    447
    privilege and power of Parliament should be preserved. But this is not a privilege. It is only a nuisance. It is of the nature of using a steam hammer to crack a nut. Nothing can arise under the rules with which Parliament should be called upon to deal. I have not the slightest objection in principle to Parliament having all that is material before it, but I certainly think it would be a mere waste of time if we are only going to lay these things on the table so that everybody may ignore them. If my hon. Friend only really understood that, as a result of the new shape of the Bill, nothing is likely to arise under these rules affecting the jurisdiction of the House, I think he would feel inclined not to press his proposal.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Although the right hon. Gentleman has put his case very genially—as he always does—I must confess he has not been very convincing. All my hon. Friend asks by this proposal is this. We are setting up an Arbitration Court. The right hon. Gentleman is taking to himself powers to make rules relating to arbitration in certain cases and to lay down the way in which disputes shall be dealt with. All we ask is, that these rules shall be laid before the House. It cannot involve any waste of time, and, even should the House decide subsequently to abrogate a rule, it would not prejudice anything that has been done under it. I expected to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there was some deep legal objection to this proposal. But his only point was that it is unnecessary. I respectfully submit to the Committee that it is not unnecessary to re-establish Parliamentary control. Members have felt it would be a good thing if this House of Commons had a voice in these big industrial disputes that arise. There have been settlements made outside this House very much to the detriment of the authority of Parliament. After all, this is the elective body for the whole country, and it is only by the State re-enforcing and corroborating the authority of the Court that you can give an effective answer to the people outside who want direct action. What my hon. Friend proposes is not only innocuous but may be most useful. I think it is a very valuable suggestion which will not clog the wheels of this Act, and it should therefore receive more favourable consideration at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Major HILLS: I quite agree that the proposal is harmless and innocuous, but I do submit that the present is not a case where Parliamentary control is necessary. These rules affect the procedure of the Court of Arbitration. It is a domestic matter for the Court itself, and there is just as much cause for laying them before Parliament, which, incidentally, I do not think is the right body to criticise them, as to laying before it the procedure of the Royal Courts of Justice. But I rose for the purpose of making a suggestion, and it is that something in the nature of a joint committee of employers and men and of members of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department should be set up, and that it should be the duty of that committee to formulate rules under the Act. That would give the public more confidence. I quite agree it cannot be done now, but I hope the Minister in charge will bear this suggestion in mind. I am just as strong as my hon. Friend opposite for Parliamentary control. But that control must be over proper subjects, and I do not think it is for this House to criticise complicated domestic matters of procedure.
    Mr. RENDALL: I think the right hon. Gentleman hardly realises how deeply the public generally are affected by the disputes which will have to be dealt with by this Court. It is possible that some rule altogether bad might be made, or a rule of procedure altogether unsuitable for dealing with certain cases. At the same time, there may be a great deal of public unrest, and we should best get rid of that by having power here to ventilate the matter. I agree that it is not at all likely that the rules which are made will ever be discussed here, but there is a possibility that if some criticsm can be made publicly the hands of the Court may be strengthened in any dispute that may arise. There may be occasions when by means of a Debate in this House public unrest may be allayed, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman might very well accept the new Clause, especially having regard to the general position of the House of Commons at this time, the general public unrest, and the enormous powers which Departments are always trying to take on themselves.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to point out that even if this proposal were carried it would not give an opportunity

    449
    for raising a discussion of the nature suggested by the last speaker. Such a discussion would be quite out of order.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: The Rules with which we are dealing are for the purpose of arranging the procedure of the Court—a Court which, we hope, will be accorded a very high status, and no doubt those Rules will be drawn with great care. But to suggest that this House ought to exercise some control over them is to miss the point altogether. My hon. and learned Friend who last spoke seemed to indicate that at a time of great industrial unrest it might be possible, if these Rules had to be lad before Parliament, for Parliament to intervene. But that is the very moment when Parliament ought not to intervene to subvert the authority of an independent Court. For Parliament to use its influence at the very time that Court is going to exercise its functions is the very thing which ought to be avoided. Those who have experience in the High Court would deprecate at any time, when a matter is before the High Court, a discussion in Parliament in which it might be asserted that the procedure under which the Court was acting was wrong. It would only lead to confusion. A Clause similar to this was put into the Treaty of Peace for this reason, that certain Orders in Council had to be made for the purpose of carrying out the terms of the Treaty. The Orders in Council provide for regulations to be made under them. That is all right, but here we are dealing with a matter which is purely domestic and largely administrative. It is quite right that Parliament should retain the control in such a case as I have quoted, but here my hon. Friend is dealing with a question of rules which will lay down the procedure of a Court which should be independent, and on whose judgment we should rely.
    Captain BENN: It is a Court of Inquiry.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: The Court is not to be a creature of the House or of a Minister; it is to be an independent Court. It is to have a very high status as an independent Court. To bring its rules of procedure before this House would be quite a new practice. It is really impossible. A more careful examination of the purpose of the Rules and the common use of this form will convince the Committee that really this Clause is unnecessary.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When the Insurance Bill was going through the House I remember exactly the same arguments being used about the Rules and Regulations which were going to be made. It was then pointed out by the Government that these Regulations and Rules would amount to some, hundreds, and that it would not be of the slightest use. As a matter of fact there have been thousands of Regulations and Rules issued by the Insurance Commissioners, and on one or two occasions this House has taken the opportunity of discussing them, and I am not at all sure that my hon. and learned Friend did not himself take part very late at night in the Debate on a Motion for an Address to the Crown disallowing one of the Insurance Regulations.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I hope I did, because the matter was completely different and it affords an excellent illustration of the difference between the Rules we are discussing now and the Rules on which I made a very happy and successful intervention. Those were Rules which were administrative and dealt with the rights of parties which were to be dealt with entirely under those Rules. They had nothing to do with the rules of procedure setting up a Court. As they affect the rights of property directly I am glad to be reminded that I was so successful in the intervention I made.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is exactly what I was coming to. These particular Rules in the Insurance Act did not wholly deal with rights. You have here Regulations under Clause 60 made for the procedure of insurance committees. The whole of these have to be laid before Parliament.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: My success was not on that.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My argument is that you have here under the Insurance Act Rules dealing with the procedure of Insurance Committees, rules for the giving of lectures and the publication of information. The whole of these Rules have to be laid before the House, and therefore the argument used by my hon. and learned Friend that mere rules of procedure need not be laid before the House does not hold good in regard to this Act of 1911. I attach the greatest value to giving either side every opportunity that it desires of discussing the

    451
    Rules made under an Act of Parliament. It may be of slight consequence in regard to this Bill, but the principle is the same in every Bill, and I shall certainly divide the Committee.
    Sir R. HORNE: I find it very difficult to follow my hon. Friend's argument. This is really the purely domestic procedure of these Industrial Courts and Courts of Inquiry as to the way in which they are to act and in which they may arrange for evidence being brought before them and the way in which witnesses may be accommodated and may be taken to suit the convenience of parties, and to say that the Court which is dealing with these matters is to have these simple rules of their ordinary procedure settled by the House of Commons seems to me quite out of the question.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Laid before Parliament.
    Sir R. HORNE: That must mean that Parliament is not to ignore them. It must
    mean that they are rules which ought to occupy the attention of Parliament. In my view Parliament would be wasting its time on questions of that kind. Parliament is very much occupied. It might be even more occupied in the future. Business is even congested at present and for hon. Members to take an interest in the domestic rules of a Court seems to be straining the matter of the privileges of Parliament to a degree which is quite unconstitutional, and with all the goodwill in the world towards my hon. Friend's general point of view as to the necessity of keeping Parliament supreme, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do my utmost to give way to my right hon. Friend in every possible manner, but I regard this as a matter of principle and I am afraid I must go to a Division.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 234.

    Division No. 131.]

    AYES.

    [6.38 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.)

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Sitch, C. H.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Hartshorn, V.

    Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Haslam, Lewis

    Spencer, George A.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hayday, A.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hirst, G, H.

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Billing, Noel Pemberton

    Hogge, J. M.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Briant, F.

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Tootill, Robert

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

    Wignall, James

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Newbould, A. E.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Finney, Samuel

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Foxcrott, Captain C.

    O'Grady, James

    Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Young, Lt-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Rendall.

    Grundy, T. W.

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr, Christopher

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Bigland, Alfred

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Birchall, Major J. D.

    Campion, Colonel W. R.

    Armitage, Robert

    Bird, Alfred

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W.

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)

    Bread, Thomas Tucker

    Clough, R.

    Barker, Major R.

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Cohen, Major J. B. B.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J.

    Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Burden, Colonel Rowland

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Bennett, T. J.

    Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

    Courthope, Major George- Loyd

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Rae, H. Norman

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

    Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Reid, D. D.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.

    Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Renwick, G.

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Kerr-Smiley, Major p.

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Edge, Captain William

    Kidd, James

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    King, commander Douglas

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Robinson, T. Stretford, Lancs.)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Knights, Captain H.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar

    Rowlands, James

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

    Fitzroy, Capt, Hon. Edward A.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Foreman, H.

    Lorden, John William

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworlh)

    Seager, Sir William

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W.(Brigg)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Gibbs, Colonel John Abraham

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Mason, Robert

    Stanley, Col. Hon. H. G. F. (Preston)

    Glyn, Major R.

    Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Greame, Major P. Lloyd

    Mitchell, William Lane-

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Green, A. (Derby)

    Moles, Thomas

    Stewart, Gershom

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Greer, Harry

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Mount, William Arthur

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leie., Loughboro')

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Guinness, Lt.-Cot. Hn. W. E. (B. St. E)

    Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Hailwood, A.

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Wallace, J.

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Neal, Arthur

    Wardle, George J.

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Hennessy, Major G.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Weigall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

    Parker, James

    Wigan, Brig.-General Sir Tyson

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Hinds, John

    Pearce, Sir William

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Hood, Joseph

    pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Perkins, Waiter Frank

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pickering, Col. Emil W.

    Woolcock, W. J. U.

    Hope, Lieut.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Home, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

    Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Pratt, John William

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. C

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Capt.

    Hurd, P. A.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Agricultural Disputes.)
    In the case of a trade dispute in the industry of agriculture, the persons forming the standing Industrial Court shall be appointed, and all steps taken under this Act by the Minister of Labour acting in agreement with the President of the Board of Agriculture.—[Captain Falcon.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Captain FALCON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cautley) is to make provision for disputes that arise in the
    454
    agricultural industry. The agricultural industry differs pretty widely from other industries and it has many special conditions which are not common to other industries. In cases of dispute, therefore, in the agricultural industry it is most important that those who are sitting on the Court should be conversant with that particular industry. At the present time the Board of Agriculture, I believe, does send down commissioners in cases where disputes arise, and this has proved to be successful. In the Bill as it stands now the Board of Agriculture is not able in any

    455
    way to act. It is most essential that the Board of Agriculture in an agricultural matter should represent both the agricultural labourer and the farmer, and that it should act in agreement with the Minister of Labour. This difficulty would be overcome if this Clause is adopted.
    Sir R. HORNE: I cannot accept the Amendment in the shape in which it has been moved. I quite recognise that agriculture does stand in a separate position, seeing that there is a Government Department whose whole concern is that of agriculture. It is important that that Department, which necessarily has a very much greater knowledge of all the conditions of agriculture than any other Department can have, should take a permanent part in dealing with agricultural disputes. It would be entirely wrong if we neglected to take advantage of the special experience and knowledge which the Board of Agriculture have in that respect. While I cannot accept this Amendment, I should be prepared to agree to an Amendment in this form:
    "In the case of a trade dispute in the industry of agriculture steps to be taken under this

    SCHEDULE.

    Provisions continued in force.

    Modifications.

    S. 1 (Obligation to pay prescribed rates of wages)

    As from the commencement of this Act a reference to an award of the Industrial Court shall, without prejudice to anything done before the commencement of this Act, be substituted for the reference to an award of the Interim Court of Arbitration.

    Subs. (2) of s. 2 (Settlement of differences)

    As from the commencement of this Act matters instead of being referred for settlement as provided in subs. (2) shall be referred to the Industrial Court.

    The words "or as to whether any rate shall be substituted for the prescribed rate" shall cease to have effect, and the proviso to subs. 2 shall not apply.

    S. 3 (Powers of inquiry)

    …

    …

    …

    —

    S. 4 (Definition of prescribed rates of wages)

    —

    S. 5 (Legal proceedings)

    …

    …

    …

    —

    Amendments made: In paragraph relating to Section 1 (Obligation to pay prescribed rates of wages), leave out the words "a reference to an award of the," and insert instead thereof the words
    "the power to substitute any enforceable rate for the prescribed rate shall cease, without prejudice, however, to the enforceability of any rate substituted for the prescribed rate, before the commencement of this Act, whether the substituted rate has or has not come into operation before that date, and without prejudice to the enforceability of any rate substituted for the prescribed rate by an award of the Industrial Court under Part III. of this Act."—[Sir R. Horne.]
    456
    Act by the Minister of Labour shall be taken in consultation with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
    It is perfectly plain that any Minister of Labour would be very foolish if he did not take advantage of the special knowledge and experience of the Board of Agriculture when disputes arise in the agricultural industry. Accordingly, I would be prepared to accept an Amendment in the terms I have suggested if my hon. Friend would agree to modify his Amendment in consonance with what I have said.
    Captain FALCON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I beg leave to withdraw this Clause in order that a Clause may be moved in the terms, outlined by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Agricultural Disputes.)
    In the case of a trade dispute in the industry of agriculture steps to be taken under this Act by the Minister of Labour shall be taken in consultation with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.—[Sir R. Horne.]
    Brought up; read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
    In second column, relating to Section 4 (Definition of prescribed rates of wages), insert the words
    "As from the commencement of this Act a reference to the Industrial Court shall be substituted for any reference to the Interim Court of Arbitration."—[Sir R. Horne.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule of the Bill."
    Mr. HENDERSON: I had intended to raise the position of women and girls on a previous Amendment. I have already

    457
    spoken of the delay that is being experienced in setting up trade boards for the trades in which women are very largely employed. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have to admit that there has been a certain amount, of delay. There is a good deal of apprehension that if that delay continues, and now that we have taken away the right to come to ask for an improved rate or a substituted rate, that many women and girls may be in a position of serious disadvantage. What we were trying to do by our last Amendment was to try to give them some protection and to make it possible for the Court in the interim period between the passing of this Bill and the setting up of trade boards for some of these trades to have an opportunity of establishing a minimum rate for women and girls. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to insert some words on the Report stage whereby if a case of badly-paid women or girls was brought before the Court and the Court wanted to establish a minimum rate, then if it was only for the interim period until the Trade Board had been established in that particular trade, that minimum rate could be secured for this class of worker.
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir R. HORNE: I have great sympathy with the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but I do not think the matter could be dealt with in the shape in which he puts it before the Committee. It is quite outside the scope of any Court set up under this Bill to establish any rate. Indeed, so clear is that, that ray right hon. Friend and I have upon many occasions been in consultation with regard to the passing of another Act through this House for establishing and fixing minimum rates for both males and females throughout the Kingdom. Accordingly, I cannot do anything in the shape in which he asks for it in this measure. In regard to the trade boards I agree that they have not been set up at anything like the speed that one would have desired. My right hon. Friend used the word "delay." I cannot admit delay, because the real fact is that that part of the Ministry of Labour which has been engaged upon this necessary and laudable object has been strained to the very uttermost in doing the work which they have succeeded in accomplishing. Nobody who has not actually taken part in it has any idea of the number of inquiries and negotiations which have to take place before a trade board
    458
    can be set up. You have to discover what ambit your trade board will cover, and that involves innumerable inquiries in all the various branches of a particular industry. I am endeavouring to expedite that in every way I can, but there is a matter which the House has been dealing with recently, namely, the question of expenditure. Unfortunately, a certain amount of expenditure will be necessary in regard to staff, and I am very reluctant to ask too much in that respect. I am endeavouring to hurry matters in every way that I can, and I have done more. Under the Interim Act there is a power which is being continued under the present measure, and which does enable me to encourage the increase of women's wages where any women are working at sweated rates in some industries for which trade boards have not already been set up. I think I have strained my powers to the uttermost in that respect, and I am prepared still to go on in that good work. I am afraid, however, that I cannot give my right hon. Friend any assurance that there is any means of doing anything which would interfere with the work of a trade board, or would overlap with its duties, under this measure. What I am clear about is that it could not possibly come within the scope of the present Bill.
    Mr. HENDERSON: May I just call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one point? Part of tins Act is temporary until the 30th September of next year. The Bill he refers to, which has had its First Beading, is only a Bill for the establishment of a Commission. That Commission will have to sit, and will have to take a vast amount of evidence, and I think he is a very sanguine man who would say that before many months are over the, minimum rates that that Bill is intended to secure will be established. What I was asking was, Could the right hon. Gentleman not do something in the interim between the passing of this Bill and the time when either a trade board will be set up or the General Minimum. Rate Act has been passed and a minimum rate established for this class of work?
    The CHAIRMAN: That shows me that not only the Amendment but the subject of trade boards and the establishment of minimum rates do not come within the scope of this Bill.
    Major HILLS: I should like to refer to one point in connection with the Wages Regulation Act. I have great sympathy with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henderson), and I do think that some means ought to be found of bridging the gap between the time when this Bill passes and the time when the trade boards can be established for the general regulation of women's wages. I think it can be done under the Wages Regulation Act of 1918, if some tribunal of the character of the Interim Arbitration Tribunal would continue to legislate for women's wages up to the 30th of September next. Then we should not be outside the scope of this Act. All that we should be saying would be that, in the special case of women, the Courts established under this Bill should have the same powers as they had under the Wages Act of 1918. I would reinforce that by saying that what is happening now is simply that women are losing all that they won during the War, and the whole position is going right back. Women are starving—
    The CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order on the Schedule.

  TITLE.
  A Bill to provide for the establishment of an Industrial Court and Courts of Inquiry in connection with Trade Disputes, and to continue for a limited period certain of the provisions of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918.
  Amendment made: After the word "disputes" insert the words "and to make other provision for the settlement of such disputes."—[Sir R. Horne.]
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported [with an amended Title]; as amended, considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Industrial Court.)
  (1) For the purpose of the settlement of trade disputes in manner provided by this Act there shall be a standing Industrial Court, consisting of persons to be appointed by the Minister of Labour (in this Act referred to as "the Minister"), of whom some shall be independent persons, some shall be persons representing employers, and some shall be persons representing workmen.
  (3) For the purpose of dealing with any matter which may be referred to it, the Court shall be constituted of such of the members of the Court as the President may, after consultation with the Court, direct.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "and in addition one or more women."
  On Monday night a Motion was made in somewhat similar terms by my hon. Friend who sits behind me (Mr. A. Shaw), and I undertook to consider the matter carefully before the Report stage. He, however, went to a Division on the matter, and, as I understand Parliamentary procedure, that would absolve me from keeping that pledge. But it was a genuine offer on my part, although my hon. Friend seemed to think if was a dishonest one, or in some way one that he could not rely on. At any rate, I cannot explain to myself in any other way why he took the action he did take. Nevertheless, it makes no difference to the action I am taking now, and I accordingly propose that those words be there inserted.
  Mr. A. SHAW: I desire to say that I am sure the House and the country are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking that course. Those of us who were concerned in the Debate two days ago had never any of us the slightest, doubt of his sympathy with the cause which we were then defending. The doubt, if he will allow me to explain, which was in our minds arose from the fact that we gathered from his observations that the most he could do on the Report stage would be to place women in the Courts in a purely advisory capacity as assessors. The point of our going into the Lobby was that we desired that women should be full members of the Court, with the prestige of full membership, and that they should be in close and constant touch with the whole development of the wages situation. I think that is an important point in the eyes of every person who has had experience of the complicated nature of wages questions, and of the manner in which one question reacts on another. I desire personally to thank my right hon. Friend for his action, and to repeat that, in anything which happened, not one of us ever had a shadow of doubt of his own personal sympathy with the cause of just remuneration for women.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "after consultation with the Court."

  461
  The circumstances under which I make this proposal are these. As this Subsection was originally drawn, the constitution of the Court was left to the action of the Minister. It was represented to me by an hon. Member that there was too much power in the hands of the Minister, and that the Court seemed to be to far too great an extent the mere creature of the Minister. I recognised and appreciated the force of that comment, and, in order that the Court might have complete independence and might be free from any reflection of that kind, I accepted an Amendment to the effect that the Court should be constituted of such of the members of the Court as the President might, after consultation with the Court, direct. On thinking the matter over and discussing it with my advisers, we came to the conclusion that the words "after consultation with the Court" would be a source of very great embarrassment and difficulty, for the reason that this Court will no doubt sit, as the Interim Court of Arbitration has frequently sat, in different divisions in different parts of the country. In the regulation of business from day to day it would clearly be quite impossible for the President to have the opportunity of consulting all the members of his Court, when some were in different parts of the country, and accordingly I venture to recommend to the House that the words "after consultation with the Court" be omitted. Then the constitution of the Court will be decided by the President, who, I think, in practically all Courts with which I have any acquaintance, is the person who really is responsible for the constitution of any Court or of its different divisions.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Reference of Disputes to Industrial Court or to Arbitration.)
  (2) Where a trade dispute exists or is apprehended, the Minister may, if he thinks fit and if both parties consent, either—

  (a) refer the matter for settlement to the Industrial Court; or

  (b) refer the matter for settlement to the arbitration of one or more persons appointed by him; or

  (c) refer the matter for settlement to a board of arbitration consisting of one or more persons nominated by or on behalf of the employers concerned and an equal number of persons nominated by or on behalf of the workmen concerned, and an independent chairman nominated by the Minister:

  462
  Provided that if there are existing in any trade or industry any arrangements for settlement by conciliation or arbitration of disputes in such trade or industry, or any branch thereof, made in pursuance of an agreement between organisations of employers and organisations of workmen representative respectively of substantial proportions of the employers and workmen engaged in that trade or industry, the Minister shall not, unless with the consent of both parties to the dispute, and unless and until there has been a failure to obtain a settlement by means of those arrangements, refer the matter for settlement or advice in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section.
  (3) The Minister may refer to the Industrial Court for advice any matter relating to or arising out of a trade dispute, or trade disputes in general or trade disputes of any class, or any other matter which in his opinion ought to be so referred.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "Minister" ["nominated by the Minster"] to insert the words
  "For the purpose of facilitating the nomination of persons to act as members of a board of arbitration, the Minister of Labour shall constitute panels of persons appearing to him suitable so to act, and women shall be included in the panels."
  This Amendment is one which I move in response to a very reasonable request made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson). He pointed out the service which such panels had done under the Conciliation Act, and I am very glad to meet him by putting this definite arrangement into the present measure.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (3), insert the words:
  "Provided that if there are existing in any trade or industry any arrangements for settlement by conciliation or arbitration of disputes in such trade or industry, or any branch thereof, made in pursuance of an agreement between organisations of employers and organisations of workmen representative respectively of substantial proportions of the employers and workmen engaged in that trade or industry, the Minister shall not, unless with the consent of

  463
  both parties to the dispute, and unless and until there has been a failure to obtain a settlement by means of those arrangements, refer the matter for settlement or advice in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section."—[Sir R. Horne.]

  CLAUSE 3.—(Procedure of Industrial Court and on Arbitrations.)
  1. The Minister may make, or authorise the Industrial Court to make, Rules regulating the procedure of that Court, and those Rules may, amongst other things, provide for references in certain cases to a single member of the Court, and provide for enabling the Court to sit in two or more divisions, and to sit with assessors, for enabling the Court or any division of the Court to act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, and for enabling questions as to the interpretation of any award to be settled without any fresh report or reference.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "assessors" ["to sit with assessors"], to insert the words "who may be men or women."
  This is to carry out the previous proposal which I have made with regard to women.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Inquiry into Trade Disputes.)
  (4) The Minister may make Rules regulating the procedure of any Court of Inquiry, including Rules as to summoning of witnesses, quorum, and the appointment of committees.
  (5) A Court of Inquiry may, if and to such extent as may be authorised by Rules made under this Section, by Order require any person who appears to the Court to have any knowledge of the subject-matter of the inquiry to furnish, in writing or otherwise, such particulars in relation thereto as the Court may require, and, where necessary, to attend before the Court and give evidence on oath, and the Court may administer or authorise any person to administer an oath for that purpose.
  Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words
  "and enabling the Court to call for such documents as the Court may determine to be relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry."
  In the course of the discussion in Committee two nights ago we found it impossible to arrange that Orders should be given for the production of documents, because that might involve the overloading of the Court with many documents which might be wholly irrelevant to the subject. At that time I gave a pledge that I would devise a form of words against the Report stage which might meet the wishes of the Committee. These are the words, which I now propose. I think they will entirely meet the whole object which the various
  464
  Members who spoke desired should be secured in the way of the production of documents.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Before that is put, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether, in the event of any witness being subæpened and documents called for, and the official of the organisation refusing to supply those documents, he will be in any way penalised for refusing?
  Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. Member will recall that, on the motion of hon. Members upon the benches where he sits, the compulsory Clause with regard to that matter was omitted. I gave way upon that matter to the opinion of the Labour benches; so I am afraid he cannot complain now if he does not find compulsion included.
  Mr. THORNE: Do I understand that witnesses can be subpæened and documents called for? In that event, will a man be penalised if he refuses to come?
  Sir R. HORNE: No, he cannot be—on the desire of my hon. Friends on the Labour benches.
  Mr. THORNE: That is all right, then.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Provision as to Agricultural Disputes.)
  In the case of a. trade dispute in the industry of agriculture steps to be taken under this Act by the Minister of Labour shall be taken in consultation with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "consultation," and insert instead thereof the word "conjunction."—[Mr. Wardle.]

  CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)
  In the application of this Act to Scotland a reference to an oversman shall be substituted for any reference to an umpire.
  Amendments made: At the end of the Clause, insert the words
  "and a reference to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for any reference to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
  After the words last inserted, add
  "(2) In the application of this Act to Ireland, reference to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland shall be substituted for any reference to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."—[Mr. Wardle.]
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (COUNCILS, ETC.) [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
[SIR E. CORNWALL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses of any council, committee, or sub-committee established, or of any fishery meeting convened, under any Act of the present Session, to provide for the constitution of councils and committees in connection with agriculture and fisheries, and to amend the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909."[Sir A. Boscawen.]
Sir D. MACLEAN: I have made inquiries at the Vote Office, and have been unable to obtain the White Paper either with regard to the Resolution now before the Committee or, I may add for the convenience of my hon. Friend opposite (Sir A. Boscawen), the next Order on the Paper.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): May I say that I obtained the White Paper with reference to the Resolution for which I am responsible from the Vote Office an hour and a half ago?
Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman obtained it from the Vote Office or not, but two hon. Friends of mine have been there and they could not get one. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will go on to explain the Vote.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I am very sorry he was unable to obtain the White Paper. I took special precautions to have it printed and circulated to-day, and I went to the Vote Office about an hour and a half ago and asked for it, and they gave it to me. I cannot understand why, if there was one available for me, there was not one available for other people. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain what is proposed in this Resolution. The Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading yesterday, without a division, proposes to set up a Council of Agriculture for England, another for Wales, an Advisory Committee for England and Wales, and also County Agricultural Authorities for each county. It is provided that the expenses incurred under the Act will be paid for by monies provided by Parliament. I have prepared a White Paper which shows,
466
giving an outside estimate, what the cost is likely to be. First of all, the expenses of the Councils of Agriculture and the Committee for Agriculture, including the travelling subsistence of the members, will cost together, as an outside estimate, allowing for a larger number of meetings in a year than we anticipate will be the case, £7,000. In addition to that, we make a special provision that, on the Allotments and Small Holdings Committee of the County Agricultural Authority, the travelling expenses and subsistence allowances of members representing allotment societies and small holders shall be paid. We are very anxious that on the Small Holdings Committee we may have actual, living small holders, and it is quite clear that they cannot attend unless their expenses are paid. We estimate that the cost of that, at the outside figure, will be £2,000.
Then there is the Clause which authorises the County Agricultural Committees to take steps in the development of rural industries and social life in the villages. It is anticipated that the only expense incurred there might be the appointment of an organiser in the county. I do not think it is in the least likely that every county will appoint an organiser, but I have estimated on the basis that every county will. If that is so, the total cost will be £30,000. Therefore, in the White Paper I have put in an estimate—although the Committee will realise it is quite impossible to make tin absolutely definite or accurate estimate at this stage —of £40,000. I should like to add that whatever expense is incurred will be under the control of the Treasury, and will come under the review of Parliament each year on the Vote for the Estimate for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. There will be no Supplementary Estimate for this year, as we do not anticipate that these new bodies will be set up in time to incur any expenditure in the current financial year. I think that gives all the information I have. This figure, which I have named, is the outside figure. I hope that the Committee, in view of the fact that the House passed the Second Reading of the Bill without a Division yesterday, will agree to the Financial Resolution.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for the statement he has made, which I think quite sufficiently covers the Resolution before the Com-

467
mittee. As to the complaint which I have just made, that I was unable to get a White Paper at the Vote Office, the Paper was there, but a mistake was made by the official. It has now been rectified, and copies have been found.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES.
Considered in Committee.
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to make further provisions out of the Consolidated Fund, and out of moneys provided by Parliament, with respect to the Retirement and Pensions of County Court Judges and the employment of Deputy Judges under any Act of the present Session relating thereto."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
Sir D. MACLEAN: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will favour us with a short explanation?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): I shall be happy to do so, as I think my right hon. Friend was not present when the matter was fully explained before. The Bill proposes a new scheme of pensions for County Court judges according to the number of years which they have served.
Sir D. MACLEAN: It may save the time of my right hon. Friend and that of the Committee if he will just explain the paragraph in which it is stated that there will not be any net increase in cost.
Sir G. HEWART: As matters now stand, under the Act of 1888, the Treasury, upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor pay certain pensions to County Court judges who retire under that Act. It is now contemplated that County Court judges may retire otherwise than under those provisions, and if they do they may receive a pension according to the scale which is set out in the Schedule to the Bill. It is calculated that under the new scheme no further money will be required than that which is already expended under the existing provisions on that account. I may add a reference to a matter raised not by my right hon. Friend, but by my hon. Friend who is not now present, with regard to the payment of deputies. He suggested in the
468
course of the Second Reading Debate that there might be a difficulty because as he suspected some County Court judges might be tempted under the new arrangement, whereby the payment of a deputy comes not from the pocket of the County Court judge but from the Treasury, to prolong his absence unduly. I never thought that that would be likely to occur, but if my hon. Friend refers to Section 18 of the Act of 1888, it is there made clear that without the expressed consent of the Lord Chancellor a County Court judge may not be absent for a period exceeding fourteen days.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I thank my right hon. Friend and hope that the Committee and the public will take note that it is possible to effect a legal reform without an additional charge to the taxpayer.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

LAND VALUES (SELECT COM- MITTEE).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Beck be added to the Select Committee on Land Values."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
Sir D. MACLEAN: I take this opportunity of expressing the regret of everybody in the House at the occasion, probably, of the addition of the hon. Member to this Committee. That is the death of Sir Thomas Whittaker, for very many years an honoured and most respected member of this House. His death is a loss to the House and a loss to the country. He was a man of strong and independent character, and the long record of his services to the public inside this House and outside it is one which will not be forgotten by those who had the honour and privilege of knowing him.
The remaining Orders wore read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    EASTERN GALICIA (OCCUPATION).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secrtary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Supreme Council have consented to the permanent occupation of Eastern Galicia by the Poles and its annexation to Poland; if so, whether this is the result of the recent visit of M. Paderewski to the British Prime Minister; whether he is aware that the population of Eastern Galicia is predominantly Ukrainian; and whether a plebiscite is to be taken, as in the case of the former enemy territory of Upper Silesia, before this apparent negation of the right of self-determination is permitted?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): In answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I regret that I am not at liberty at present to divulge the proceedings of the Peace Conference in this matter. The second and fourth parts of the question do not, therefore, arise. As regards the third, His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the difficulties involved in determining the claims put forward by the various nationalities in Eastern Galicia.

    ATTACKS ON LETTS.
    Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
    776
    Affairs whether either General Denikin or Admiral Koltchak have ordered Colonel Bermondt to desist from his attacks on the Letts, in view of the fact that British seamen have been killed by Colonel Bermondt's artillery fire while defending Riga?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any orders having been issued to Colonel Bermondt either by Admiral Koltchak or General Denikin. As, however, General Yudenitch, who, together with General Denikin, has recognised Admiral Koltchak as Supreme Ruler, has denounced Colonel Bermondt as a traitor, it would appear unnecessary for either Admiral Koltchak or General Denikin to take any action in the matter.

    SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked whether war -has yet been declared between His Majesty and the Soviet Government of Russia; and, if not, what is the position in international law of soldiers of the Soviet Army taken prisoners by British forces?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: War has not been declared between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government, but soldiers of the Soviet Army taken prisoners-by the British forces are, in fact, treated in the same way as prisoners of war would be treated.

    ESTHONIA (GERMAN TROOPS).
    Major M. WOODasked what steps are now being taken to compel the German Government to recall the German troops with Colonel Bermondt and General von Eberhardt?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The main measures which have been taken up to date to bring pressure to bear on the German Government to withdraw the German troops from the Baltic have been the suspension of negotiations which were proceeding between the Supreme Economic Council and the German Government for the supply to Germany of food, raw materials, and financial assistance, and an embargo on the movements of German ships in the Baltic, Meanwhile an Inter-Allied Military Mission under General Niessel, which was appointed to supervise the evacuation of German troops, has already passed through Berlin on its way to the Baltic States.

    BRITISH MUNITIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHYasked whether, seeing that we are supplying General Denikin with munitions free of any stipulation as to the particular enemy against whom he would use them, General Denikin would be entitled to use British munitions against Esthonia and the other new Baltic States, whose claim to independence he has refused to recognise and who are now receiving protection from British warships?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The answer is in the negative. A consultation beforehand would have rendered the putting down of the question unnecessary.

    BRITISH TROOPS AT MEMEL AND DANTZIG.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether British troops are to be sent to Memel and Dantzig, respectively; if so, for what purpose; and whether young soldiers under the age of twenty and nine teen years, respectively, will accompany these troops?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Supreme Council decided to send Allied troops to Dantzig, which under the Treaty of Peace becomes a free city, to support the authority of the Temporary Administrator (Sir Reginald Tower) pending the organisation of local forces.
    It is essential to guard the docks against damage and to preserve the peace in the area of the new free city. It is also necessary to provide troops to enable the Commission for the delimitation of the frontier of the new free city to carry out its duties.
    The same general reasons apply as regards the Memel district. This territory is to be handed over by Germany to the principal Allied and Associated Powers, who will decide as to its ultimate disposal. The proximity of this Memel district to the Baltic States affords an additional reason for its military occupation by Allied troops. The answer to the third part is in the affirmative.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was not an assurance given by my right hon. Friend that these young soldiers would not be sent further than the Rhine?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They might be sent further than the Rhine, but what was said was in order to show that they would not be sent to India or the East. We had it in contemplation, though they might go to Northern Europe, to keep them within the temperate zone in the area responsibly controlled by the Rhine Army.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Who pays for these troops?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not yet convinced whether this will be a charge under the interpretation of the Peace Treaty—against Germany, in the same way as the maintenance of the Army on the Rhine—or whether it will have to be defrayed from some inter-Allied fund.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in future these young soldiers under nineteen shall not be sent anywhere in Europe except under one of the immediate commands?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is just what we have been doing. We have not sent any of the young men away from the proper climate in the usual way.
    Sir S. HOARE: There is, I believe, a good deal of misunderstanding and anxiety on the subject. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a public statement as to the proper areas? It would reassure the public.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is certainly no secret about it. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question to which I can give a written answer, I will give the locations to which British troops have to go in discharge of their share of the inter-Allied obligations.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have not some of these men been sent to Silesia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If a question is put down I shall be ready to say exactly where British troops are sent for the purpose of fulfilling our obligations.

    BALTIC OPERATIONS (BRITISH FLEET).
    Mr. SITCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the total naval losses of all ratings sustained by the British Fleet in the course of its operations in and about the Baltic since the date of the Armistice, stating the casualties for each month of the present year?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): With the permission of the House, I will circulate the answer to this question in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the information promised:

    —

    Killed.

    Wounded.

    Missing.

    Prisoners of War.

    Officers.

    Men.

    Officers.

    Men.

    Officers.

    Men.

    Officers.

    Men.

    1918—

    December

    …

    2

    11

    5

    5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1919—

    May

    …

    1

    1

    5

    4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    June

    …

    5

    37

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    July

    …

    2

    12

    1

    38

    —

    —

    —

    —

    August

    …

    6

    10

    4

    3

    1

    2

    3

    6

    September

    7

    10

    3

    8

    1

    —

    —

    —

    October

    …

    —

    9

    1

    4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    23

    90

    19

    63

    2

    2

    3

    6

    There were no casualties in November, 1918, nor in January, February, March, April, and November, 1919.

    LEGION OF RED FINNS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTKYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Legion of Red Finns, raised, armed, and equipped by His Majesty's Government, has been sent, or is to be sent, to the territory under the Finnish Government; whether an amnesty has been arranged for these men; and what steps have been taken to see that they are not penalised for the services which they rendered to the Allied cause?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: At the urgent request of the Red Finn Legion, negotiations were opened with the Finnish Government some time ago with a view to obtaining for these persons permission to return to their own country. For this purpose the greater part of the Legion were shipped from Murmansk to Reval and from that place sent in batches to Helsingfors, with a view to enabling the individual cases to be gone through. So far the inquiry, at which a British representative has been present throughout, has proceeded satisfactorily, and the great majority have already been received back to their country.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the second part of my question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say there has been a complete universal amnesty arranged. The matter is being discussed with the Finnish Government, and the action of the British Government must be regulated by individual canes. Any questions
    as to the negotiations should be addressed to the Foreign Office.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the conduct of the Finnish Government in such oases rather summary?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The British representative is watching the cases of these men, some of whom have been very heavily compromised in the past. Hon. Members may be sure their cases will have better attention through the presence of the British representative than they would get under any other set of circumstances.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the fact that these; men were raised by us and used by us and therefore we have a very special responsibility for them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] We are English after all—some of us.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: These men were fugitives from Finland, having in many cases outraged the laws of the dominant party in Finland. We are endeavouring to get them repatriated and to get the Finnish Government to accept them, except in oases where some definite brutal civil crime attaches to them.

  BRITISH CONSULS AND VICE-CONSULS.

    APPOINTMENT OF BUSINESS MEN.
    Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign

    781
    Affairs (1) what steps, if any, have been taken respecting the appointment of practical business men as British Consuls and Vice-Consuls in foreign countries in order to give full effect to the efforts or representatives of British manufacturers and traders for whom passage may be found on British ships proceeding to distant ports; if his Department will, in conjunction with the Board of Trade, make business training and knowledge one of the conditions of such appointments; (2) how many enemy aliens were acting as British Consuls and Vice-Consuls prior to August 1914; how many are still retained in such positions; if any have been appointed since the signing of the Armistice; if it is the intention of the Foreign Office to consult with the Board of Trade before such positions are filled with a view to the selection of practical business men of British nationality; and if it will henceforth be regarded as a primary condition that those selected as Ambassadors, Consuls, etc., shall be able to speak and write the language of the country to which they are accredited?
    Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Additional Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): Before the War there were no Consular officers of enemy nationality in the salaried Consular Service.
    In the unsalaried service there were thirty-seven German and thirteen Austro-Hungarians, but on the outbreak of war these appointments ceased automatically, and no ex-enemy alien has been appointed since the signing of the Armistice.
    A Committee of Selection on which the Board of Trade is represented, and which also comprises representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and of the Federation of British Industries, has been examining the qualifications of candidates for the salaried Consular Service. There is now a long waiting list of candidates who have passed the scrutiny of the Committee, but for whom posts are not at present available. Especial regard has been paid to the commercial and business experience of candidates.
    The appropriate language qualifications are regarded as of primary importance in making individual appointments in the Consular and other Foreign Services.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Baronet undertake that in the
    782
    Consular Service in the future there will be no appointments unless those appointed are of British nationality?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can undertake that so far as the salaried Consular Service is concerned but I cannot undertake it in regard to the unsalaried Consular Service because in these cases there are no British residents.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: If it is essential to have a British Consul why do we not send one? Why not have a British representative of our interests?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: There are some six hundred of these unsalaried Consuls and it is not possible, having regard to the need of economy to appoint salaried Consuls in these six hundred cases.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Baronet not aware that these unsalaried Consuls are able to obtain such information as may be of vital value to the country in case of trouble, and will he see whether it is not possible to reconsider the matter with a view of having these positions filled by people of British nationality?

  DEMOBILISATION.

    OFFICERS' LEAVE AND ALLOWANCES.
    Colonel YATEasked what are the conditions under which officers brought home from abroad are demobilised in this country; whether leave and allowances are granted to them in the same way as to the men; and, if not, will he alter the Regulations so as to prevent officers on arrival at home being turned adrift at a day's notice without any resources to live upon?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Temporary officers brought home for demobilisation proceed on arriving in this country to their dispersal station, and are then demobilised with effect from the date of dispersal. My hon. and gallant Friend appears to have overlooked the not unsubstantial gratuities drawn by these officers on demobilisation under the Pay Warrant.
    Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it takes six months for a man to get his gratuity, and many of these men have nothing to live upon until they get this money?
    Mr. FORSTER: I deny that it takes six -months to get a gratuity.
    Colonel YATE: How many months does it take?
    Mr. FORSTER: There may be exceptional cases, but my hon. and gallant Friend will give a totally misleading impression if he leads the House to believe that it takes six months to get a gratuity.

    HANTS REGIMENT (1914 MEN).
    Mr. WATERSONasked when the 1/9;th Hants Regiment will leave Vladivostok; is he aware that 1914 men are in that regiment; and can he state the reason why these men are not being got home?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This unit sailed from Vladivostock on 1st November.

    YOUNG SOLDIERS (SERVICE).
    Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private W. Parfitt, No. 73326, 2nd Battalion, Worcestershire Regiment, Portobello Barracks, Dublin, joined the Army some months ago, and that an application for his release was made by his father on the 26th July, 1919, on the grounds that his son would not reach the age of eighteen years until the 25th November, 1919; whether ho is aware that at the request of the adjutant of the regiment a birth certificate was furnished proving Private Parfitt's age; and will he state the reason why Private Parfitt is still retained?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This application has been carefully considered, but the circumstances of the case do not justify the discharge of this soldier being authorised. I would explain that the discharge of a soldier over seventeen years of age who mis-states his age on enlistment is granted as a concession only, under certain conditions which do not appertain in this case.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private H. W. Davis, No. 56028, 52nd Battalion, Royal Warwickshire Regiment, British Army of the Rhine, who is only just nineteen years of age, Grade 2, is being sent with his battalion to South Russia; whether this is contrary to the Government's promise that no men under twenty years of age should be sent further than the Rhine; and will he at once take steps to prevent Private Davis being sent to South Russia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The battalion in which this soldier is serving forms part of the Independent Division of the Army of the Rhine, which is to be used in connection with plebiscite duty in Germany. It is not going to South Russia. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my bon. Friend to the answer on Tuesday last to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Bolton to the effect that no such promise was made.
    Mr. RENDALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where this boy is if he has not been sent to South Russia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I believe he is in Northern Germany, but I will find out for the hon. Member. The question on the Paper only asks as to South Russia.

    LABOUR BATTALIONS (SKILLED MEN).
    Mr. HOPKINSasked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain wiry highly-skilled technical men are retained in labour battalions in this country when pay and domestic allowances cost the tax payer £6 a week and the taxpayer is at the same time paying doles to unskilled men who are out of work?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is only one labour battalion in this country, and this is being disbanded. The strength is 299 other ranks, all of whom are awaiting discharge.

    TROOPS FROM INDIA.
    Sir FREDERICK YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for War if specially expeditious arrangements have been made for the discharge of the men arriving from India, in view of the cold of the present season in contrast to the climate in which they have been serving for years; and whether special care is taken for their warmth and comfort on their voyage home and during the time it is necessary to detain them in camps?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Troops coming home from India for demobilisation are dispatched by the All-Sea route. Arrangements are made for home pattern clothing to be issued, and the khaki drill to be withdrawn either before embarkation or during the voyage. On arrival at the Port of disembarkation in the United Kingdom they are given a good meal on landing, and also a ration for consumption in the train, the size of the ration depending on the length of the journey to be performed. They are sent direct to the Dispersal

    785
    Station nearest their homes, where they are dispersed with the least possible delay. In the majority of cases they leave the Dispersal Station on the day they arrive, but arrangements have been made at all stations to provide comfortable sleeping accommodation and hot meals for those who may be detained over night.

    BUILDING TRADE WORKERS.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for War whether commanding officers have been instructed that no men in the Royal Engineers and Army Service Corps are to be demobilised at present; if so, whether many of these men are skilled in the various trades for which many men are required to aid the building and repairing of houses; and whether he will have the instruction cancelled?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The latter parts, therefore, do not arise.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ALLOWANCES DURING IMPRISONMENT.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked what is the position of the wife or other dependants of a soldier in relation to allowances during the period he is undergoing imprisonment imposed upon him as a result of having been court-martialled for some military offence?
    Mr. FORSTER: The issue of separation allowance is continued, during any period of imprisonment unless and until the soldier is discharged from his Army engagement.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES GRANTS.
    Captain AINSWORTHasked the Minister of Pensions whether the delay in respect of applications for grants recommended by the Bury War Pensions Committee can be obviated to a very large extent; whether applicants for grants are suffering great inconvenience and hardship and, in some cases, entire loss of the business which they proposed to embark upon; whether members of the local committee who voluntarily give much of their time to this work feel that their time is entirely wasted; and is he aware that numerous letters have been directed to the chief of the Department concerned and
    786
    also one to the Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions, and that such letters have not even been acknowledged?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. As has already been stated in reply to other hon. Members, the Department is going thoroughly into the position with regard to delays in respect to Civil Liabilities Grants, and hopes to effect an improvement in the near future Arrangements are being made for an officer of the Department to visit Bury during the present week in order to go into the special points raised by the local committee on the spot.

    MILITARY SERVICE (SPECIAL DECORATION).
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the decision of the Government as to the issue of a special decoration to those who have been mentioned in dispatches during the present War?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is in contemplation to distinguish those who have been mentioned in dispatches in the War by giving them permission to wear a small oak leaf on the ribbon of the Victory medal. That is under consideration, but I am not at this moment able to give a final answer.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What will be done fur those who have had the good luck to be mentioned twice in dispatches?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is one of those arguments which causes us to hesitate in taking the decision to which I have referred.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman before long pronounce a definite conclusion?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are some 70,000 or 80,000 persons concerned, and it would be very desirable to come to a decision quickly.
    Mr. BILLING: If the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way clear to grant the oak leaf will the War Office cause a letter of appreciation to be sent which those men could keep?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We are considering the whole matter.

    TITLES AND DESIGNATIONS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BRIANTasked what staff is employed for the work of the titles and Designations Committee; what is the rent of the premises in Whitehall Court used for this purpose, and what is the number of rooms.; how long this Committee has been in existence; and how long it is expected to be required?
    Mr. FORSTER: The staff employed on the work of the titles and Designations Committee numbers two (an officer as secretary and an ex-soldier clerk). The rent of the six-roomed flat in Whitehall Court used for this purpose is paid by the Office of Works and is, I understand, £350 a year. The Committee, however, was only given, the use of these premises till other accommodation became available, and arrangements have been made for its early removal, when the flat will be surrendered to the Office of Works. The Committee was appointed in October and has recently started work, but I cannot at present say how long its work will last.

    DRESS AND UNIFORM COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BRIANTasked how long the Dress and Uniform Committee has existed; if it has finished its deliberations, and what was the cost of staff and printing in connection with the work?
    Mr. FORSTER: This Committee held its first meeting on 2nd May, and reported early in September last. The staff consisted of an officer as secretary and an ex-soldier clerk, who were temporarily detailed for the work. The cost of printing the Report of the Committee was £20 6s.
    Mr. BRIANT: Is it not a fact that these premises have not been used for a long time, and that we are paying £300 a year for the accommodation of two people?
    Mr. FORSTER: That is not so in the case of the Committee mentioned. The Dress and Uniform Committee had accommodation for a great deal more than two people. It is so in the case of the Committee to which my hon. Friend's previous questions referred, but that was purely a temporary occupation.

    BARRACK ACCOMMODATION, DURHAM.
    Major HILLSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to
    788
    complete the scheme started before the War for building barracks at Durham and transferring there the depot of the Durham Light Infantry?
    Mr. FORSTER: The scheme referred to will be proceeded with when it is possible to make funds available for the purpose. The financial position will not admit of this at present.

    WAR STAFF REDUCTION, NOTTINGHAM.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a circular, dated 3rd November, has been issued by the regimental paymaster at Nottingham to temporary employés, paragraph (b) of which says that, in the process of reducing war staff, it may be necessary in the interests of the public service to discharge them while undisabled employés are retained; and whether he is prepared to give an undertaking that discharged men shall not be discharged prior to all others who have not served?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; the circular was issued in accordance with general instructions on the subject of the substitution of disabled ex-Service men for other employés in Government Departments. In the reduction of the staff of Army Pay Offices discharged men are given the preference of retention provided that the efficiency of the office is maintained. It is essential that there shall be no failure in the proper payment of soldiers on demobilisation.
    Mr. HOGGE: May we take it that the only question involved is the efficiency of the officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, that is so.

    CHELSEA PENSIONERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has been come to with reference to the hardship that is now caused to in-pensioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, by the loss of their out-pension when they are admitted?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not sure whether it is clear to my hon. and gallant Friend that no present in-pensioner of Chelsea would in any event be affected by the

    789
    new scale of Army pensions, since its application is confined to those who have actually given military service during the War. There is thus no hardship involved. Under the Soldiers' Pensions Act of 1828, admission to in-pension abrogates all claim to either service or disability pension.
    Sir S. HOARE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman in answer to a question three or four months' ago promise an inquiry into this matter? Has that inquiry been held, and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. FORSTER: The inquiry is not completed, but I hope it will be at an early date.
    Sir S. HOARE: In two or three weeks' time?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, I hope so.

  TERRITORIAL FORCES.

    EAST LANCASHIRE COUNTY ASSOCIATION.
    Major NALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the East Lancashire County Association has appointed a civilian to be secretary, although ex-officers with distinguished war service were on the final list dealt with by the selection committee; and can he take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The nomination of a secretary in such cases rests with the county association. In this case, on the resignation of their secretary, the East Lancashire Association decided to nominate a civilian who had previously held the post of assistant-secretary. The recommendation is now under consideration.

    PRE-WAR ACCUMULATED FUNDS.
    Major NALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the accumulated funds in the hands of Territorial County Associations at let August, 1914, are still intact; and whether they will be used to relieve the Exchequer in reforming the Territorial Force?
    Mr. FORSTER: The funds which existed on 1st August, 1914, have been drawn upon largely during the War. In so far as they represented savings made by economical administration on the part of the several associations, it is intended to restore them.

    OPERA GLASSES (LORD ROBERTS' APPEAL).
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War what decision has been arrived at regarding the presentation of a pair of opera glasses to those ladies and gentlemen who answered the appeal of the late Lord Roberts but whose glasses have not been returned as requested?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I am not yet in a position to announce a decision.
    Colonel BURN: This question was asked four or five months ago and an answer was then promised.
    Mr. FORSTER: I know. But the question is not quite so simple to answer as would appear on the surface. Many considerations have to be taken into account.
    Major WOOD: Is it not the fact that the ladies and gentlemen who provided these glasses had no expectation of seeing them again?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes; I think that is the case.

    MILITARY HOSPITALS, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. SIDNEY ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to establish and maintain a military hospital in South Wales at Neath or elsewhere; and whether, before a decision is arrived at, consideration will be given to the fact that there is a school of medicine already existing at Cardiff which would be of great value to such hospital if situated in its neighbourhood?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Ministry of Pensions is opening a hospital at Neath almost immediately for the reception of disabled ex-Service men. Every effort has been made to establish a hospital in or near Cardiff, but it is found that no suitable accommodation is available.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Is it the intention of the authorities to disband the hospital erected at Chepstow?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I do not think so. But I am not prepared to answer the supplementary question. If the hon. Member can give me any information I shall be glad to consider it.

    ARMY SWEEPSTAKES, LILLE.
    Mr. BR1ANTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Major P. A. Denison has been organising sweepstakes at Lille, one of which has distributed £40,981 in prizes, leaving a balance of £4,019 undistributed; and whether he can issue any instruction so that officers whilst on service should not be associated with the management of sweepstakes or similar undertakings?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am inquiring into this matter, and will write to my hon. Friend later.

    PUBLIC MEETING, LOCKERBIE.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that at a public meeting held in Lockerbie on 28th September a Miss Violet Jardine, of Castlemilk, Dumfriesshire, is alleged to have attempted to create a breach of the peace by offering a reward of £10 to any individual or individuals who would drag the speaker from the platform; whether, when that failed, she is alleged to have attempted to induce children to disrupt the meeting by offering them silver; whether the matter has been reported to the chief constable of Dumfriesshire; whether that official has refused to interfere; and what steps he proposes to take to secure an inquiry into the matter?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison): A complaint of the nature referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question was made to the police. No evidence in support of it was produced or was obtainable. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative and the third in the affirmative. I see no reason to doubt that the chief constable took the right course.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that parties, including the individual who was the speaker at that meeting, waited upon the chief constable lo submit evidence, and that the chief constable stated that his answer was final?
    Mr. MORISON: My hon. Friend has been misinformed. The complainer did have a meeting with one of the inspectors, and he said he did not hear the statement made himself, but he promised to produce evidence the following day. No such
    792
    evidence was brought by the complainer, consequently the chief constable had no evidence at all.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If evidence is supplied will the Scottish Office take action if the chief constable refuses to take action against this body?
    Mr. MORISON: The Crown Officer is always willing to consider any evidence tendered. There was no evidence tendered in this case

    COASTING TRAFFIC.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping if he will give details of the amount of tonnage on coast trade round Great Britain during the periods October, 1917, and October, 1918, and also between October, 1918, and October, 1919; and what action he is taking to encourage this modo of transport and thus relieve railway congestion?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): The only available statistics relating to coasting traffic are those contained in the monthly trade and navigation accounts, which give the total arrivals and departures coastwise with cargo, including trade between Great Britain and Ireland. For the period October, 1917, to 1918, the total arrivals were 16,684,452 net tons, and for the period October, 1918, to 1919, 19,248,180 net tons. The details of the scheme approved by the Government for the relief of the railways were published by the Board of Trade on 20th August, and I have sent my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the notice.
    Mr. SUGDEN: Will the Shipping Controller, if ho finds the suggestion is not possible to relieve that, congestion, put the pressure he possesses on those merchants who may send traffic not of an expeditious nature to send it by sea?
    Colonel WILSON: My right hon. Friend will take every action which lies in his power to relieve the congestion which already exists. He fully realises the seriousness of the present situation.

    ARMY HORSES.
    Major NALLasked the Secretary of State for War what is the annual cost of the remount officers and the liability to

    793
    provide veterinary treatment and replace casualties incidental to the scheme for hiring out to civilians 15,000 Army horses; and whether these horses can be sold subject to registration for Army requirements in order to avoid this expense?
    Mr. FORSTER: No actual additional cost is at present incurred in respect of the remount officers employed on this scheme, as these officers are otherwise necessarily employed on other duties. The future cost under this head cannot yet be stated. The cost of veterinary treatment is estimated at £60,000 annually. The cost of replacement from casualties as distinct from age cannot be stated separately, but the total cost of replacement is estimated at an average of £150,000 when the scheme is in full working order. My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that the civilians in question make a payment for the use of the horses. Horses can be registered for use in time of war only. The essential feature of this scheme is that it provides horses for annual training in time of peace.
    Major NALL: Is it not a fact that horses were always available for training in time of peace apart from this scheme; and would it not be far better to sell the horses and let the money go to the Treasury?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that is not the case at all. I think most people would agree that the matter of getting horses for training in time of peace was a matter of almost insuperable difficulty.

    ROYAL ARTILLERY RIDING ESTABLISHMENT, WEEDON.
    Major NALLasked the Secretary of State for War what is the ration strength in officers and other ranks and horses of the Royal Artillery Biding Establishment at Weedon; why it is necessary to maintain this new establishment in addition to the riding establishment at Woolwich; and whether it is used chiefly for instructional purposes or as a hunting centre?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The ration strength on the 14th instant was twenty-seven officers and 245 other ranks, of whom a number are under instruction. There are 244 horses. The branch at Weedon is required to train officers and non-commissioned officers as instructors in equitation for the Royal Artillery. The branch at Woolwich, which is unsuitable for this
    794
    purpose, is required to teach the Cadets at the Royal Military Academy to ride. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Major NALL: Is not the establishment additional to pre-war establishment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Considering that we are engaged in making an Army and training an entirely new professional Artillery to replace the conscripted Artillery, we must have some facilities in the matter of training establishments.

    INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS' STAFF SALARY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what Regulation in the Indian Army Regulations lays down the rule that au officer of the Indian Army taken prisoner of war is to be deprived of half his Staff salary after the first sixty-one days?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Indian Army Regulations as printed make no provision for the pay of officers as prisoners of war. The Regulations referred to in my previous answer were specially made at the beginning of the War by agreement between the India Office and the War Office, as was explained in the answer which I quoted in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question last week.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a fresh agreement to give Indian officers better terms?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have looked at the question closely again, and I cannot see why, in justice, we should give officers of the Indian Army treatment substantially different from the treatment we give the officers in our own Army.
    Colonel YATE: Do not officers of the British Army get full pay whilst prisoners of war; and why should officers of the Indian Army be deprived of their fall pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: No; the same principle is applied to both.

    REAR LIGHTS (CYCLES).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie is now prepared to revoke the Order temporarily reimposed

    795
    at the time of the recent railway strike requiring rear lights to be carried on cycles?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole question, and has represented to me that it is particularly desirable to retain the requirements of the Lights (Vehicles) Order for the present on account of the restrictions in street lighting which have been adopted by the local authorities in many places because of shortage of coal. The Committee have been asked to deal with the matter as one of urgency, and, in these circumstances, I propose to retain the Order for the present.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is on the country roads principally where these lights are essential in the interests of the safety of bicycle riders; and even when coal is not quite so short will he consider the advisability of retaining these lights?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Committee, of course, will report on that.

  TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

    CANAL TRAFFIC.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if he will give the tonnage available for canal traffic in Great Britain, and if and how much such traffic has increased since the Armistice was signed, and by what amount pressure on railways for the carriage of merchandise has been relieved?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel; Sir Rhys Williams): I have been asked to answer this question. "A" Return, prepared by the Canal Control Committee at the end of August last, shows that at that date there were 7,254 narrow boats and 3,835 wide boats available for service, while 617 of the former and 459 of the latter were out of commission awaiting repairs widen were much in arrears owing to the difficulty of obtaining skilled labour during the War. With an average carrying capacity of 28 tons for the' narrow and 40 tons for the wide boats, the tonnage available at
    796
    the end of August was 356,512 tons. The total tonnage carried over the canals in Great Britain under the control of the Committee for the ten months preceding the Armistice was 15,875,478 tons, or an average of 1,587,548 tons per month. For the month of November, 1918, 1,408,068 tons of traffic were conveyed. For the ten months succeeding November, 1918, the total tonnage conveyed was 14,529,524 tons, or an average of 1,452,952 tons per month, which represents a decrease at the rate of 135,000 tons per month.
    Mr. SUGDEN: In view of the very serious condition of the railways, what steps does the hon. Gentleman propose to take to increase the shipping on our canals, instead of decreasing it, as the reply suggests?
    Sir R. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Transport is in almost daily touch with the Canal Controller.
    Mr. SUGDEN: What are the steps being taken to remedy the situation?
    Sir R. WILLIAMS: I am not prepared to answer that question. If my hon. Friend will give me notice, I will deal with it.

    LIGHT RAILWAYS.
    Mr. ROYCEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture how many county councils in England and Wales have submitted proposals for light railways; the mileage and estimated cost of such scheme; and the present position as regards construction?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Proposals for the construction of light railways in agricultural districts have been received from nineteen county councils and agricultural executive committees. The total mileage of the routes suggested is, approximately, 968. No estimates of the cost of these schemes have been made by the Board. Such estimates will be drawn up by the Ministry of Transport in respect of any schemes which the Government propose to adopt. So far as I am aware, no construction work has actually been begun.
    Major E. WOOD: Before any of these schemes are finally accepted by whatever Department is finally responsible, will it be necessary for them to show that they can be made self-supporting?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that question ought to be addressed to the Minister

    797
    of Transport. I believe the answer is in the negative. One question would be considered as to what advantage the scheme would confer on the neighbourhood.

    LONDON TRAFFIC.
    Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the Minister of Transport if he would give the House a broad outline of the steps that are being taken to permanently improve the travelling facilities between inner and outer London; and if he will specifically state whether any immediate steps are being taken to relieve) the overcrowding existing on the route from West Ham to the City?
    Sir R. WILLIAMS: The subject of the improvement of the travelling facilities referred to is one of the chief matters which will engage the attention of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic which has recently been appointed, under the Chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hornsey. The increase of rolling stock which the Metropolitan District Railway Company has on order will, it is hoped, alleviate the congestion on this as on other routes.

    WAGONS (GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY).
    Mr. LYLEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, not withstanding the present great shortage of railway wagons, the Great Northern Railway Company are insisting on ton-lots and upwards for one destination being loaded into through wagons instead of allowing wagons to be loaded to their full capacity and when necessary dealt with at London sorting stations; and is he aware that the effect of this is that in many cases wagons are, travelling up and down the country only half filled?
    Sir R. WILLIAMS: I am aware that the Great Northern Railway Company are in some instances sending wagons through to destination stations with less than a maximum load. This is being done to avoid the alternative of sending the consignments to King's Cross for transhipment, which would have the effect of increasing congestion at that station. The existing arrangement results in better traffic working, and on balance is in the public interest.
    Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that the less the wagons carry the less the congestion will be?
    Sir R. WILLIAMS: No, Sir; that is not the case.

    SMALL HOLDINGS COLONIES ACTS, 1916–18.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can furnish the name and address of one ex-Service man placed by the Board of Agriculture on lands acquired under the Small Holdings Colonies Acts, 1916–18, the rent of whose holding has been fixed and the buildings and other equipment completed; and whether he can state the area of such holding, the rent of the land and buildings, the name of the scheme, and the estate where such holding completely equipped can be inspected?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Yes, Sir; Samuel Gibson is in occupation of holding No. 20 on Castle Huntly estate, Longforgan. The holding extends to 50 acres. The equipped rent is 40s. per acre.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend give the name of a second.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have answered the question on the Paper. There are, I understand, 100 more settlers who will be settled on the land this month.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Food Controller if he can state the approximate amount of sugar there was in the country for each month since January, 1919; will the amount now in the country warrant a larger ration supply to the people; and, if so, will he grant the same?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): The bonded stocks of sugar in the country are shown in the statistics published by His Majesty's Board of Customs and Excise in the monthly issues of trade and navigation of the United Kingdom. I am having the figures for which the hon. Member asks extracted and sent to him. The reply to the second part of this question is in the negative. The third part does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Food Controller if it is possible for the manufacturers of sweets to obtain as much sugar as they require providing they pay to the Food Control Department a profit; of 3d. per lb.; and, if so, will he state the amount of profit made this year?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

    CHEESE.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Food Controller whether he will state the amount of money paid per lb. for cheese to the farmer for home-produced cheese; and how much is the Government losing per lb. on home-produced cheese?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The price paid by my Department to the farmer for home-produced hard cheese is at present 2s. per lb. for first grade; correspondingly lower prices are paid for inferior grades. After allowance is made for the costs of distribution, the loss on this home cheese taken by itself is at the rate of about 10½d. per lb. All the Ministry's purchases of cheese, both home and imported, are, however, pooled financially and sold at a fiat maximum, retail price, the losses on home cheese being met out of the margin of profit on the much larger bulk of imported cheese.

    PROFITEERING.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Food Controller if he is aware of the continued discontent among the poor at the continuing profiteering which is going on; is he aware of the unrest caused by this practice; and will he take immediate steps to deal more drastically with the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that the high cost of living causes discontent, but it is very necessary to remember that high prices and profiteering are by no means the same thing. Many prices are at present very high, even with profits most strictly limited. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that the Profiteering Act has now been applied to all the principal necessaries of life other than controlled articles, and that Central Appeal and local committees have been set up to hear and determine cases of alleged profiteering at all stages in the production and distribution of goods. The remedy for profiteering, which has, in my opinion, been very greatly reduced by the operation of the Act, lies now in the hands of the public, who are invited to lodge complaints wherever they have reasonable grounds for believing themselves to be the victims of unreasonable profit-making.

    RABBITS.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Food Controller whether the price of rabbits is controlled; and whether they are scheduled by the Board of Trade under the Profiteering Act?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The price of rabbits is controlled under the Wild Rabbit (Prices) Order, dated the 16th August. 1918 Articles of food the prices of which are controlled by the Ministry of Food are expressly excluded from the operation of the Profiteering Act.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does this apply to Ireland?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No.

    MILK PRODUCTION (COST).
    Mr. HURDasked the Food Controller what are the details, item by item, of the cost of production of milk upon which the price of Is. per quart is based; and whether, in. order to allay public misapprehension and class dissension, he will in future publish such itemised details when announcing controlled prices of food products?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The items included in the producer's price of 2s. 9 6/7;d. per gallon of milk during the seven winter months, on which the maximum retail price of 1s. per quart during five of these months is based, have been estimated in, the following proportions:

    Per cent,

    Feeding stuffs

    63

    Labour

    15

    Rent, depreciation and repairs

    12.5

    Cartage to producer's railway station

    1.5

    Producer's margin, including interest and managerial expenses

    8

    The wholesaler is permitted an average maximum margin, out of which railway charges are paid, of 5d. per gallon, and the retailer's average maximum distribution is 8d. per gallon, the average retail price being accordingly 3s. 10 6/7;d. per gallon for the seven months in question. I would point out that the price of Is. per quart is not a fixed price but a maximum price; this consideration applies equally in the case of the producer and the wholesaler. I am always willing to give itemised! details when requested, but even these are-apt to be misunderstood.
    Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the seven months on which the actual cost is based includes seven summer mouths, or on the average of seven months, taking the seasons right through the year?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The price is baaed on seven consecutive months. It is a matter of controversy whether the months ought to be included in winter or summer.
    Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Is the increased cost of feeding, owing to profiteering in oil cake production, included in the seven months on which the increased price of milk is based?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have reserved to myself the power in the event of the price of feeding stuff's substantially diminishing to review the price accordingly.

    POTATOES (BRITISH AND GERMAN CROPS).
    Major E. WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the comparative position, having regard to acreage, tonnage, and disease, of the British and German potato crops in the current year?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The acreage under potatoes in Great Britain this year is 630,600 acres. The estimates of production are not yet available, but the yield will probably be below the average. There is, however, unusually little disease this year. No statistics concerning Germany have yet been published so far as I am aware.
    Captain Sir SEVILLE STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can give the number of cases of wart disease in potatoes up to 1st November; and what was the figure up to the same date in the years 1916, 1917, and 1918?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information required by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir B. STANIER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is increasing or decreasing?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There has been an increase, I am sorry to say.
    The cases are us follow:

    1st November,

    1916

    13,440

    cases.

    "

    1917

    17,690

    "

    "

    1918

    20,900

    "

    "

    1919

    22,222

    "

    EGGS
    Major E. WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the shortage of eggs in this country owing to the reduction in imports, any steps are being taken, systematically and adequately, to bring before farmers and smallholders engaged upon the land the imperative need for increased numbers of poultry upon the farms of the country, and, more especially, how far definite work for extension, apart from ordinary lectures, is being undertaken in the counties by visitation of the farmers and providing classes for farmers' wives and daughters in this subject?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Every endeavour is being made to extend the industry, not only by lectures, but in a practical way, by distributing among small poultry-keepers sittings of eggs from distributing stations, of which 158 have already been established, and by training in poultry-keeping settlers on certain of the Board's farm settlements, and disabled men at other centres. Generally, I may say that the Board fully recognise the importance of encouraging poultry-keeping, and are taking active steps to induce county committees to promote the industry by all well-considered means.

    MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the desirability of the adoption of some scheme of mothers' pensions; and if he is aware that in the United States of America thirty-five States concede adequate mothers' pensions; that three provinces out of the nine in Canada pay mothers' pensions; that New Zealand allows £30 per year for the widow with children, under the 1913 Act; and that Queensland. Australia, allows l5s. per week for all widows and from 8s. to 10s. per week for each child?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I can only refer to the reply given on the 13th instant to a similar question put by the hon. Member for East Islington, and to the reply to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for South Tottenham on the 5th instant, to the effect that the Government does not feel able to undertake legislation on this subject.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to recommend to the Government that the whole question of the endowment of motherhood should be reviewed by the Government in connection with the Insurance Act?
    Dr. ADDISDN: The most elaborate detailed inquiries have been made into the subject already.
    Mr. SWAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be more economical, in view of the cost of maintaining the children, to carry out the measure suggested by the hon. Member than to allow them to go into the workhouse?
    Dr. ADDISON: That may be so, but the question is addressed to the subject of mothers' pensions.
    Mr. SWAN: I am suggesting that as an alternative. Would it not be wiser and more economical to give the pensions than to allow them to go into the workhouse at double the cost?
    Dr. ADDISON: These pensions are proposed for the mothers. The hon. Member is referring to the children.
    Mr. SWAN: Both mothers and children.

    LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION).
    Major MORRISON-BELLasked the Prime Minister if it has been brought to his notice that the London County Council and twenty-six municipal councils, including those of Leeds, York, Barrow-in-Furness, Burnley, Stoke-on-Trent, and Wigan, have passed resolutions in support of the Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill, 1919; and if he will endeavour to pass this Bill, which is merely a permissive Bill, through the House of Commons during the present Session in order to me-et the demand of these important councils?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): So far I have only received one resolution on this subject. Owing to the pressure on Parliamentary time it is unlikely that it will be possible to proceed with the Local Elections Bill this Session.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider
    804
    the question of introducing an amendment to the Old Age Pension Act to the effect that payments from friendly societies and other provident organisations shall not be taken into account when calculating the income of a claimant for the old age pension, and thus remove the penalty which now applies to those who, by their thrift, have endeavoured to make some provision for themselves?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for Hertford on the 10th instant.
    Mr. BILLING: When may we expect a decision, because the only answer I received was that the matter was receiving consideration?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That is so. The Government awaited the Report of the Old Age Pension Commission, and now they have to examine that Report and decide on the course they shall take.

    TURKISH EMPIRE.
    Major GLYNasked the Lord Privy Seal if the Government have any information as to when Congress is likely to meet and definitely signify whether or not the United States will share in the responsibility for protecting the peoples inhabiting the former Turkish Empire and for assisting them until they can stand alone; whether the Government will state what is the approximate daily cost to this country for maintaining the necessary troops and establishments in the Near East pending the decision of the United States Government on this matter, in view of the statement that the daily cost per head of the Army at the present moment is roughly 16s. 8d. and whether, pending the decision of the United States Government, there is any reasonable hope that, taking into consideration the prominent part played by the President of the United States in the establishment of the League of Nations and the mandatory system, it may he anticipated that part of the cost foe maintaining order in the Near East will be shared by the United States of America?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, I have no certain information as to when the American decision

    805
    on this question may be expected. But while it is the sincere hope of His Majesty's Government that America will co-operate in this task, they and their European Allies are fully alive to the necessity for preparing for the contrary contingency. As regards the second part of the question, the Army of the Black Sea is costing £24,000 a day. This does not, however, include the various substantial commitments in Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Persia. As regards the third part of the question, His Majesty's Government have urged that the expenses of the Armistice period in occupied parts of Turkey may be refunded to the occupying Power by any other Power which may eventually receive the mandate for any of these areas

    HOUSING ACT.
    Sir P. PILDITCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that since the estimate of £10,000,000 as the annual Imperial subsidy under the Housing Act of this year was made in May last year the cost of building materials and labour and of raising money has much increased; and whether, in view of these facts, he will consider the advisability of presenting revised estimates to the House?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The estimate of £10,000,000 is a recent one, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason to revise it.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the estimates which have been published recently showing that there is a loss per annum of something like £20,000, £30,000, or even £50,000?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No, I have not seen those estimates.
    Major E. WOOD: In the event, as is generally understood, of the Government introducing new proposals on Friday, which may modify the finance, will the Leader of the House take steps to have a statement in the hands of hon. Members before the discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not anticipate any modification as great as would require that course being taken, but I will consult with my hon. Friend whether there is any information which we can give.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the debate take place on a Government Motion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not considered any other method by which it can be taken than by moving the Adjournment.

    LORD BEATTY AND LORD HAIG (GRANTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the grants of money made to Lord Beatty, Lord Haig, and other naval and military officers, have been paid; if not, what is the reason for the delay; and whether interest will be due to these officers from the date on which the grants were made?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Payment has been made to the Public Trustee for investment on behalf of the recipients in six cases, and will be made in other cases as soon as the necessary trusts are completed by the parties concerned. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Captain TERRELL: Are these grants of money subject to Income Tax or any other form of taxation?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly; they have always been.

    GOLD COINAGE.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase of gold coinage in the country between October, 1917, and October, 1918, and also between October, 1918, and October, 1919; and it' the Treasury note issue has correspondingly been reduced?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No gold has been coined in this country since October, 1917; and the gold coin estimated to be held by banks has slightly decreased.
    Mr. SUGDEN: Is it not now practicable that a gold coinage should obtain arid paper money be reduced, so as to reduce the cost of living, if appropriate steps were taken by the Treasury to stop the exportation of gold to other countries?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should like notice of that question.

    OUTDOOR RELIEF (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
    Mr. SWANasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increasing amount of expenditure to boards of guardians necessary to relieve persons who are in receipt of workmen's compensation because the amount of compensation granted under the Acts is inadequate due to the cost of living, he will introduce; a measure at an early date to obviate the necessity of persons in receipt of compensation being compelled in many cases to apply for outdoor relief for themselves and their families?
    Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I hope to introduce a Bill on this subject at a very early date.

    HIDES.
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Food Controller what is the profit per pound on hides sold under the direction of the Ministry of Food, and the total gross proceeds of these sales?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The average profit per pound on hides sold under the direction of the Ministry of Food is approximately 4½d. per pound, the amount varies with the quality of the hides, and it is impossible to give an exact figure without considerable labour. I am unable to give an accurate estimate of the total gross proceeds of these sales. These profits are utilised in the reduction of the price of meat to the consumer and accrue to the Ministry of Food instead of to the butcher. The arrangement further involves no loss to the farmers, since the value of the hide is included in the guaranteed prices for cattle.

    GOVERNMENT FLAX FACTORIES (SALE).
    Mr. HUGH MORRISONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if any decision has been come to as to the future of the Government flax factories; what sum has been spent on them during the present year; and whether any further expenditure is being incurred on them at the present time?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board, in conjunction with the Surplus Government Property Disposal Board, are offering for
    808
    sale the whole undertaking, including the factories. An advertisement inviting tenders has appeared in the Press, and offers are being received.
    I understand from the Office of Works, who erect and equip the factories, that the capital expenditure already met during the current financial year is approximately £340,000. Work is proceeding for their completion, and it is estimated that the commitments for that purpose amount to approximately £280,000. On the general financial position of the enterprise I may refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Wirral on the 29th October.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. JOSEPH JOHNSTONEasked the Under-Secretary for the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that draft medical benefit regulations containing proposed new conditions of service in England have been laid by the Minister of Health for England before the representatives of the medical profession and insurance committees; whether draft regulations have yet been prepared for Scotland; and, if so, whether these Regulations have yet been submitted to the medical profession and insurance committees in Scotland, or, if not, when he propose to do so?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY to the SCOTTISH BOARD of HEALTH (Mr. Pratt): I am aware that advance copies of a draft of proposed medical benefit regulations have been circulated to panel and insurance committees in England. The matter of new medical benefit regulations for Scotland is engaging the attention of the Scottish Board of Health, who have arranged to consult representatives of insurance practitioners and insurance committees on the subject on the 20th instant.

  COAL PRODUCTION.

    ANTHRACITE STOVES.
    Mr. OMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that many persons, on the official advice of the Coal Controller, purchased anthracite stoves and are at present unable to use them, because they cannot

    809
    obtain that form of coal, measures might be taken to see that the British demand for this fuel should be satisfied before its export beyond seas is permitted?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division of Birmingham on the 29th October.

    DELIVERY NOTES.
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for Clause 48 of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order being cut down so that the representation in the delivery note of the class or quality of the coal, together with the price of same, now only applies to sales of coal for resale, and the statement on the ticket of the class or quality of coal and the price applicable thereto is not obligatory in the sale of coal direct to consumer; and whether he will state what protection, under these circumstances, the consumer has against being defrauded in quality and overcharged in price?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Clauses 68 and 69 of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919, take the place of and have the same effect as Clause 48 of the 1918 Order, so far as delivery notes are concerned.

    EXCESS PRICES.
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many representatives of the Coal Controller have been appointed in connection with the carrying out of the Price of Coal (Limitations) Act and the Wholesale Coal Pi-ices Order; how many colliery proprietors have been prosecuted for charging an excess price for coal since the passage of the Act in 1915; how many coal merchants have been prosecuted for charging excess price for coal since the coming into operation of the Order in September, 1917; how many of the Coal Controller's representatives are or were directly or in directly connected with the sale of coal; and how many were coal merchants previous to appointment?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The section of the Coal Mines Department which administers the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, 1915, and the Wholesale Coal Prices Order, 1917, consists of six persons, two of whom—-including the head of the section—arc permanent Civil servants and none of whom is or has been directly or indirectly
    810
    connected with the sale of coal. One colliery company has been prosecuted for charging prices in excess of those which could be justified under the Act of 1915, and nine merchants have been prosecuted for breaches of the Wholesale Coal Prices Order, 1917.

    WIRELESS INSTALLATIONS.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is refusing to issue licences to amateurs for working wireless installations; if so, will he state his reasons for his refusal; and has he framed or is he framing any Regulations for the above purpose?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): Permits for establishing wireless receiving stations for experimental purposes have been issued for some time past, and a limited number of transmitting stations have also been authorised in cases where the installations were required for experiments, of a special nature. General Regulations have now been framed for the issue of permits for experimental transmitting stations. Applicants must produce evidence that they are of British nationality, that they have in view some definite object of scientific value or general public utility, and that they possess the necessary technical knowledge and operative skill. It will obviously be necessary to secure that installations shall be so constructed and worked as not to interfere with the working of naval, military, and commercial stations.

  BRITISH TRADE REPRESENTATIVES.

    TRAVEL FACILITIES ON WARSHIPS.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps have been taken to give effect to the Ministerial suggestion that representatives of British manufacturing and trading concerns shall be allowed to travel on British warships proceeding to distant ports; and when he anticipates that such arrangements will be completed?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to reply to this question. Arrangements have been made whereby the Admiralty will give to the Department of Oversea Trade early information of any

    811
    sailings of His Majesty's ships which might be utilised for this purpose, and the Department of Oversea Trade will allocate the berths available to business men. Applications for passages should be made to the Department of Oversea Trade.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the First Lord of the Admiralty give an assurance that officers will not be taken out of their cabins in order to provide accommodation?
    Mr. LONG: I am afraid that I did not hear the answer to the question, but if my Noble Friend has any anxiety about the position of the officers, if he will communicate with me I will give him every possible security.

    FLYING BOATS.
    Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether it is proposed to encourage the development of flying boats as distinct from seaplanes; and, if so, what steps have been taken towards such encouragement?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative; and to the second part that three different types of experimental boat seaplanes are on order and that, as already announced, one of the prizes in the British Aircraft Competition for 1020 it; for a boat or float seaplane.
    Mr. BILLING: Have the Admiralty been consulted as to the possible requirements of these seaplanes, or are experiments conducted without the co-operation of the Admiralty?
    Captain GUEST: I understand that the Admiralty have not been consulted.
    Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the fact that all flying boats are essentially operative with the Navy, will he see that they are consulted?
    Captain GUEST: I will refer to the Secretary of State.

    CIVIL AVIATION.
    Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air
    812
    Ministry what competitions have been organised by the Government for the development of civil aviation; do these competitions pay regard to the possible military value of the designs to be entered; and does he consider that it is possible in the future development of flying to combine the dual functions of both war and peace with practicability?
    Captain GUEST: The reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is that three competitions are being organised for the year 1920. They are to be open to small aeroplanes, large aeroplanes, and seaplanes, respectively, the seaplane competition being framed with the object of develoing a type of aircraft capable of alighting on and rising from land as well as water. The total prizes amount to £64,000. It is also under consideration whether, in addition to these, at a later date, a fourth competition should be organised for a large type of flying boat not required to possess amphibious qualities.
    The reply to the second part of the question is that the above competitions are designed with a view to the attainment of safety and comfort of air travel. It is expected that a number of valuable lessons will be learned as the result of them, and many of these will undoubtedly be of great use from a military point of view. Where, however, military requirements diverge from safety requirements, the latter will be given the preference. In regard to the third part of the question, it seems probable that the designs of civil and military aircraft will diverge as time goes on. But, whatever class of aircraft is experimented with, certain improvements are sought for; those may be in regard to aerodynamic qualities, method of construction, reliability of engines or petrol installation, etc., and the knowledge thus gained can be used equally in designing now civil or military aircraft.

  SPIRITS.

    CLEARANCE RESTRICTIONS REMOVED.
    LIEUT.-Colonel POWNALL(by Private Notice) asked the Food Controller whether he is yet in a position to state the decision of the Cabinet with regard to allowing extra quantities of spirit to be cleared, in view of the increased demand at this period of the year for medicinal and other purposes; and, if he is not yet in a position to make such an announcement, whether he will state when he expects to be able to do so?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am now able to announce that the Cabinet have decided that all restrictions on clearances of spirits from bond shall be removed forthwith.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Does that mean that people can clear as much as they wish or that they are restricted to the level of 1916?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It means that all restrictions on clearance are removed forthwith.

    AMERICAN EXCHANGE.
    Mr. REMERasked the Leader of the House whether -his attention has been called to the fall of the American sterling exchange this morning to $4.07; and, in view of the urgent necessity of action, what policy the Government propose to adopt?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has more than once, stated to the House that he did not think it wise to return to the policy of giving artificial support to the dollar exchange which was abandoned last March. He sees no necessity in present circumstances for reversing that decision.
    Mr. REMER: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of adopting measures to check the importation of surplus manufactured goods?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend only received notice of this question at lunch time and as he is in bed to-day he has not yet had time to consider it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not the rate of exchange automatically restrict the importation of unnecessary articles?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I believe that that is held by some people to be so.

    IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBERS.
    Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the imprisonment of Members:
    "Metropolitan Police Courts,
    Inn's Quay, Dublin,
    13th November, 1919.
    Sir,
    I have the honour to inform you that John O'Mahony, John Hayes, and Frank Lawless, esquires, Members of Parliament, having been
    814
    arrested in the City of Dublin on the 11th November instant, were brought before ma yesterday, the 12th instant, charged with an offence against Section 7 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, in. that they did take part in the proceedings of an association, to wit, the Dail Eireann, which had been declared by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to be a dangerous association within the meaning of the said Act, and, on being convicted of such offence, were sentenced by me to be imprisoned, each for a period of two calendar months without hard labour. I further ordered each of the defendants to give bail to be of the peace and good behaviour for twelve months, himself in £20 with one surety in £20, or, in default, to be imprisoned for a further period of one calendar month.
    In pursuance of such sentences, each of the above-named defendants was, on the aforesaid l!2th instant, committed to Mountjoy Prison, Dublin.
    I have the honour to be, Sir,
    Your obedient servant,
    ERNEST G. SWIFTE, K.C.,
    Chief Magistrate,
    Police District of Dublin Metropolis.
    The Right Hon. The Speaker, M.P.,
    House of Commons."

    LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
    Report to he upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 210.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to he printed. [Bill 210.]

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 (added in respect of the Agriculture and Fisheries (Councils, etc.) Bill): Major Nall; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Douglas Brown.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee D: Major Wheler.

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had

  815
  added the following Member to Standing Committee E (for the consideration of the National Assembly of the Church of England (Powers) Bill [Lords]): Mr. Tootill.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee E: Mr. Rupert Gwynne and Mr. Lane-Fox; and had appointed in substitution, Sir Stuart Coats and Captain Sir Beville Stanier.
  Reports to he upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the-third time."
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 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, whilst willing to provide the executive with the fullest powers necessary to deal with dangerous and undesirable aliens, declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill which by its own provisions and the reprisals they may excite checks the growth of our overseas trade; which clogs that free intercourse with foreign nations by which in art, science, literature, and religion this country has greatly gained; which impairs the British tradition of right of asylum; and which forms an obstacle to international goodwill and a hindrance to the work of the League of Nations."
  I move this in order to take the opportunity of putting before the House the general objections which many of us feel to a measure of this kind, introduced as it is at the conclusion of a great war, and one which we had hoped would see the inauguration of peace in the world and goodwill amongst the nations of the world. The Bill has been reprinted, as amended in Committee and on Report, and we have to remember that, as it now stands, it is not the proposal which the Government considered necessary for dealing with this question. The Government considered the whole question, and came to the conclusion that the case would be met by a Bill of one Clause which was accordingly introduced, and went upstairs to a Standing Committee. As a result of the pressure brought to bear on the Government by some Members of this House, the Bill was very greatly altered, and instead of the one Clause which was the sole constituent of the original Bill, we have a Bill which runs into sixteen or seventeen Clauses, each of which, except the one original Clause, represents a concession made by the Government, more or less reluctantly, in response to pressure from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I do not know whether hon. Members have read the whole Bill or have read the draft Orders in Council which can be made under Clause 1, because, if they do so, I venture to say that they will find that the
  828
  Bill contains restrictions, and deals with inspections and irritations of all kinds which seem to be utterly unnecessary and very harmful at this particular moment. Under Clause 13, I observe that all the penalties which were imposed on enemy aliens may be applied by the Home Secretary to any aliens. If I deal with the subject in a general way, I shall not be accused of making more of it than it really deserves, because the Home Secretary has the widest penal powers provided.
  The Motion which, in conjunction with my hon. Friend's, I have brought forward, attempts to survey the whole question of the relation of this country to other countries, and the influence of aliens of all countries on our own history, because we hold from the Liberal point of view that we have very greatly benefited, materially, politically and in every other way, from the free association which this country has always fostered with the other countries of the world. First of all, in the Resolution we put the material benefits. We allege that this Bill tends to check the growth of overseas trade. It tends to check it directly by hindering our free intercourse with aliens, and indirectly by exciting on the part of other countries-reprisals of a like nature to these. We really must take a broader view of this question than that which is taken by hon. Members below the Gangway. We must take a broad historical view. We are not legislating for the year 1919 only. We should legislate in the spirit which has been the secret of the success of our country. This very City, which is the metropolis of the Empire, was founded upon its commerce, and that commerce was founded upon a vast alien immigration. Green says of the fall of Antwerp to the Duke of Parma—
  "The commercial supremacy of our own capital was first established by the merchants and manufacturers of the ruined city who were said to have found a refuge on the bank of the Thames."
  I wonder what the hon. Member for West Ham of that day would have said about a flood of undesirable immigrants competing with British labour, when all these Dutchmen came over—to whom, as we now see, we really owe the predominance of our capital in the trade of the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that?"] That was in the time of Elizabeth. I am taking a broad view. It may be exceedingly-ridiculous in the eyes of some Members to take a historical view: I do not want to

  829
  refer to the Huguenots or the Flemings. I will come right down to to-day. The trade in modern bedroom furniture was entirely created in this country by an alien—I am not sure he was not an enemy alien—a most enterprising man, Mr. Harris Lebus. His father came here as an immigrant; I suppose some would have said he came as an undesirable immigrant. And that one man, by devising machinery for the manufacture of furniture in large quantities, built up an enormous trade in this country. I think it fair to say that next to cheap houses there is no more desirable thing for the well being of the people in general than cheap furniture. If I started in. history, at any rate, I. will end up with something a little more modern.
  4.0 P.M.
  I was speaking on Saturday to a cotton-spinner about the numbers of alien shippers who live in Manchester. He pointed out what, of course, is wholly true—that no man of our own race could possibly understand the precise tastes of these foreign markets. A design which may appear to us garish or ridiculous in the extreme may De the very thing that is required; so much so that you cannot send Englishmen to these countries to get orders. You require a man who knows the country and the taste of the country, and you require him to come back and to live in this country in order to guide our manufacturers. That seems to me perfectly obvious. When speaking of reprisals, we have to remember the Near East. I do not know whether Turkey is in a position to retaliate. If we are going to deport all Turks, all Mahomedan Turks, I do not think we could reasonably complain if the Turks did the same to us. If that were done—I am bound to say I do not think they would dare, in their own interest, to do it—it would be absolute ruin and collapse to the whole of our vast trade in the Near East. Representatives of British industry are now flocking back to Turkey by every ship. Speaking on this question of trade, I would remind the House that 120,000 Englishmen leave this country every year to settle in alien lands, so that we have to remember their interests and the treatment that they are likely to receive at the hands of others when we are passing, as I think, such ridiculous legislation in this country. I pass from the trade aspect of the alien problem to what is called the right of asylum, the sentimental interest attaching
  830
  to the British tradition of the right of asylum. We are very proud to think that in this country in past centuries many political refugees have found a home and. have learned to love our institutions. It has been a very great material benefit to us as well. Let us take a modern case. It was a critical time in the War when the decision of Italy to intervene was taken in the year 1915. There is no doubt that was-one of the crises in that great struggle. Am I employing the language of hyperbole when I say that our free reception and friendship extended during the middle of the nineteenth century to Italian patriots was largely responsible for that warm feeling of love for this country in Italy which caused her people to push their Government into intervention on our side? It seems to me that is absolutely so. A modern case is that of M. Paderewski, who became an apostle of Western civilisation in Europe. Another case is that of Madam Destinn the singer. She was an Austrian subject, and would have been subject to all the penal provisions of this Bill. Madam Destinn or Destinovo as she is now called, is now playing the part of an enthusiastic friend of England. She is not only a singer, but also an author, and a very distinguished Bohemian patriot. It is no exaggeration to say that the British right of aslyum which we have always cherished has brought in its train great material benefits for our country.
  The next part of the Resolution to which I would like to refer is the general question of the benefits which we have received from free intercourse with all mankind. It is almost a hackneyed subject. The great Italian Renaissance was entirely due to the immigration of undesirable people from Constantinople into Italy. I can imagine the hon. Gentleman's prototypes in Florence and Tuscany in those days speaking of the flood of these Greeks as competing with the Italians and interfering with their trade. It was the free relation which we had with those countries in those far-off days which enabled us to share in all the benefits of the Renaissance. If it is alleged that that is too remote, we have only to remember in the field of art how many distinguished aliens there have been within our own recollection. Sara-sate, Whistler, Halle, Bartolozzi, and Mary Anderson! All aliens. An hon. Gentleman says, "Why do they not become naturalised?" The best sort will riot become naturalised, because they are proud of their country, and we ought to be glad.

  831
  to receive them here. In literature we have Max Muller and Joseph Conrad, a man who has contributed very largely to the wealth of British literature.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Was he not naturalised?
  Captain BENN: No, I think not. Conrad preferred to write in our own tongue. He is an enemy alien, and could not land under this Bill.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Conrad is a Pole.
  Captain BENN: No, a German Pole. I speak subject to correction, but he is a man who undoubtedly would come under this Bill.
  Mr. REMER: What about Kuno Meyer?
  Captain BENN: Kuno Meyer, after all is said and done, did, I think, more good than harm in this country. He was an enemy of this country, but he contributed very largely to learning in this country. Kuno Meyer would be an undesirable alien under this Bill, and the Home Secretary would have power to deal with him. Of course, in the general way of the building up of the Empire, we need only refer to the origin of Lord Beaconsfield. We have also to remember that the beginning of the better housing of the people of this country was due to George Pea-body, who was an alien amongst us. As to science, the field is so large that it is almost impossible to explore it. There are Von Reuter, famous the world over for his Press telegrams; Sir William Siemens, president of the Royal Society; and Sir Arthur Schuster, who has rendered incalculable service to our country during the War. At this moment the world of scientific medicine is organising a scheme for the interchange of research work between this country and America. Under this Bill all the paraphernalia of passports, photographs, and inspection, with special permits, will have to be undertaken by these scientists whom really we ought to welcome with open arms.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say to what Clause he is referring?
  Captain BENN: Clause 1 and the Orders made under Clause 1. All aliens have to land at certain ports. They have to have passports and photographs not more than five years old. They have to report
  832
  themselves to the police, and to get permits to move in different districts. All that unnecessary irritation and restriction in this concrete case is checking an important work of science. While I am on the field of science, there is an enemy alien called Einstein who has dicovered a new theory of light. I am glad to say that owing to this Bill we shall prevent the dumping of any German science in this country. We shall be able to have an all-British law of gravity, and so long as we can rely upon the right hand of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway we need not have any fear that the election pledges as to an all-red science will be broken I have examined the provisions of this Bill and the Orders that have been drafted under it. I have tried to examine them in the light of history, and to see what would have happened to some of the distinguished aliens who have contributed so much to the national well-being. I take, first, the Orders in Council. Orders in Council No. 1 prevents the entry of any alien who cannot support himself. Under that Order we should have had no Rossetti, no Antony Panizzi, whose work in the British Museum was of such incalculable value in spreading the means of self-education to thousands. I need scarcely mention Benjamin West, but he would have been excluded. The Home Secretary is not able to exclude undesirables by name; you give him power to exclude everybody on the chance that he will get one or two undesirables, and the result is you will exclude the harmless English-loving aliens who like the freedom of this country.
  Really, when you deal with the thing in a broad historical way the case for a Bill of this kind becomes so ridiculous that it is almost cruelty to pursue it. Take Section 9 of the draft Order in Council, which states that the Secretary of State may prohibit the use or possession of any machine, apparatus, or article of any description. What would have become of Marconi and his investigations made in this country in a science which rendered us a great service during the War? What would have become of Poulsen? I will not mention Herschel and his telescope. I see that Order No. 12 gives the same wide powers to the Secretary of State to deport anyone if he deems it to be conducive to the public good. I should like to see what would have happened to Garibaldi when a private note was sent round by the Austrian Embassy to the Home Secretary of that day. There is a Clause

  833
  in the Bill which gives ten years to any alien who stirs up disaffection among the civilian population. Tyndall with his German friends, Martin Luther and St. Augustine, would all have been deported under the first Clause of the Bill, and, as to Tyndall sending his translations of the Bible to Wurtemberg, he would have been dealt with under D.O.R.A. Section 6 forbids any alien to be employed in the public service. That would have excluded Holbein, Van Dyek, Handel, and Sir Peter Lely. Sir Peter Lely would have been caught under two Sections. He would have been excluded from the public service, because I suppose Charles paid him out of public funds, but, worse than that. be changed his name. He was not Peter Lely at all; it was Van der Faes, and no one can pretend that Lely is the English translation as near as may be of Van der Faes. The Bill for the deportation of aliens would have rid us of Rousseau and Froissard, and, worse still, another man who would have suffered would have been Kossuth. It is so all through the ridiculous provisions of this Bill. Perhaps on the whole Section 11 is the most absurd.
  This prevents enemy aliens having any interest in a key industry. A key industry is not defined in this Bill, but it is stated that it is going to be defined later on by the Board of Trade. I understand that a key industry is something to enable you to win in the next war. Surely, if we can get any help from enemies or anybody else to get devices which will help us to win the next war we ought to do so. What can be the purpose of preventing that, and what would be the result of a provision of this kind, say, against the Marconi invention Marconi is a native of a country which, at one time, was in alliance with the enemy, and a native of a country which, presumably, would have gone in against us in the War. What would have been the result of harrying a man like that from carrying on his operations and experiments here, and which were of inestimable advantage to us? Perhaps we shall have a better opportunity on the anti-Dumping Bill of finding out what is the idea of preventing the use of enemy talent that we can secure, for I admit, at present, I cannot understand what the purpose is. Is it to save this country from being beaten in the next war? If so, what is the good of showing our venom to people like Austrians, Bulgarians and Turks, who cannot be supposed to be potential enemies of this country?
  834
  Is it to protect the trade of this country? The curious thing is that the people who want to keep out aliens and their services and goods are the very people who clamour most loudly for making Germans pay the whole cost of the War.
  An hon. Gentleman interrupted me just now and asked would I recommend the entry of certain people whom he named and who were obviously of undesirable character? My reply is, of course not. What we think should be done is to endow the Home Secretary with the fullest possible power to deal individually with the people who are a danger to this country. This Bill does nothing of the kind. It is a Bill which leaves enormous loopholes. Take Section 16, which provides that the Bill shall not apply to a man who has been "naturalised in any other foreign State." Would there under that Section be the least difficulty for people to secure Swiss nationality in order to drive a submarine through the whole of the Clauses of this precious Bill? This is a Bill which excludes people who may possibly be of some use or value to this country, and which is absolutely futile and useless against a man who is determined to come here in order to do us an injury. We believe that what the world wants at the present moment is peace and work, and those are precisely the things this Bill interferes with. You have all the paraphernalia of passports and fingerprints, and remember that the Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to have fingerprints taken, not of any individual, but generally. All that sort of thing cherishes suspicion and hatred, and is inimical to the very spirit which we wish to see fostered. If you wish to make this country strong in fight, you do not nerve its arm by hatred. Hatred does not make people fight better any more than fear or shame. Chivalry is a great force, and a. force of great material military value. What we want to see is growing in the world, and a world which will-have an atmosphere in which the League of Nations may have a chance of success. What, we hope is that we shall see a better atmosphere, which I believe is growing in the world. It is perhaps too much to hope that hon. Gentlemen who are supporters of this Bill will are the flash on the Damascus Road, but the good sense of this country will, I think, speedily end this miasma of persecution.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I desire to support the hon. and gallant Member in moving the reasoned objection of this Bill. My principal reason for doing so is that it seems to me to run directly contrary to the whole idea of the League of Nations. I think, generally speaking, we may say that those who are most keen in opposition to this Bill are those who are most keen for a strong and real League of Nations, and that those who are supporting this Bill are at bottom opposed to the idea of the League of Nations. The distinction is quite clear. At the back of the League of Nations idea is the same idea that inspires the Labour party on these benches— that is, international solidarity, rather than the creation and stimulation of national differences. To inspire national differences has always been one of the dopes with which Labour has been kept quiet, because if you hate your next-door neighbour in another country, then Labour will pay less attention to the injustices from which it suffers in the country of its birth. This Bill is not merely directly contrary to the idea of the League of Nations, but it will undoubtedly do harm to the successful carrying out of any such League. I looked in this Bill to see how it would affect our American cousins across the Atlantic. Under this Bill an American who lands in this country has to go through all the trouble and difficulty which he experienced during the War. Americans coming to this country during the War have over and over again said to me, "We are treated as though we were enemies of this country." When they got to the ports they were lined up in queues to have their passports examined and their photographs examined, and I have even known cases of Americans coming here to do Red Cross work and in connection with the nursing profession taken into State cabins and stripped to the skin, under these Rules and Regulations, to see if they were carrying any information. All that stirs up ill-will between us and America. Every American officer who came over here and who was told to produce his passport immediately felt that he had a grievance against this country, and, under this Bill, for two years, at any rate, all those difficulties are being perpetuated and all this friction is being engendered between us and America. So far as America is concerned, we must remember that everything we do to Americans will most surely be retaliated on our shoulders, and we shall,
  836
  find that the restrictions we put on Americans coming into England will be applied to English people going to America. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are now!"]
  Surely now, when we are getting on with the idea of uniting all the peoples in a League of Nations, this Bill is the queerest satire upon, the spirit which is supposed to inspire this new movement? It is not merely that this Bill is directly contrary to the spirit, of internationalism and inspired with the desire to engender international hate, but this Bill is also a cruel Bill, and it is to that side of it that I would like to direct the attention of the House. The War has been cruel enough to the English wives of enemy aliens who have been separated from their husbands for five years, and their husbands in many cases have been sent back to Germany, and the wife and children left behind. Their homes have been broken up, and they have been unable to get work, and they are known by their foreign German names by their neighbours, and they have been unwelcome in shops where they went to buy their food. All that has gone on during the War, and now by a special fiendish device, the whole of those wartime cruelties are to be continued, and they are cruelties not to Germans, not to Austrians, not to Turks, but to English-born women who have committed the frightful crime of marrying a foreigner. I have got a letter from one here typical of many hundreds which I have received during the War, and in which she says:
  "I am the wife of a German who was interned and then repatriated, leaving me here with two sons, the eldest one being consumptive and the other one still in the Army and in France. I want my dear husband to be allowed to come back and help to support myself and my sick son. I have been married twenty-three years, and I have never been out of England."
  That is only one sample of many of those letters which are all the same. Those unfortunate wives and families have had their breadwinners taken away and sent back to Germany, and under this Bill they may not come back for three years. It is the same with those who wore interned in this country and who have been passed by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee as being fit to return. They are to be deported and their wives and families left behind, unless, indeed, they can make out a case good enough for the Home Secretary or a Committee to leave them in this country. There is no question of danger to this country. It is merely a question of vengeance and spite against these un-

  837
  fortunate people who happen to belong to an enemy country by reason of their marriage. The whole thing would be pathetic were it not that you have at the back of this movement a desire to exact vengeance upon the German people for their cruelties during the War. I for one do not wish to exact vengeance. It seems to me that vengeance has been worked on Germany by other Powers, and it might be left in other hands to carry on this horrible work. I do not want to have vengeance for the loss of my relations; I do not want to see England adopt an attitude which is not only unchivalrous but also unchristian. What we have got to do is to try and heal the wounds that have been created by this War, and not to perpetuate them for ever by adding salt to the wounds that have been made. I am no longer a member of the Liberal party, but I believe there are many members of that party sitting on the Coalition side who would attach weight to the opinions of Liberals in the past. We have had Bills like this brought forward over and over again, but never such a bad Bill as this. Sir Evans Gordon, in the old days, Claude Hay, all these people brought forward anti-alien Bills, the last two such Bills being brought forward in 1904 and 1905. Those Bills were strenuously opposed by the whole of the Liberal and Labour parties. The Bill of 1904, which was not so bad as this, was withdrawn, and when it was introduced in 1905 it was modified in many respects in a Liberal direction. Mr. Asquith, dealing with that Bill, makes three points which seem to me to be as good Liberal points to-day as they were then. Ho says of the second Bill, that of 1905, as compared with the 1904 Bill, that it
  "vested in the Home Secretary executive power, by his own act, without the protection of any preliminary judicial investigation, without any regard to any law of evidence, which is the safeguard of our liberties, to refuse admission to alien immigrants and to expel them from this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1905, col. 742, Vol. 145.]
  He went on to say how glad he was that that had been altered in the 1905 Bill, but we have gone back to it in 1919, Mr. Asquith deals again with the question of the right of asylum. He says:
  "The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) has called attention to the importance of preserving the right or privilege of asylum in this country, not only for the victims of political but of religious persecutions also." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1905, col. 743, Vol. 145.]
  838
  That right of asylum has gone, too, and the idea that people might now fly from Russia to this country and take asylum here for political purposes, or that, driven by religious persecutions, they might come here from Russia, has entirely vanished. The right of asylum has gone under this Bill, and, instead, all poor people are to be excluded. The last point he made is as applicable to-day as it was to the first Bill of 1904. Mr. Asquith said that provision had been put in which enabled an appeal from the immigration office to what is called the immigration board. That has also gone under this Bill. We have gone back to the worst provisions of the Bill of 1904, and we have gone back under the directions of a so-called Liberal Home Secretary. I can only regret that the Home Secretary is a Liberal; we should have been much better off if this question had come to be discussed under his immediate predecessor. Unfortunately, he is a nominal Liberal, but he is not a politician. His whole career has been on legal lines; he has no political ambitions, no political ideals to maintain, and I do ask him to remember in the future, if he has not remembered in the past, that he is not merely responsible for the safety of this country, but that he has also in his hands the honour of this country, and it is that which has been dragged in the mud by the passage of this Bill.
  Mr. PRESTON: The last two speakers have taken up the position that this Bill goes, if anything, too far, but I am afraid, possibly because I represent a constituency that is overrun with hordes of undesirable aliens, that if anything the Bill does not go far enough, certainty not as regards the undesirable aliens. Those of us who have endeavoured, not I think without success, to strengthen this Bill, have had many hard things said of us, and Member after Member has accused us of anti-Semitism and Jew-baiting. Speaking for myself, and I feel I can speak for most of the hon. Members whom I joined in the Lobby on the occasion when we defeated the Government, none of us have any feeling against the Jews. In my own Constituency I can say that if only all the aliens there were as hard working, as industrious, as thrifty, and took as much care of their children as do most of the Jews, I for one would have no cause for complaint against them, but I am up against, first, the enemy

  839
  aliens, and, secondly, the undesirable aliens. Listening to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill, you would think we wore up against ail aliens, but that is not the truth. We are up against the enemy aliens and the undesirable aliens. Although under the 1905 Act no undesirable alien is allowed to enter the country, in practice undesirable aliens have been coming in in great numbers, and if the Home Secretary has any doubt at all whether there are any undesirable aliens in this country, if he went down to the East End of London and asked the aliens themselves what they think about it all, the better class would tell him that there are many undesirables who ought never to have been allowed here, men who lower the whole social status of the street in which they live, men who live on the gains of women. These are the kind of people that the aliens themselves say are undesirable, and surely our standard of morality and decency is at least as high as that of the aliens themselves. There are two points in connection with the undesirables to which I wish to call attention. During the Report stage, the Home Secretary, in reply to a request of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that he would allow Russians to return to this country, took up a very firm stand. May I read to the House a portion of what he said—
  "These men deliberately left this country. They came back here and pretend that they have fought. Whenever we have had a chance of testing their statement it has been untrue. It is suggested that they are hardly treated, innocent persons. They are nothing of the sort. They chose their own beds; they chose to leave this country of their own accord. They would not fight for this country. Any Russian, any alien who has fought for this country—I am signing dozens a day of such orders—is entitled to become naturalised and to become a citizen of this country. We gave that pledge, and we are carrying it out. But a man who deliberately says 'I will not fight for you, I am going back to Russia,' well, let him stop there."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1919, cols. 148 and 149, Vol. 120.]
  I cheered that statement when it was made, but I was foolish enough to repeat it a day or so afterwards in my own Constituency. Immediately the statement was challenged, and three or four names were given me at that meeting of Russians who had refused to fight for us, who had left this country, and who had come back in spite of the Home Secretary's statement. These men are coming back in considerable
  840
  numbers, and, upon inquiries, I find some of them allege that they are coming back under what they call Home Office permits, but I cannot get a sight of any of these permits. Many of them are undoubtedly smuggling themselves across as stowaways on ships coming here from the Continent, and when they land in this country the police, if they can find them, arrest them. They are taken before a magistrate, who fines them, but he does not send them back again. He does not deport them, and these Russians, whom the Home Secretary assures us are not coming back to this country, are coming back here, and after they have paid their fine are allowed to stay here. So much fur the Home Secretary's words. The hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Mr. Hopkins) was very anxious to include in this Bill a Clause defining the undesirable aliens and prohibiting them entering this country, but the Home Secretary assured us it was quite unnecessary to have that Clause in the Bill, as he already had sufficient powers under the Orders in Council. What does the Order in Council say? "An alien shall not land in the United Kingdom unless (a) he is in a position to support himself and his dependants." There are many other reasons why an alien may not come to this country, but that is the first reason. I have the name and address of a Russian who arrived in this country in September, and before he was allowed to land presumably the Home Office officials satisfied themselves and will vouch for the fact that he was "in a position to support himself and his dependants." Less than six weeks after he landed his wife comes to the Mile End Board of Guardians and asks for relief because her husband is out of work. During the War we had many alien-born wives of these Russians whom this country has been keeping. Our board of guardians has disbursed thousands of pounds in keeping these women, and it is a monstrous thing if these Russians who would not fight for us are allowed to come back again, and we have to keep them, as well as having had to keep their wives during the War. We cannot possibly afford it, and surely we have enough poor of our own. I respectfully submit that, in view of those facts, we are entitled to ask the Home Secretary either that in another place he will insert in this Bill a Clause which defines these undesirable aliens and prohibits them coming into this

  841
  country, or else that he should get hold of his officials at the Home Office and see that they carry out; more strictly the Orders in Council with reference to these people.
  Mr. KILEY: I find myself in cordial agreement with the remarks of the last speaker in so far as they relate to the desirability of preventing undesirable criminal aliens landing or remaining in this country, and, so far as that is concerned, the Home Secretary may rest assured that support will come not only from hon. Members behind him, but from almost every section of this House. In regard to the statement of the hon. Member who has just sat down, that in the East End of London there are crowds of these criminal and undesirable aliens, if that is known to him and his Meads, why he does not go immediately to the police and give them that information is certainly beyond my comprehension, and I think there must be something lacking on the part of his friends if they give him so much information and have not taken the one step further and advised the police at once. In my judgment, the police in this matter are a little bit too drastic. They are sending out of the country almost weekly—it may interest the hon. Member to know—batches of these men, and I have had occasion more, than once to go to the Home Office to protest against the severity with which they are dealing with some of these men. I had a case on Saturday, and I think it will interest the House to know how drastic the Home Office is in these matters. A man was charged at the end of last year with having in his house two Russian aliens who were supposed to be endeavouring to evade military service. He was found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and to be deported. He served his sentence and was released in February, but he was told they could not deport him, and that he must report to the police every Friday. Since February he has so reported to the police. Last Friday, when ho reported, he was kept in the prison, arid on Sunday he was thrown out of the country. So far as that man broke the law of the land, he deserved to be punished. But there is another point of view. This man has got a wife and six children unprovided for. One of the children, a boy of thirteen, came to me on Saturday afternoon to relate the story. He told me that at school he had been taught the violin, and he said he
  842
  could go out and earn enough to keep his mother and the children if he could get a permit to leave school, as he was only thirteen years of age. 1, naturally, could not do anything of the kind. His father had been snipped out of the country, as many other fathers have been, for what I regard not as criminal offences, but technical offences, under the Aliens Restriction. Act, under which they have nearly all been punished with hard labour, have served their sentences, have been kept in suspense for many months, and now have been shipped out of the country. There may be various degrees of offences which these people have committed, and undoubtedly many of them should be so shipped, and whenever a man shows that he is a criminal the Home Secretary can count upon the support of practically every Member of this House.
  During the Debates, I think, a very wrong impression has arisen in the country that England is one vast horde of aliens. I think it would be interesting for Members to know what is the extent of this great evil. I find, in looking up official figures, that the highest point aliens have ever reached in this country is a total of 280,000 odd, out of which a very large proportion are children, many of them born in this country, and, of the total, Russian Jews form by far the largest proportion. That was in 1901. Since then the alien population of this country has been steadily decreasing. It is also of interest to find what is the percentage of aliens to our total population, and how it compares with other countries. I have taken the trouble to look up the figures. In America the proportion of aliens to its population is something over 13 per cent., whereas Great Britain is O.G5, or practically ½ per cent of the total population, which is the smallest proportion of any of the great countries in the world. In Germany it is 1½ per cent., France 2½per cent., Denmark 3½ per cent., and Switzerland 4 per cent. This is the awful problem with which we are confronted, and which has been the cause of so much misunderstanding throughout the country. Are the aliens who are here such an undesirable crowd as is alleged? If so, what do our Poor Law Returns show in the district in which they congregate? Take the East End of London. There are practically none on our Pool Law, nor have there ever been in the East End of London; and, after all, that ought to be a test. Then take the test of crime. The Police records show that something

  843
  like 2 per cent, of the total convictions are due to aliens. I have referred already to the valuable influence aliens have in promoting trade in this country. There is one other test I might also apply. Are these aliens, from an educational point of view, good material? I do not think I can do better than recall the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) came down to one of these alien schools to deliver prizes and certificates.
  Sir H. NIELD: When I was asked to come down, I understood it was an ancient foundation school dating from the reign of Charles II., not an alien school, or I would not have gone into it.
  Mr. KILEY: I very much regret that the hon. and learned Member should take up that position. After all, the majority of those children were born in this country, educated in this country, and, by their skill and ability, obtained prizes and certificates, and I do not think it comes well from a Member of this House, especially when he did fulfil the part, and handed over the prizes and congratulated the children, and I do not think it is right of him, to repudiate the part he played on that occasion. The service which aliens have rendered in forming and establishing trade has been most valuable to this country, and with that I will conclude by again assuring the Home Secretary that when he comes to deal with undesirables he will have no more warm supporter than myself in any efforts he wants in that direction.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHER: The hon. and gallant Member who moved the rejection of this Bill gave us a most interesting historical and biographical essay on the subject of aliens at large. I listened with great interest to his speech, and the only thing that caused me to wonder when I heard the conclusion of it was, why on earth it was delivered on this Bill. If this Bill meant the entire exclusion of all aliens in this country, I could understand its relevance, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Preston) pointed out, the object of this Bill is to exclude by Orders in Council undesirable aliens, and it makes provision for excluding former enemy aliens. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Benn) gave us a most interesting, and, in some ways, an alarmingly long list of
  844
  eminent persons who had come to this country and were not born here. I was glad to hear of their coming. I think he told us of people like Mary Anderson, Whistler, Italian patriots, Max Muller, Marconi, and I know not who else, but does he mean to suggest that there is one syllable in the enacting part of this Bill which would have got any one of those remarkable and distinguished ladies and gentlemen out of this country? Of course he cannot. I ask him, is there a single part of the enacting part of this Bill which would have got one of these people out of this country?
  Captain W. BENN: My answer is that a large number of the cases I gave would have been excluded on the score that they could not have supported themselves. Some of them came as quite penniless foreigners. [An HON. MEMBER: "Max Muller!"] I am speaking of the cases I gave. The hon. and learned Gentleman has only mentioned one or two. I gave the case of the British Museum librarian, and of Rossetti as another, who would have been undoubtedly excluded on the ground of not being able to support themselves, and people who have contributed so much to this country would have been put under all the restrictions and interference provided for in these Orders in Council.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend does not say the persons I have named would have been kept out of the country, but he complains that they would have been annoyed by the restrictions. In almost the same breath as he mentioned the distinguished persons who ought to come here, he truly alleged that there wore a lot of undesirable aliens who ought to have been kept out. How are they to be kept out unless you have some restrictions? Are you to tell an undesirable alien by his face or the colour of his hair? Of course there must be inquiry, restriction and examination in order to carry out the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own object. He shakes his head, but it is true all the same, and, therefore, if you have these restrictions, the other aliens who come in, just as we do when we emigrate to the United States, have to submit to certain restrictions, and I confidently believe the people he has named would have been able to come into this country undisturbed by the restrictions of which lie complains. I do not suppose he would suggest that the

  845
  present Home Secretary, if you gave him power to make Orders in Council, would so abuse his power as to prevent Marconi, for instance, coming into this country. If that is so, what is the meaning of all this declamation and historical reminiscence in which he indulged? It was all whitewash, and nothing to do with this Bill.
  5.0 P. M.
  Let us come back to the subject matter and the nature of this Bill. This Bill came into the House practically as a skeleton. It has emerged through Committee and Report endowed, I am glad to think, with a certain amount of flesh and blood—a living Bill. The truth is that, when the Bill was introduced, it had all the vices of pre-war legislation. There was nothing in the nature of a Bill. There was a very large power conferred on the Home Secretary by Orders in Council. I do not complain of that in wartime, but I do complain of it very much being done now that the War is over. Many—I think the greater number—in this House think that the time has come when Parliament ought to revert to its constitutional method of legislation, and that the time is past for giving to Ministers and Departments an unlimited power of dealing with all kinds of subjects affecting the liberty of the subject, and almost everything in which human activity is engaged, by Orders in Council made by one Minister, undone by another, re-made in another form by the next Minister, and, as my hon. Friend here says, made by one and probably never enforced by another. I venture to think that the vast majority of us in this House desire—and rightly desire—that the House should revert to the old constitutional method of legislating, not through the intervention of a Minister sitting in his Department, but by the method of passing enactments which can be discussed openly in this House, and passed through both Houses of Parliament. And really that is what has been done in this Bill. There have been a number of Clauses introduced in the Bill, and, as I shall show, some very valuable Clauses, which lay down partially a code for dealing with aliens in this country, and, if I may say so, point out certain activities in which it is right and proper that British subjects, and British subjects alone, should be engaged, and restrict aliens from engaging in things which do not properly fall to their lot. Let me illustrate what I mean, I suppose there is no class of the community in this country who have more deeply earned our
  846
  gratitude and admiration during the War, in concert with our sailors and our soldiers, than the officers and men of the British Mercantile Marine. This Bill does something at last—it has been a long time coming—for the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine. It provides that no master, chief officer, or chief engineer of a British merchant vessel, except those which trade between ports outside this Kingdom, shall be an alien. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain W. Benn), who moved the rejection of this Bill, wants to destroy that provision. He wants to provide that all aliens may be masters, officers, and engineers of British merchant ships. Would his constituents approve of that? If I understand aright he sits for a Northern port. I hope he will go to his constituents, or somebody for him, and explain to them, "Here was I in the House of Commons laying it down that the decision of the House of Commons that no alien master, officer, or engineer should be on a British vessel should be abrogated; and I did all I could in the House to ensure that aliens should be masters, officers and engineers of British vessels."
  Let me call the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to another provision in this Bill—perhaps he has not read it!—that there should be no pilot coming into a port in the United Kingdom who is an alien. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman go to his constituents and tell them that he wants to make these aliens eligible as British pilots? It would be interesting to know the result of such a confession before the constituents. That is not all. There is a very important provision in Clause 5 which deals with the crews of British ships, and provides that, so far as possible, British seamen should be employed in preference to alien seamen. I am reminded by an hon. Friend near me that the most important factor in connection with this matter in the Bill is this: A standard of wages is kept up, so that it would not be to the interests of the ship-owner to employ alien seamen at a less wage than British seamen. I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman will go to his constituents and say, "Give me a public dinner, or, at any rate, give me a public testimonial; I am the man who wanted to abolish the Clause which gives the preference to British seamen"! I should be interested to know what would happen. At any rate, if he does go with that request, he will probably receive a reception!

  847
  I am reminding the House, possibly of what those who followed the Bill are well aware; but may I ask what has been introduced into this Bill by Amendments in Committee and on the Report stage? One Amendment was introduced providing that no alien shall be admissible for employment in the Civil Service. It was said at the time of the production that there was some old provision in the Act of Settlement that covered this point. It is doubtful. Be that as it may, this Bill provides in plain language which no one j can misunderstand that no alien shall be employed in our Civil Service in opposition ! to and in competition with a British subject. That Clause, again, my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to remove.
  There is another interesting Clause. We all know that since the War there has been a very great rush on the part of the alien to change their German and other names. I dare say it was to their advantage. It certainly was not to ours, nor was it an advantage to the people of this country to have Germans hiding, disguising and camouflaging themselves under some high-sounding British name or title. This Bill provides—and properly I think—that no alien shall be allowed to change his name from that which he used before August, 1914, and if he has been allowed to remain in this country that he should trade as Schmidt or Schumann or whatever his name is, and not deceive the British public by calling himself Plan-taganet or Tudor! So much for these things in general that have been introduced into the Bill. For my part I regret a Clause proposed in Committee was rejected, which was to limit the number of aliens who should be employed in hotels and restaurants, and saying there might be a certain percentage and no more. I confess, for my own part, that when I go into an hotel and am addressed by a person in diabolically German English and asked whether I will have this that or the other, I feel very much inclined to go into a much humbler place and get my dinner for 1s.— if that be possible—rather than do business with these aliens who come over here and are employed in places where British labour could very well be employed. However, that proposed Clause was rejected. I very much regret it. Possibly the Home Secretary may in another place find it possible to introduce such a Clause which, if not applicable to all industries, would be applicable to places such as hotels,
  848
  restaurants and so on, where at present there is an undue proportion of alien people employed. So much for aliens generally.
  Let me say one or two words, very shortly, about enemy aliens. There are three or four Clauses in the Bill directed exclusively at former enemy aliens. Some people in this House think, I believe, that we ought to make no difference whatsoever between the Frenchman and our other Allies who fought gallantly with us, and the Germans who forget against us and used every brutality and atrocity that the human mind was capable of inventing. I do not agree. I think that for some time to come it will be impossible to forget what the Germans have done in this War. The time may come when the Germans may be forgiven. That time is not yet. When they have carried out the provisions of the Peace Treaty—which at present they show very little desire to carry out—when they have replaced the devastated areas of Belgium and France, and carried out their obligations as to reparation to us, and the rest of the Allies under the Peace Treaty; when they have withdrawn their disturbing influences from unhappy and distressed Russia, and when they have shown some signs of repentance and change of mind and character, then may be the time that we may forgot what they have done, and be prepared to treat them on the same basis as other aliens. That time has not yet come. So far as I can see, there is no immediate sign of it. Until it does come, I think the House of Commons were well-advised in introducing into this Bill some Clauses dealing specially with enemy aliens, as opposed to other classes of aliens. I need not recapitulate the whole of these Clauses, but, in the first place, there is a Clause for the deportation of former enemy aliens, subject to certain exemptions. This is exceedingly mild. Some people in Committee thought that these provisions were too much so. There is another Clause that provides that for three years any person, a German or other enemy alien, should not be allowed to return here, except for special reasons, and where the Home Secretary thinks fit to give permission. Does anybody say that is wrong, except the hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, who are so desirous of having foreign agents, or desirous of having alien pilots, alien masters, and alien engineers? Is there anyone except that hon. and gallant

  849
  Gentleman, and those who think with him, who desire to have the Germans who betrayed their trust, abused our hospitality, acted as spies, and ill-treated our prisoners of war.
  There was another very important Clause introduced into the Bill by the Home Secretary himself, which provided that for a certain period, at any rate— and I hope it will be for a longer rather than a shorter period—no former enemy alien shall hold land, any interest in a key industry, or shares in companies owning British ships in this country. We know, apart from the atrocities of the War, what the Germans did prior to the War in the way of peaceful penetration in this and other countries. We know how in certain foreign countries these people bitterly betrayed the country, and we know the position in this matter in our own Dominions. In Australia, for instance, they practically controlled some of the great industries, and had hold of the speller and so on. We know all this. We know how the Australian Government had to introduce special legislation to deal with the matter, and regain control of these industries. We know something about the peaceful penetration of the Germans in this country. We know that some important industries were carried on not by British labour or British enterprise, but in the interests of German enterprise by German labour. Many of us, even after the atrocities of this War are forgotten, desire that such a state of things shall not arise again here, and, in spite of protests by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends, I think the great majority of the people have a similar desire and a similar determination. This Bill has emerged from the Committee and Report stages a far better Bill than it went into them. That has proved the fact that Members here are determined to restore Parliament to its old supremacy in the way of carrying out such reforms as it desires. I thank the Government for not having impeded us in this House in carrying out our great duties. I believe that not only the majority, but the vast majority of Members of this House, and the immense majority of the country, will thank Parliament for having carried this Bill through, as I believe it will be carried through, and passed into law before many days are gone.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): We have had a long discussion, and so far as the Bill has been attacked there is really not a great deal to which to reply. The Amendment speaks for itself. It admits that there must be the fullest powers for dealing with dangerous and undesirable aliens. The Bill satisfies that. The Amendment goes on to suggest that the Bill in some way may check the growth of our overseas trade, clog that free intercourse with foreign nations by which in our art, science, literature, and religion this country has greatly gained, impair the British tradition of right of asylum, form an obstacle to international good will, and imperil in some way, and interfere with, the work of the League of Nations. I am bound to say I followed the speech of ray hon. and gallant Friend with great care, as I have done the other speeches, but I have had no Intimation as to what particular part of the Bill it was which would have the grievous effects suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, My hon. and gallant Friend gave a long list of aliens who came here whom he said had done most valuable work and had been extremely useful to this country, but if he had shown half the industry he has shown in getting together those names in searching through the files of the criminal records of this country he would have found quite a hundred alien criminals, including murderers and burglars, for every one he has named. The hon. and gallant Member stated that none of those aliens could have come to this country if this Bill had been in force. Why not? There is not a single provision which prevents any alien coming here if he is a decent and respectable person, It is no good taking the Clauses which do not deal with aliens in general but with former enemy aliens. It will not do to take those Clauses and pretend that they apply to everybody. The provisions with regard to aliens as a whole are no more severe than those in other countries. You cannot have restrictions of this kind without some degree of inconvenience. We have to put up with such restrictions in other countries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked of reprisals. What reprisals could any other country inflict upon us which they are not already preparing!
  Captain W. BENN: What about Turkey?
  Mr. SHORTT: Turkey has not got a Government, or anything of the kind yet.
  Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that the Turkish Government will pass an Act to deport all Englishmen from Turkey?
  Mr. SHORTT: They will be perfectly entitled to do it, and I have no doubt they may do so, or they May take the same steps we are taking and provide that only those should be deported who ought to be deported. The provisions with regard to the deportation of former enemy aliens are as wide in their discretionary power as they can possibly be. The category of former enemy aliens has only to come within one of those categories, and then it rests upon those who deport them to satisfy the Committee of some good reason why they should be allowed to stay here. There is the widest discretion, and who could blame Turkey if she passes a law of a similar character?
  Captain BENN: And ruin our trade!
  Mr. SHORTT: My hon. and gallant Friend is making the mistake which is often made of taking for granted that the Act will be administered by prize idiots, and then blaming the Act for it. That is a form of argument which is hardly one that ought to be inflicted very often on the House of Commons as a serious argument. We have been told that the right of asylum has gone. Why? If a perfectly respectable alien has a difference with the Bolshevik Government in Russia, will he be kept out of this country under this Bill? Not at all. You must temper the right of asylum by a discretion to keep out those who are undesirable. This Bill has two main objects. It aims at keeping out the undesirable alien for all time, no matter where he comes from, and then there is a very limited provision to keep out former enemy aliens until we can reconsider the question and see how far it is possible to let him come back in the future. This measure is directed for a limited time against the former enemy aliens and for all time against the undesirable alien.
  I do not know that there is much more I can say, but I hope the House will carry the Third Reading of this Bill. It has been altered in form, I quite agree, and it restores to Parliament the power of controlling its own legislation instead of trusting to Orders in Council. The spirit of the Bill, however, is practically as it was brought in originally. There is no difference in principle and the only difference is one of method, and that difference has
  852
  been so adjusted that Parliament has re-established its right over legislation, and Parliament is fully entitled to do that. I ask the House to give this Bill a Third Reading and allow this measure to be passed into law.
  Mr. KILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what power is taken to replace the Appeal Tribunal which this Bill destroys?
  Mr. SHORTT: The Bill provides for an Advisory Committee.
  Mr. KILEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to set up an Advisory Committee?
  Mr. SHORTT: The Bill sets up such a Committee, and I am taking steps to get together the personnel of that Committee.
  Sir H. NIELD: Having regard to the efforts which some of us made during the Report stage, I think I am entitled to say a few words on the Third Reading. I congratulate the Home Secretary upon his speech, and the desire he has expressed that this Bill should be passed into law as speedily as possible. There are some hon. Members who always seem ready to advocate the cause of every country but their own and to defend the subjects of every country but their own, and they adopt the idea that to treat our own, fellow citizens better than foreigners is a heinous crime. I ask, can they show me any country in Europe which at this moment has not already passed legislation of this sort to protect themselves against those whom they do not desire to enter into their country? I have seen a communication from the Foreign Office which comes from the Embassy at Washington stating that it is the intention of the American Government to introduce to Congress and pass through the House of Representatives a Bill giving them power to deport alien enemies of various categories who have been interned during the War, for whose deportation no power at present exists. The Minister for Brazil has made a communication of a somewhat similar character.
  We have substantially every other country passing legislation to protect themselves against persons whom they consider are undesirables, and why should we not have a similar provision upon our Statute Book. With reference to the statistics which have been quoted by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) all I can say is that I have seen statistics for the

  853
  year 1914 which certainly do not support his theory, and I think I can safely say that the criminal statistics with regard to aliens have enormously increased. Those hon. Members who have read the instructive Return which was published by the Committee which dealt with this subject in 1903 will see that they were unanimously of opinion that the alien population in this country was a great danger, not only to our own population, but to the State. They found it was a population that was exclusive, and, as hon. Members know, those districts in which they lived have entirely changed. Surely it is time that this House asserted itself in order to prevent this danger by passing legislation of this kind.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The Government has recognised, both in England and in Scotland, that it owes a debt of gratitude to the men who have served both on the sea, on land and in the air, and it is my duty as Minister responsible for Ireland to recognise that fact so far as those Irishmen are concerned who volunteered for service during the War. It is well to remember, in dealing with this question, so far as Ireland is concerned, that Conscription was not applied to Ireland, and that those men who endured the dangers and rigours of the campaign for several years were men who took upon themselves this danger voluntarily. It is also to be remembered that, while in England and Scotland the people were almost unanimous in supporting the recruiting campaign, in Ireland the position of affairs in a great part of the country was entirely different.
  These men voluntarily enlisted often when a violent campaign against enlistment was raging. They were gallant fellows who faced opposition at home as well as the danger of the field, and in far too many cases they have returned to be received, not with pride, but to endure obloquy which should have been the fate
  854
  of traitors alone. I regret also to say that in a great many cases employment, and even a place to lay their heads, has been denied them. The Government has attempted in every way possible to alleviate their condition. They have spent a very large sum of money in providing employment for these men and in making them as comfortable as circumstances would allow. Along with his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland I have seen a great many of these ex-Service men, and I was agreeably surprised to find that they were very anxious to be settled upon the land for which they fought. As the House will remember, in 1907 the Evicted Tenants Act was passed for Ireland. I think that the Bill I am now submitting to the House is an improvement on the principle of that Bill because, if I remember rightly, that Bill was described popularly as a Bill which was providing land for the wounded soldiers of the Land Campaign. This Bill is, I trust, a generous attempt to give to those Irishmen who fought for their country facilities to settle on the land.
  The one test in this Bill is the test of service. The second important point is that there is a direct transaction by the ex-Service man, not with the local council, district or otherwise, but with the Government, or a Department of the Government. Applicants for land in Ireland may be divided into two classes. There is, first, the applicant who is anxious for the future of his life to devote his whole time to agriculture, and, in the second place, there is the applicant not desirous of devoting his whole time to agriculture but anxious to employ himself in another industry, while at the same time wishing to have an allotment with security of tenure and a house in which to live. During the War, while recruiting was going on, recruiting officers met with a great deal of trouble, because many of the men who wished to join were afraid that if they had left their native country to fight in France or Flanders some Government Department would meanwhile hand over such un-tenanted land as might be at their disposal to somebody else not so patriotic. It is as well to state here that this danger was never really present. Little was done for dividing up untenanted lands in Ireland during the War by either the Congested Districts Board or by the Estates Commissioners. Those two bodies have had unfortunately placed upon them statutory

  855
  limitations with regard to the distribution of land, and the main principle of the Bill which I now submit to the House is to get rid of those statutory limitations, j and to give to the soldier and sailor who has served priority for any untenanted lands which these two Boards have got at their disposal.
  Sir E. CARSON: In which Section is the priority provided for?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am going to deal with the provisions of the Bill presently. These two Boards will deal with men who intend for the rest of their lives to devote themselves to agriculture, and I am glad to say that 1,700 ex-Service men have already applied for land under these two Boards. I hope that very soon they will get the laud which they desire. With regard to the second class of case, the applicant who is anxious to devote himself to industry arid at the same time to have an allotment with a house in which to live, I would remark that, as the House knows very well, one of the greatest Irish land reforms ever passed was the Irish Labourers Act, which has done an enormous amount to better the condition of the agricultural labourers, and to give them houses at a cheaper rate than can be obtained by any other agricultural labourers in the world. It is a satisfactory fact that in this Bill I propose to extend the Labourers Act to ex-Service men, and I am proposing under this Bill to give those men every facility to procure for themselves not an allotment of one acre but art allotment of two acres with a house in which to live. Under the old Labourers Act the allotment was restricted to one acre, but I think, in view of the special circumstances of these cases, and of the meritorious service which these men have rendered to their country and the Empire, the House will agree that an extension of another acre as the full limit is a quite proper extension, and will be acceptable to all those who are interested in the welfare of these men, while the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board will look after the applicant who is anxious to have a holding for his permanent employment. I have asked the Local Government Board to look after the applicant who desires only an allotment and a house. The Local Government Board have done excellent work in connection with the Labourers' Act, and I am quite convinced it would mean greater expedition to have a central Department
  856
  such as the Irish Local Government Board dealing with this matter. I hope the House will agree that this plan is much better, much safer, and much more valuable than one under which the ex-Service men would be at the beck and call of or under the influence of local councils.
  I should like, if I may, to deal with the provisions of the Bill very shortly. I will only refer to the most important points: the remainder are easily understood. The first point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is contained in paragraph (b) Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which enables the Lord Lieutenant to give priority by special Regulations—and this, I believe, is the point my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir K Carson) asked about just now—in providing for the sale of land to the Land Commission by the Congested Districts Board if that body has land suitable for the purposes of the Bill, in order that it may be made speedily available. It also enables the Lord Lieutenant to-transfer untenanted hind from the Board to the Land Commission after consultation with the Congested Districts Board, who are responsible for the working of the Land Purchase Acts in congested districts. Paragraph (b) empowers the Lord Lieutenant, after consultation with the Congested Districts Board, to authorise the sale and transfer of land to the Land Commission on such terms as may be agreed upon or settled by the Lord Lieutenant in default of agreement. As to paragraph (c) under this category comes land which is not vested in the Board and is not in the process of sale under the Acts. This paragraph enables the Lord Lieutenant to authorise the Land Commission to purchase any such land whether situated in congested districts or elsewhere, the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts with respect to congested estates to apply in such cases. The next important point to which I will refer the House is Sub-section (3). As hon. Members from Ireland will know, Section 53 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, prohibits the Land Commission from purchasing land in any congested district without the consent of the Board, and I am proposing in this Sub-section to remove this prohibition and to allow purchases to go on under the authority of the Lord Lieutenant.
  The next important point in the Bill is contained in Clause 2, which contains restrictions on the alienation of holdings or stock provided under the Act. The Government desire to be very generous in its

  857
  assistance to these men, and in view of that fact we must lay down certain restrictions with regard to the alienation of holdings or stock of any sort or kind. The object of a provision of this nature is twofold. First, it will preclude men applying for land with the object of selling it as soon as they get it without working it for themselves, and, secondly, it will ensure that a man will have a fair start and that the laud and equipment provided by the State will go to the man himself and not be diverted from him to satisfy the claims of any antecedent creditors. I will not deal with finance, as I shall have later on to introduce a Financial Resolution upon which I can discuss that aspect of the Bill.
  But I now come to Clause 4 of the Bill, the object of which is to enable cottages and plots to be provided for ex-Service men under the machinery of the Labourers (Ireland) Act. It is proposed by this Clause to hand over the control of this particular side of the Bill to the Local Government Board. This, as a matter of fact, has been done both in the English and the Scottish Bills. There are therefore precedents for the proposal, and I think that in view of the way in which the Labourers Act has been administered in the past by the Local Government Board, it is peculiarly appropriate that this part of the Act should continue to be worked by that Board. There is another small point which, in my opinion, ii of some importance. In Sub-section (4) paragraph (d) the power of acquiring land is not to be exercised by the Board after the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act. This is the limitation in the Scottish Bill. I think two years is a very appropriate time, and in view of the fact that these ex-Service men have been apprised of the fact that such a measure is being introduced for their benefit, I believe they will be ready and prepared to come under the scheme Therefore I hope the House will agree that the limit of two years is quite reasonable. With regard to Sub-section (5) this enables the Local Government Board to dispose of any cottage or plot which is no longer required for an ex-Service man. Sub-section (7) allows the expenses which would be incurred in any of its transactions by the Local Government Board to be paid not locally but out of sums voted by Parliament.
  Clause 5 gives power to the Department to promote co-operation in connection
  858
  with holdings or plots or gardens provided under the Act. I look forward myself to seeing large colonies of these soldiers scattered all over Ireland, and I think it will be of very great, value to them to have the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction at their disposal. Some of these men may know nothing at all about agriculture, but they may desire to be on the land and our proposal is to give them the tuition and experience which the Technical Instruction side of the Board is able to afford. We also wish to help them with their co-operation and to give them every possible assistance in order that the products of their land should be sent to the best possible markets in the shortest possible time. I also look at the establishment of these colonies from the social point of view. Whatever our feelings may be about Ireland, it is true that these men have had since their return in many parts of the country a very difficult time. Their association together in a colony of this kind will not only be of material value to them, but will afford them a great amount of coherent sympathy and protection. The only other point I need deal with at this stage is contained in Clause G, It is a very simple point. In the Sailors and Soldiers (Gifts for Land Settlement) Act, 1916, there was a Section making it possible for certain boards to accept gifts of land for soldiers. Under this Clause the Land Commission and the Local Government Board are given the same powers of accepting and administering gifts of land for these purposes as the Department under the earlier Act. It is quite obvious that the Land Commission, which, in the main, will look after the interests of ex-Service men under this Bill, will be the most appropriate body to administer such gifts as may be made for the benefit of these ex-Service men. I do not think I have missed any important point of the Bill, but I shall be most happy to answer any criticisms which may arise in the course of the Debate. In conclusion, I may say that, in view of the great services which these gallant men have rendered in the most difficult circumstances, I have great pleasure in submitting this Bill to the House, because I believe it will be a valuable one.
  Sir E. CARSON: It is not my intention to delay this Bill for a moment by offering any minute criticisms upon it. I am sure that the men from Ireland who have served their country in the circumstances indicated by my right hon. Friend will be extremely

  859
  grateful to him not only for the Bill itself, but for the manner in which he has introduced it, showing as he does every sympathy for the difficulties which they are under in a country like; Ireland. What he says is perfectly true; in many parts of Ireland these men, after serving their country, when they come home are looked upon not as heroes or as men who have done something to the credit of the country, but as men who have committed some sort of crime against society in Ireland. It is the duty of this House to take care that such men receives specially considerate treatment from this country and from this House.
  My only anxiety regarding the Bill is as to its administration. Everything will depend upon its administration. The enactments will be very good, but I hope they will not be dead letters. Take, first, the question of planting these soldiers on untenanted land. A very large discretion is given to the Land Commission. I am not going to say anything against the Estates Commissioners in Ireland, whom I believe to be honourable men, but it is perfectly clear that everything will depend upon them—first, as to how, and, secondly, as to how quickly this work is carried out. The quick working of the Bill is everything. These men are going on from day to day, some of them in great difficulties, and it is no use telling them, "Your turn will come in two, three, four, or five years." They want the quickest possible working of this Bill. I am sure my right hon. Friend will do everything in his power to set up such machinery as will enable the Bill to be carried out quickly.
  I desire to say one word as regards Clause 4. I am inclined to think that, at all events in the North of Ireland, Clause 4 will be the Clause most availed of, because in those parts of Ireland there is a great industrial population. Clause 4 is probably the most valuable part of the Bill; at least, I look upon it as such. But I look with some misgiving at the phrasing of the Clause. I am not putting this forward as a carping criticism, because I want to see the Bill made a reality. In the first place, the Local Government Board are not bound to make or carry out any scheme. All that the Clause does is to give them power to make and carry out schemes for the provision of cottages. Everything will depend on the activities of the Local Government Board. I am
  860
  all the more anxious about the matter when I find the limitation, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, that
  "The power of acquiring land shall not be exercised by the Board after the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act."
  It is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that there should be some provision in the Bill which would demonstrate to the Local Government Board that it is their duty to meet the whole requirements of these men within the two years which are set down as the limit under the Bill. Again, with the two years' limit. I also find that the schemes are only to be carried out to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury. Of course, there has to be a Treasury limitation put in, but in the present state of public finance, and with the limitation of two years for creating these colonies—of which I entirely approve, and of which my right hon. Friend has spoken—I have grave fears that the Treasury, acting in co-operation with the Local Government Board, may be compelled to defer from time to time applications that are put forward for giving cottages and ground to these men, and that you may not have the schemes fulfilled within the two years. I only put these matters forward as showing that the Bill, if it is to become a reality, will require keen and active administration on the part of the officials to whom we entrust it. I am glad we are getting the Bill. I feel grateful to the Government and to my right hon. Friend, because I know he has been pressing it. I do not know of anything that will do more good as regards these men, or give them more confidence, than the fact that their services are being recognised by such a Bill as this being brought before the House of Commons. My only desire is that the-Bill should pass at the earliest possible moment, and I am sure that my hon. Friends who are associated with me in the Irish representation will not attempt in the slightest degree to do anything that will prevent the Bill becoming law as soon as that is possible.
  Major O'NEILL: Like my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) I rise merely to offer one or two comments on this Bill which have occurred to mo since I had an opportunity of looking at it. This Bill has been introduced after a considerable lapse of time. It is a Bill which has been looked forward to by ex-Service men in Ireland with very great hopes, because its introduction was founded originally upon

  861
  a promise which, the House may remember was given by the Lord Lieutenant in a. Proclamation in May, 1918, when he was attempting to raise 50,000 recruits for the Army shortly after the Irish conscription issue became a dead letter. In that Proclamation he said that the men who came forward to fight for their Motherland were entitled to a share in all that the Motherland had got, and that steps were being taken to provide them with land. Ever since that Proclamation was issued the ex-Service men in Ireland have been anxiously looking forward to the introduction of this Bill. I want to ask the Chief Secretary—I hope he will make it quite clear—whether this Bill is intended in any way to give priority to those who came forward as the result of that Proclamation? I do not suppose it is for one moment.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It includes all men.
  Major O'NEILL: It would be most unjust if any section of ex-Service men who came forward in 1918 were given any priority. It seems to me there must be some preference and priority, because I do not suppose there is enough land for every ex-Service man to get some. If that be so, on what basis is that preference to be given? Are the men who enlisted first to get the land first, and under what system is the Local Government Board, who are administering this Bill, to decide to whom land is to be given of the many applicants who come forward, and to whom land is to be refused? Again, I do not know whether the Chief Secretary has estimated the number of men who will apply for land of this description. He has told us that 1,700 have applied. I wonder if he means that 1,700 have applied for land in the sense of the land being economic holdings?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.
  Major O'NEILL: Quite apart from Clause 4?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.
  Major O'NEILL: In the Debates on the former Bills last Session, the then Chief Secretary, now the Home Secretary, estimated that there would be sufficient land in the hands of the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board to supply economic holdings for 3,000 men. I hope that is still the fact. The main difficulty,
  862
  of course, with regard to a Bill of this kind is the question of obtaining sufficient land for satisfying the demand which will undoubtedly be made. Clause 4, to which my right hon. Friend referred, introduces a now element as compared with the Bill which was before the House last Session. My right hon. Friend referred to the limitation of the period during which land may be acquired for this purpose to two years. I agree with him that it would be very unsafe to allow that limit to stand. The Bill says:
  "The power of acquiring land shall not be exercised by the Board after the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act."
  You may get a situation such as this. That there will be large numbers of applicants for this land unsatisfied, because of the difficulty of suddenly obtaining sufficient land to satisfy them. Then, apparently, after two years the Local Government Board may purchase no further land.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: May I assist my hon. and gallant Friend, because this is a very important point? I am assured by my advisers that there is sufficient land.
  Major O'NEILL: That there is sufficient land for that purpose?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.
  Major O'NEILL: I am extremely glad to hear that, because it was one of the points which occurred to me.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: May I also point out that we have compulsory powers?
  6.0 P.M.
  Major O'NEILL: These were the few criticisms I wished to offer, and I am very glad to see that the Chief Secretary has practically been able satisfactorily to explain the difficulties which presented themselves to me as being likely to occur in the administration of the Bill. I welcome its introduction most heartily, and I hope that, as a result of it, these gallant Service men, who came forward in Ireland, often in face of the greatest difficulties and of hostility and danger, will be able to live on the land, whether as agriculturists or as allotment-holders, and will be a credit to themselves and to this country.
  Lieut. - Commander C. WILLIAMS: I rise to give a genuine welcome to the Bill which I conceive to be a very liberal and broad attempt to recognise what ape the real calls that these men have on us as a

  863
  nation. They came forward to help us in the time of our trouble, and I feel that it is certainly up to one Englishman in this House to say something about the appreciation that we have for what they have done for us during the War. It has struck me that there may be some small difficulty in regard to the two years' limit. There may be a considerable number of soldiers who joined up late in the War, especially the younger ones, who at the end of two years might not be demobilised and might not have had a chance of coming in under the Bill. I should like to see some provision brought in in Committee to make it quite certain that these individuals on their return may have the same privileges as are extended to the other individuals under the Bill. I should like to emphasise the absolute necessity in some districts for endeavouring to place these men in close proximity to one another. It is essential for their own safety. That is a point which we hope will become less necessary in the immediate future, and I feel that if we continue to govern Ireland that will be the case. It is also essential from a purely agricultural point of view. The greater facilities you can give these men for co-operation and combination in marketing their stuff the better chance you have of making a scheme of this sort a real success, and for that reason I should like to have it laid down very clearly that it is the duty of those who administer the Bill to see that these settlements are made in considerable numbers and close to each other. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in the Kill because I believe it is a real attempt to carry out our obligations to these men.
  Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: As one of the volunteers who have been referred to, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of my comrades, for this effort to give them a stake in Ireland. It is a little bit belated, but I think it is a case of better late than not at all. There are one or two points I should like to bring under his notice, so that he may be thinking of them while the Bill is passing through. I should like him to keep the expression "any men" in Clause 1 before him. In official language we refer to officers and men. I do not know whether it is the Chief Secretary's idea to limit it to men only?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It will include both officers and men.
  Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I mentioned that for the reason that many men, through their ability as soldiers, have been granted commissions, and it is only right that those men, who were taken from very different positions perhaps in civil life before the War, in going back to those positions should also have this opportunity. I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it affects everyone. The Chief Secretary referred to the difficulties which some men had in volunteering in various parts of Ireland, and also to their reception when they came home. I hope some opportunity will be given for the men to select where their particular allotments may be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep before him the fact that these men are not in a position to pay very high rents for their houses. I hope the rents will not be chargeable in accordance with the expenditure incurred, because, as far as I can see from the Bill, and also from the prices of materials, considerable cost will be involved in the erection of these cottages and houses. I hope those who have an opportunity of taking these allotments and houses will be charged a rent which will be economical to them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a, second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  NURSES REGISTRATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill deals with a subject which has been before the House for very many years in a sporadic way, and has often been the subject of private Members' Bills, which have shared the usual vicissitudes of those measures, and. unfortunately, at different times its course has been a good deal interrupted, and sometimes, perhaps, made difficult, by various controversies which have arisen around this subject amongst different persons interested in it. It is one of our purposes to improve the condition of the nursing services through our the country, and there are few matters

  865
  more important to the well-being and the health of sick people and the nurture and care of young children than an additional and better provision of well-qualified nurses. It is essential, as a first step to placing these services upon a proper basis, that we should know who those nurses are. Therefore, the provision of a register, properly drawn up, of those who are entitled to be registered is the first condition to an extensive improvement in the nursing services. Also, I hope it will indirectly do a great deal to improve the nurse's salary, because, I am sorry to say, that the payments which have boon made to nurses have often been of a very discreditable kind—much loss than the wages of an ordinary cook or kitchenmaid—and it is thoroughly discreditable that it should be so. At the same time, their training is exceedingly arduous, their hours are very long, and, I believe, arising out of this—although the Bill does not deal with their conditions of employment—we shall take the first essential step to put this great and important profession upon a proper basis.
  This Bill is limited to the compilation of a register and to the setting up of the necessary authority to compile the register, and to prescribe the conditions necessary for admission to it. I think we should not have arrived at this stage—at any rate at this juncture—had it not been for the services which have been rendered to this cause by the Bill introduced earlier in the Session by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Barnett), who brought the matter to a head. In the course of the discussions on his Bill and on another conflicting Bill which was introduced into the House of Lords it was quite, obvious that a number of controversies of a subordinate character needed to be settled outside before there was real hope of getting a measure through this House. We are not competent to settle here controversies as to the representation of this or that body. They are certainly not appropriate topics for discussion here or in the Committee Room upstairs. It therefore was agreed that if, after discussion with the different parties interested in this, and with all the responsible bodies, a common measure of agreement could be arrived at, I would undertake to introduce a measure to set up a register. After several meetings, which have been held in
  866
  the most friendly spirit, a common measure of agreement has been arrived at, and is embodied in this Bill.
  In the first place, it sets up a Council whose business it is to form a register, and it is provided that there shall be various parts of the register—a general section, a register of male nurses, children's nurses, mental nurses, and it may be others—and this Council is authorised to draw up rules relating to various subjects, which are subject to the approval of the Minister of Health. When they are made, they will be laid before Parliament, as prescribed by Sub-section (4) of Clause 3. The House will have cognisance of them before they become effective. One of the chief reasons for this provision is contained in paragraph (c). Sub-section (2) of Clause 3. The House has always taken the view, and, I am sure, rightly, that when a new register is set up we must safeguard the interests of persons who are in bonâ-fide practice in the profession, so as to secure that they have a proper chance of being registered upon that register, notwithstanding that they may not have complied with all the conditions of training that may hereafter be prescribed. That has been the case in all instances. It is provided that within a period of two years after the date on which the rules are made, any person may be admitted to the register on producing evidence that they are of good character, of prescribed age, and for at least three years before the 1st day of November, l919, were;bonâ-fide engaged in practice as nurses in attendance upon the sick. That means that a large body of women throughout the country who have been nursing faithfully for many years, but who may not have undergone all the highly-specialised training which may be thought desirable, or may be provided for hereafter, will be fully entitled to be entered upon the register. That, is a very important safeguard. The Council is given the necessary power to appoint officers and so forth.
  There is no Financial Resolution required for this Bill. It is provided that all nurses should pay a fee of one guinea, and there is to be a fee of 2s. 6d. required annually for keeping the register alive. One of the chief difficulties of this kind of thing is that people move about or die or enter some other profession, and so the register ceases to be a live register. It is very necessary that some steps of a reasonable kind should be taken to keep it as

  867
  nearly accurate as may be. It may happen, though I do not think the necessity will a-rise, that the income of the Council derived from this source will be insufficient to meet its expenses. I do not think that is likely to arise, but, by agreement with the Treasury, I am authorised to say that if and when any appreciable deficit should occur which could nut reasonably have been avoided, and could not be met by other expedients, such as drawing upon accumulated funds or a temporary advance from the Civil Contingencies Fund, the Treasury would be prepared to give favourable consideration to any proposal by me to ask Parliament to Vote a special Grant in aid of such deficiency. It is provided that in the event of any register being set up in Scotland or in any other part of the United Kingdom, the persons thereon entered shall be entitled to be entered on the English and Welsh register. It is also provided that persons who meet the necessary requirements as to training in any part of the British Dominions shall be entitled to be entered upon the register. There are various provisions safeguarding removals from the register, and giving an appeal to the High Court in regard to any alleged unfair removals, and giving an appeal to the Minister of Health in regard to the refusal of the Council to approve any institution for training for the purposes of the rules provided under the Act.
  The main difficulties which arose last year are dealt with in the schedule. The schedule deals with the constitution of the Council. It is very desirable that the Council should contain a considerable element of nurses actually engaged in the practice of nursing. It is provided that the first council shall consist of twenty-five persons. We have included in this the decision which was arrived at in the discussion in. Committee last summer, and it is provided that sixteen persons who are or have at some time been nurses actually engaged in rendering services in connection with the nursing of the sick shall be appointed by the Minister of Health, who is to consult the two main bodies which have been interested in this question, also the nursing body which at the present time has a Royal Charter, and such other bodies as it may be found desirable to consult. The House will remember that the rock upon which the other Bills split was the dispute which arose on the point as to how the Council was to be set up. It is to be
  868
  set up in the manner here proposed in the schedule after consultation, in order to get the register into being. It is then prescribed that after the termination of the office of the first council—and it shall not hold office for longer than three years—the sixteen persons mentioned shall be elected by the nurses on the register, and they, together with nine persons appointed by the Privy Council, the Board of Education and the Minister of Health, will form a permanent Council in the manner prescribed in the Bill. In this way we have got over the difficult points of the controversy. I am sure that the more this Bill is examined the more the House will agree that it is the only way to deal effectively and fairly with the points that have hitherto been in dispute. It is essential as a first step to get the nursing profession on to a better and more national basis, and I cordially recommond this Bill to the House for a Second Reading.
  Major HURST: I have the honour to represent in Parliament the great majority of nurses in Manchester, and in that capacity I should like to welcome this Bill. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his wisdom in recognising the necessity for the State registration of nurses, and also on his judgment in being able to reconcile so many warring elements among the nursing profession. The great merit of this reform is that it is a social reform which comes from inside the body affected and not from outside. The real framers of this measure are not the State or the State officials, but the pioneers in this cause among the nurses themselves. It is well to recognise that a debt of gratitude is due to those who have been pioneers of this movement for many years, and to recognise the very fruitful and brilliant propaganda by which the College of Nursing have brought this scheme within the range of practical politics within the last few years. While recognising the point of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that nurses who may not have had special training, but who are engaged in practice at the present time, should have the right to be placed upon the register, I hope that in the rules that are made enabling such persons to get on the register, care will be taken that they have had some experience and some considerable practice, arid that it will not be an illusory test, because if this register is to be a real register of nurses it must be a register on which it is an honour to have your name inscribed.

  869
  If it is going to be an honour we do not want the standard which is adopted to be an illusory test, but we want a real test of merit and experience.
  I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in making the point in Clause 3 with regard to the uniform and badge to be worn by nurses who are on the register. I take it that that means that the nurses on the register will have the exclusive right to wear one certain type of uniform and badge. That is an element which must meet with success. It is a guarantee on the one side to the public that the nurses have had real training and real experience if they wear that uniform and that badge. To the profession itself it must be of very great value, because the possession of the uniform and the badge gives to those who wear them that sense of professional solidarity and that pride in the art which they practise, which he at the root of all corporate efficiency. There is one limitation in the Bill which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see fit in time to do away with. That is, that as now drafted, the powers of the council are strictly limited, and its functions are more or less to prescribe rules of admission to the register and rules for striking names off the register. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is nothing in the Bill which, in terms, gives the Council any jurisdiction over what are the dominating questions in the life of nurses—questions of pay and questions of hours. It would be a very great pity if this scheme, which is a great scheme of reform, is unaccompanied by any Clause which gives the Council potential jurisdiction over conditions of employment. There is no person in the world of less bargaining capacity than the nurse, and it has been an unhappy tendency in past times to exploit her economic weakness and inexperience. I hope that before this Bill passes into law it will not only fulfils the one useful purpose which it now fulfils, namely, of recognising the place which this profession occupies in the life of the country, but that it will do something more than that, that it will in the ordinary daily practice of the nurses' work be something in the nature of a great charter, which will guard them against the two great evils which overshadow the careers of so many women in this country, and particularly women in the nursing profession: first, the evil of overwork, and, secondly, the evil of underpayment.
  Major BARNETT: As the promoter of the Nurses Registration (No. 1) Bill, I wish to say a few words in support of the Second Reading of this measure. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the promptitude with which he has kept his pledge to introduce a Government measure. I was a little sceptical when the pledge was given whether it would be fulfilled so soon. It was only given last July, and to-day we have this Bill brought forward; a great measure which will put the principle of the State registration of nurses on the Statute Book, As the sponsor of the No. 1 Bill I cannot say that this Bill is in every respect an improvement on my own proposals. I very much regret its limitation to England. When a measure, introduced by a private Member, which had got as far as the Report stage, provided a single register for the whole of the United Kingdom, one might have hoped that a Government measure would do the same, but I can imagine that what was possible for a private Member's Bill was not so easy for a Government Bill, in view of the fact that a Ministry of Health has been set up for Scotland and something tantamount is contemplated for Ireland. I hope and believe that, if this measure finds its way to the Statute Book, in the course of a few months we shall have a Scottish Registration Bill and an Irish Registration Bill as well.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the rock on which the discussions on my Bill were wrecked—the question of the initial Nursing Council. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the difficulty is to choose the nurses who are to sit on the Council, because ex hypothesi we have no register, and cannot have an election by the nurses of those who are to represent them. My Bill endeavoured to solve that by giving rights of appointment to many societies and individuals. Here I can congratulate my right hon. Friend on having cut down the Council to reasonable dimensions. I think that twenty-five members is quite enough for such a body, but in attempting to create a Council by nomination from various nurses' societies we found we were continually increasing the number of the Council. We had gone up to forty-three, and I am not sure that we should not have gone up to forty-five. The difficulty was to get the respective societies to agree as to their respective rights of nomination to the Council. With the greatest courage my right hon. Friend

  871
  has cut the Gordian knot. He has decided to nominate the nurses to the initial Council himself. I do not know which to admire more, the courage of my right hon. Friend or the skill with which he addressed himself to this problem. It is a courageous act, for my right hon. Friend will have to select the ladies to sit on this Council. No doubt he will do it very well, because he will do it in consultation with the societies, and any society that thinks itself entitled to be consulted has only got to say so. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite spoke of this measure having become a matter of practical politics owing to the exertions of a certain body to which he referred. I do not wish to introduce into this discussion any element of dissension, but the Central Committee for the State Registration of Nurses have been advocating State registration for over thirty years, in season and out of season, and it is a triumph for their principles, on which they are to be congratulated, to have the Minister of Health introducing the measure which is brought before us this afternoon. Nothing will please me better than to have this Bill with or without Amendment—I do not think it requires Amendment—passed into law.
  Mr. LYLE: As one who opposed the former Bill in the interest of the great majority of nurses, both in Committee upstairs and on the Report stage downstairs, I desire on my own behalf and also on behalf of the College of Nurses to give this Bill a very warm welcome. It is most satisfactory to find that the Minister of Health has been able in so short a time to fulfil the pledge which he gave, and which we nil expected him to fulfil, though we did not expect him to fulfil it in so short a time, and ROW that they have introduced it I hope that the Government will push forward this Bill with the least possible delay and give the nurses the thing which they have so long desired. But I desire to make perfectly clear that on the question of State registration we who opposed the former Bill have always taken up precisely the same attitude which we take up this evening. We also were always in favour of State registration of nurses. Certain statements have been made to the contrary; they are entirely unfounded. When the former Bill was introduced I said that we accepted the principle of State registration and everything depended on how the
  872
  reasonable objections of a great number, I think I might almost say the majority, of nurses were met as to what support we could give to the precise Bill that was introduced. Everybody knows the result. I do not wish to travel over that ground to-night or to introduce any discordant element, but we found it impossible to support the Bill because we felt that we had a duty to the great body of nurses and that they were not getting fair play. But now we have another Bill and I think the Minister of Health has been exceedingly clever, because he bus been able to introduce a Bill which is acceptable to both sides. That is no mean achievement. He has seen representatives of both sides and ho has been able to produce what I think will prove to be a non-controversial measure. He has excised the breaking spot of the last Bill, which was the constitution of the Council, and has taken the selection of the provisional Council on his oven shoulders. Of course he is a very bold man to do that, but I do not think that any other course would have met the case, and I have not the least doubt that the decisions he will make will be received and abided by loyally by the great majority of nurses. I hope that the House will accept the Bill and that the Government will put it through without delay, and that those splended women will secure what they have long been asking for, namely, official recognition of their glorious profession.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I hope this Bill will become an Act as rapidly as possible. I have gone through it carefully, and see very little room for disagreement or amendment. In thinking as we all must do seriously over the past and present position of the nurses of Great Britain, it is impossible for anyone to estimate the loss to the nation owing to the absence of a status for one of the most valuable services or professions of which this country can boast. I feel that it is so interwoven with the Ministry of Health that it will become a very effective piece of machinery in the general health and development of the nation, and that it will give a status to the profession, and though there is an absence of any powers to the Council to deal with the question of professional fees, yet the mere fact of obtaining a status will lead the profession to become recognised as worthy of a greater financial return than that which it, unfortunately, gets at the present moment. One great good which I think will be brought about by this Bill is that it

  873
  will attract to the profession many who at the moment hesitate, because they know of the small fees payable and of the weak bargaining powers that have been referred to, and of the shortness of the number in the profession to cope with the enormous amount of necessary work which its members are called upon to perform.
  Having established a status for this profession, you will attract to it many young women who will devote all their future to it knowing that they have something to look forward to, and that they will be recognised. The very machinery itself that if, set up will give them that bargaining power that will enable them to secure much better remuneration than they obtain at the moment. I welcome this Bill also because it will help to remedy the lack of professional attendance on mentally deficient persons, the absence of professional nurses with due knowledge of the care of the health of children, the absence of a sufficient number of fully qualified maternity nurses. All these matters will under the Bill be kept in touch with the Ministry of Health, and we shall soon find a general improvement in the health of the people and the condition of the profession that will make us and the country thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing a Bill, simple yet understandable in its language, flee from all those unnecessary phrases that too often find their way into Acts of Parliament, and in itself a great encouragement to this very important section of health administration. I was particularly pleased with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to his provision to assure to the general nursing profession a Council which will be largely nominated by him, but shall not be representative of any particular class or organisation, but that the general body of working nurses shall have full and adequate representation. I do not think there is anyone qualified to assist the Minister of Health in establishing the permanent machinery better than would be found among working nurses, who come more in contact with everyday difficulties. I hope there will be no more Amendments to the Bill than are absolutely necessary. The people of the country and the nursing profession are asking that this great measure should become an Act of Parliament at the earliest date.
  Sir WATSON CHEYNE: Most of the criticisms I have to make are really Committee points, and can be dealt with in
  874
  Committee. I join with others in congratulating the Minister of Health on the introduction of this Bill and on escaping some difficulties by handing over to this primary Council the task of drawing up regulations. I think we should have an opportunity somehow or other of discussing the regulations for registration after they have been drawn up by this Council. I am very disappointed that this Bill is limited to England. I think that a great pity. It has probably arisen from the idea that there is a Health Board in the other two countries. This, however, is not a case of locality at all. We want to get a register of all the nurses in the United Kingdom; we do not want a Scottish, an Irish, and an English register. A further point is that you are having three examinations. You may have different standards. It is the evil of the medical profession. There are ever so many bodies, twenty, or thirty or more, granting degrees, each of which qualifies to register, and these degrees are by no means equal. Nurses should have exactly the same training and the same entrance examination in the whole Kingdom. I wish some method could be found by which this end could he attained.
  Major MOLSON: As a medical man I would like to say how heartily I approve of this Bill. I have read it very carefully and I think it meets all the requirements of the profession. I agree with the remark that it is unfortunate it is not extended to the whole United Kingdom. I congratulate the Minister of Health on the strong position he has taken up in regard to the Council. The last Bill was lost through the unfortunate diversity of interests. This Bill requires very few Amendments, and I hope we shall not lose it over any small item.
  Captain ELLIOT: I see the Secretary for Scotland is here. I understand that one of the chief criticisms against this Bill is that it does not apply to Scotland. I hope he will be able to assure us that a Scottish Bill is in a forward state of preparation, because we are keenly anxious for State registration of nurses in Scotland. With such an assurance there is no reason why Scottish Members should not give this Bill their blessing.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: On behalf of the members on the Labour Benches I give a welcome to the Bill. I wish that wages and hours of employment and pensions

  875
  had been taken into account in dealing with this matter. Nursing is a noble profession; but one of the most overworked. I know something of it. I know of the great sacrifices that many of these noble women have made for the children of the workers. Even lives have been given up for the sake of the children, and many nurses have been affected in after life by having contracted infectious diseases from their patients.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Perhaps I may intervene for a moment to answer the query put to me. I need hardly assure the House that we recognise fully in Scotland the importance of this subject. A Hill on lines similar to this is in an active state of preparation; it is already drafted, and I hope it will be possible to bring it before the House without any avoidable delay. With that assurance, I trust my Scottish colleagues will have no hesitation whatever in supporting the Minister of Health in this Bill.
  7.0 P. M.
  Captain BOWYER: I want to couple with my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman a request on behalf of the resident nurses who tend the poor in outlying country districts. The Cottage Benefit Nursing Association is, I believe, the only association which supplies these resident nurses, except in a certain number of maternity cases, and these nurses, in addition to the nursing they undertake, do with great loyalty the housework of the houses in which they are nursing, more especially if the woman of the house happens to be the patient. At the present moment under the organisation of this association they are given one year's training on enlistment, in the association's home at Edmonton, and are then sent to the branches on a three years' engagement. The training, as prescribed in this Bill, would be, I gather, for three years, and the point I want to raise is that for the purpose of this class of nurse the training cannot be, and ought not to be, for more than one year, for if the minimum of three years is insisted upon it will surely mean the trebling of subscriptions, many of which are paid by the inhabitants of cottages, although the lists may include subscriptions from wealthy people. Moreover, if a nurse is trained for three years, I fear that she would, perhaps, feel herself a little above going into a cottage and doing the housework, and, of course, in
  876
  the scattered country districts it is absolutely imperative, if the woman in the cottage is the patient, that someone who is nursing her should be prepared to do the housework. This class of nurse at the moment is self-supporting. The voluntary contributions range from 3s. a year upwards. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman for any representation on the Council, but I do seriously suggest that we might have, a fourth supplementary part added to the register so that separate rules could be made for this class of nurse. I am aware that I may seem to be pleading for a lower minimum standard of training, but the Bill, I submit, considers the status of nurses in this respect perhaps to the disadvantage of the patient. If the right hon. Gentleman says to me, "Why not leave them out of the Bill altogether?" then I reply, "If only fully-trained hospital nurses are to be registered, then no harm will be done to our nurses, but, as the Bill is drafted, other special classes without full training, such as children's nurses and mental nurses, are to be admitted on to a supplementary register, and the cottage nurses, who are doing equally useful work, will feel slighted if they are not given equal recognition." The result will be that you will get no more cottage nurses, or, at any rate, that there will be a deficiency. I would like to ask from what other source the right hon. Gentleman proposes to supply resident nurses for the poor in the outlying country districts?
  Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I should like in one single word heartily to support this Bill so ably introduced by my right hon. Friend.
  Major FARQUHARSON: The right hon. Gentleman is to be heartily congratulated on the introduction of this Bill, but in my opinion, it does not take a sufficiently comprehensive and complete view of the situation as a whole. One of the very first duties of the Ministry of Health should be to arrange completely and fully the forces that it is going to utilise in its fight against ill-health and disease in this country. The Ministry of Health should bring itself into direct relationship with all groups of workers in that field—nurses, chemists, dentists, and doctors. Those four separate, distinct bodies ought in some form or other to be under some kind of benignant control exercised by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health is recognised as having a position

  877
  under this Bill, but it does not go far enough. The Ministry ought itself to be the registering body. The Ministry of Health has just taken over the duties of the Registrar-General, and I fail to see that there is anything more mysterious or difficult in registering a nurse, properly and truly qualified, by that branch of the Ministry than in registering a birth, death or marriage. I venture to suggest that is a function which is particularly cognate to a Ministry of Health. A special branch of the Registrar-General's Department would obviate the necessity for this roundabout establishment of a council, which will involve considerable expense of the costliness of the General Medical Council is any evidence of the cost of such bodies, I am perfectly sure that there is not a nurse in the Kingdom who would not be equally content to be registered within, the Ministry of Health as to be registered by a separate council which is only indirectly in relation with the Ministry.
  There is one other point that I would like to put, and that is the care which we must exercise in the constitution of a body which is going to have more or less judicial power. Section 3 really gives this new Council judicial power, and I want to draw the attention of the House very seriously to the manner in which this extension of judicial power operates in the case of the General Medical Council. This Bill is drafted more or less on the Medical Act of 1858. It follows that precedent more closely than the Midwives Act, which erected a somewhat similar body. Those who follow the proceedings of the General Medical Council know—it is one of the saddest and most unseemly spectacles known to the whole judicial procedure of this country—that a man who has been convicted of an offence, of whatsoever nature, has to undergo what is practically a second trial at great cost, at much pain, and with undue publicity before this body, and to be defended by counsel in order to save his livelihood, and the whole sordid details are exposed once again in order that this body shall decide whether the man has been guilty of the infamous conduct alleged against him. There are three simple words in the Medical Act of 1858, "after due inquiry," upon which has been erected this extraordinary semi-judicial body. Due inquiry in 1858 has become this most terrible and costly procedure. It certainly gives the accused person an opportunity of defending himself, but I suggest that that defence
  878
  could be given without all this undue publicity and harrowing circumstance. I do hope that we shall have nothing of the kind in connection with this Nursing Council. The procedure which is now adopted is contrary to all the principles of the British Constitution, and it is practically the absolute negation of the judicial principle that a man shall never be tried a second time for the same offence. We have advanced our social arrangements very much since 1858, and I certainly hope that nothing in this Act or in any rule or regulation will reproduce the spectacle which we witness in connection with the British Medical Council. There is a relationship established between this Nursing Council and the Ministry of Health, but there are three other bodies which ought to be brought into relationship, the General Medical Council, the Dental Council, and, above all, the Chemists. The State now is a contracting party with a large body of the chemists in the country, and they must bring the whole of these great forces which are essential to the well being and health of the people into some direct and controlling relationship, a relationship which in course of time shall become benignant, and which shall give the doctor, the nurse, the dentist, and the chemist a sense of sureness and which shall also be a deterrent to the person who is disposed to do wrong. If the present loose relationship is to go on and the Ministry of Health is to be a recreation of the National Health Insurance Commissioners and of the Local Government Board, if there is not going to be a wide view of what is before the Ministry, and if there is not going to be a linking up of its forces, then the Ministry will be a failure. That is the point that I wish to make: The necessity of establishing a direct relationship with the vital agencies which are now at the command of the Ministry of Health. This Bill foreshadows nothing of that kind. It leaves the Ministry of Health a select Department and makes it an appeal body against the doings of this Council. This Council is going to define everything with regard to the education, the standard of training, the method by which persons are going to be put on to the register, and the still more important matter as to how persons are to be removed from the register. Take, for instance, the question of a, judicial appeal. Cannot the Ministry of Health deal with the question whether a poor erring creature is to be taken off the

  879
  register? There is the precedent of the National Health Insurance Act. There is power under that Act lo appoint a certain appellate body, and it would be perfectly simple, instead of referring these questions to a Council composed of comers and goers, to refer them to a judicial body of the right hon. Gentleman's own nomination within the four walls of the Ministry. This Bill has many good features, and I commend it heartily, but I do think that along these lines it might be very properly and wisely modified not only to the benefit of the Ministry but also of the nursing body and everybody working for the general well-being of the country.
  Sir WILLIAM WHITLA: While I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon bringing in this Bill, and especially for steering clear of the rocks that wrecked the other Bill, I must say that I am bitterly disappointed, he spoke of England, of Scotland, and of the Colonies, but the name of Ireland has never been mentioned by any of the speakers who have preceded me. I wish to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that a similar measure will be brought in for Ireland. He cannot surely expect that we shall loyally hasten this Bill through the House if Ireland is entirely ignored.
  Sir HENRY COWAN: I do not quite understand, when the House is obviously going to rise at an early hour, why every Member who has risen to speak on this Bill should have thought it necessary to state that he. would not exceed two or three minutes in his remarks. As a matter of fact, I am only going to speak for two minutes, because I only wish to deal with one point. I was greatly impressed by what the hon. Member (Sir W. Cheyne) said in regard to the desirability of having a uniform system of qualification and one form of entry to the nursing profession. This is one of those quite exceptional cases in which uniform legislation for England and Scotland is very desirable. We have not heard from the Minister of Health or the Secretary for Scotland any reason why this Bill cannot be made applicable to the three countries, or, at any rate, to England and Scotland. I think the House ought to have some explanation on that point before they are asked to accept a limitation of the Bill to England alone. The inconvenience of three registers is so obvious and so great that I cannot
  880
  imagine anyone ignoring it or wishing to encourage it unless there is some overmastering reason for doing so. We would not contemplate having a separate system for the medical profession in England and in Scotland and in Ireland, and why should we have a different rule in regard to nursing?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am very sorry if I omitted to mention Ireland, but I thought I had done so. While I am not in a position to give a formal assurance, I know that the Irish Office has the in alter under consideration, and I think there is reason to expect that there will be a similar proposal in the case of Ireland. I would point out that when the Ministry of Health Act was introduced it was, in consequence of the teachings of which my hon. Friend (Sir H. Cowan) is an able and consistent exponent, split into different parts, including one for Scotland.
  Sir H. COWAN: That was a board, not a Ministry.
  Dr. ADDISON: It was a separate Department. It is very desirable to consider the Scottish point of view as there are some differences which require careful consideration, and the Secretary for Scotland is looking into the matter. I think with the arrangements we have made for interchange of registers and no doubt there may be set up a common register, we have really met the point. I have gone into the matter with great care, and I think, on the whole, the way proposed is the simplest.
  Sir H. COWAN: When will the Scottish Bill be introduced?
  Mr. MUNRO: By leave of the House, may I say I cannot specify the date when the Bill will he introduced, but it will be introduced without any avoidable delay.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (No. 2).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Commander EYRES-MONSELL. In the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the

  881
  acquisition of land for the purposes of small holdings, reclamation, and drainage, and other purposes relating to agriculture in Scotland, to amend the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, and the enactments relating to allotments, and otherwise to facilitate land settlement in Scotland, of a further annual sum, during each of the ten years commencing on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty, not exceeding fifteen thousand pounds in any one year, to be placed at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in addition to and for the like purposes as the sums not exceeding one hundred and eighty-five thousand pounds specified in Section five of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911."—[Mr. Munro.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes after Seven o'clock.