Commons Sitting of 26 November 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Greenock Improvement Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    CEXLON TEA.
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the Indian Government permits tea grown in Ceylon to be imported into India free of duty whilst the Ceylon Government exacts a duty of four annas a pound on Indian tea imported into Ceylon; and will the Indian Government remonstrate with the Ceylon Government against this tax, and, failing its withdrawal, will it put a similar duty on Ceylon tea coming into India, and thus allay the grievance felt throughout India by the planters, and remove this cause of faction between the two countries?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Indian Import Duty on tea is 7½ per cent. ad valoren; the Ceylon duty is 4 annas per pound. These rates apply to tea from all countries of origin. The Ceylon Government, it is understood, considers a high Import Duty essential to the preservation of the reputation of Ceylon teas. I am not aware that a similar need is felt in India or has formed the subject of any Motion in the Imperial Legislative Council.
    Sir A. FELL: Is it not the fact that considerable quantities of Ceylon tea are now being sold in the South of India, and that the planters in the South of India feel that they are not fairly treated?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is not the fact that Ceylon tea goes into India free of duty, as there is a duty on it of 7½ per cent. If the suggestion of the hon. Member is that there should be retaliation against Ceylon, that is a matter which will require careful consideration in India.

    MAHSUDS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the re ported rising among the Mahsuds?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Ever since our evacuation during the Afghan operations of certain posts in Waziristan, formerly held by our frontier , the Waziri and Hahsud tribes have maintained a consistently hostile attitude and committed numerous raids upon our troops, and made incursions into British territory.
    To put an end to this the Indian Government, after assembling a sumcieut military force, summoned representatives of the tribes to hear terms for acceptance. These included claims for reparation and compensation in respect of numerous outrages. The Mahsuds rejected the terms, and punitive operations were consequently undertaken against them. These operations still continue. On the 17th and 18th November the Wazirls, with the exception of three sections in the Tochi Valley, accepted the terms. The recalcitrant sections have since submitted.

    BRITISH TROOPS (COST).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what has been the approximate cost of keeping British troops in India from the beginning of the current financial year to 31st October; and what is the estimated cost for the whole financial year?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The number of British troops kept in India this year has not at any point of time materially exceeded the strength of the normal garrison of British troops, which is about 76,000, and at the present moment is actually below the normal strength. I have not figures showing the estimated cost in 1919–1920 under all heads of the British garrison, but any increase over the cost in previous years is due not to increased numbers but chiefly to higher rates of pay, gratuities, and bonuses.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this cost borne by the Indian or Imperial Exchequer?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The normal cost of the garrison in India is borne by the Indian Exchequer, but certain portions of the pay are due to war conditions, and those are borne by the Imperial Exchequer.

    CHILD LABOUR.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question of child labour in factories in India; and what instructions have been given to the official and nominated representatives of India at the International Labour Conference in Washington with regard to this matter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: His Majesty's Government would like to see the minimum age for employment of children in Indian factories raised, but have accepted the view of the Government of India that local inquiry must first be made and Indian public opinion ascertained. This they have undertaken to carry out without delay. The official delegates have been instructed to regulate their attitude accordingly in discussing and voting on a uniform age limit. No instructions have been given to the nominated representatives.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To what age is it proposed to raise the time below which the employment of children will be illegal?
    Mr. MONTAGU: We want to raise the age, but before deciding we wish to consult Indian opinion.
    Mr. SWAN: What is the age now when they commence to work in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The conditions in Indian factories are very different from those here. As to the age at which children are brought in to work, there is a sort of family arrangement in the factory and it is very difficult to diagnose exactly their hours of labour.
    Mr. SWAN: Is it under six years?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think so.

    BURMA (HIGH COURT).
    Mr. BENNETTasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that a High Court was established in the Punjab in April last, a High Court will now be established in Burma
    1764
    in fulfilment of decisions of the Government of India and in accordance with the expressed views of the local Government, the judges of the chief Court of Lower Burma; the Bar of Rangoon, and the Rangoon Chamber of Commerce?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have received no proposals from the Government of India on this question. When it was last discussed the local Government opposed the conversion of the Chief Court into a High Court, and I am not aware that the present Lieut.-Governor has made any official recommendation.

    AFGHAN CAMPAIGN.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India (1) if, at the commencement of the recent Afghan campaign there was supposed to be a hutment camp at Kacha Gashi with sufficient accommodation for divisional headquarters, certain units, and a remount depot built some years ago, whereas there was found to be nothing but a bare plain, one hut, and drinking troughs: and whether the entire staff of a brigade who were stationed in tents at Kacha Gashi later were sent to hospital suffering from heat-stroke partly due to the absence of huts;
    (2) whether he will explain why the machines and equipment of a unit of the Air Force sent from overseas to supply the urgent need of up-to-date aeroplanes on the North-West Frontier were left in a siding at Delhi and lost for a fortnight?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I will make inquiry.

    ZHOB VALLEY.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India if, in the Zhob Valley, British officers had to live in tents with inadequate protection from the heat with the temperature at 109 degrees in the shade?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I presume that the hon. Member refers to officers serving with the field force in the Zhob Valley during the recent operations. I fear it is impossible to provide troops serving in the field with accommodation other than tents during active operations.

    FRACTIONAL SILVER COINS.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the number of two-anna, four-anna, and eight-anna silver coins issued during the past twelve

    1765
    months and the number for the twelve months preceding the War, and the weight of silver used in their coinage; and if he is considering the advisability and necessity of extending the nickel coinage to include at least the lower classes, in order to free the silver position to some extent?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Indian Coinage Act has been amended so as to permit the issue of nickel coins of eight and four annas denomination as well as the existing two-and one-anna nickel. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the latest information regarding the coinage of fractional silver coins. The coinage has been on a relatively small scale.
    The following is the information promised:
    Separate figures are not available for recent months, but for the year ending 31st August last the total, value of silver eight annas, four annns, and two annas coined was Rs. 2,35,97,748, and their total weight 8,111,725 finis ounces. For the year 1913–14 the silver fractional coinage was as follows (tale of pieces):

    8

    As.

    4,558,200

    4

    as.

    20,635,238

    2

    As.

    22,200,975

    —total value Rs. 1,02,08,031, and total weight 3,509,011 fine ounces.

    IMPORTS (JAPAN).
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the figures of the value of Japanese goods imported into India for the last financial year before the War, and the coresponding figures for the last available completed twelve months?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The figures are £3,186,782 for the year ending 31st March, 1914, and £22,348,506 for that ending 31st March, 1919.

    BOLSHEVIK ADMINISTRATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether Tashkent is at present the centre of any, and, if so, of what, Government, authority, or administration?
    Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): Tashkent is the centre of the Bolshevik Administration of Turkestan.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (BRITISH WARSHIPS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what will be the status of commercial travellers on board British warships; whether cabin accommodation will be provided; and whether any expenses for their entertainment will fall upon officers of the Royal Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In the event of the Oversea Trade Department making use of the very limited accommodation which may be available on His Majesty's ships, commercial travellers would be passengers as defined in Article 1541 of the King's Regulations and would be received in the ward-room mess. I am advised that cabin accommodation would not be provided as none would be available, and that no expense should fall upon officers of the Royal Navy in respect of entertainment, as a charge would, of course, be made for any such passengers carried.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if moneys arising from this will be added to the regular sums or will the amount be expended in any case for the good of the men of the Navy or the officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A charge is made of 12s. per day for the first fourteen days and 9s. per day afterwards. The appropriation of that fund, which we shall receive, has not yet been decided upon.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RESERVES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement as to the future of all classes of Naval Reserves?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The future of the Naval Reserves is a question which must obviously be considered in relation to the general requirements of the post-war Fleet. It is engaging the attention of the Admiralty, but no announcement can yet be made as to the decisions likely to be reached.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when it is likely to be reached?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not at present, but directly I can I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know.
    Captain TERRELL: Is there an up-to-date record of the whereabouts of the men who served in the Royal Naval Reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not say offhand, but it does not arise out of the question, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will give notice.
    Captain TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will.

    NAVAL MOTOR CARS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many motor cars were still in use by the Royal Navy, at home and abroad, on 1st November, 1919; how many of these motor cars are driven by women; and how many motor cars are there for the use of the Royal Navy in London?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of motor cars in use by the Royal Navy at home and abroad on 1st November of this year was 162. Since that date there has been a reduction of forty-six. None of these motor cars is driven by a woman. For the use of the Royal Navy in London there are seven cars at headquarters and three in the Greater London areas.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does my right hon. Friend see any prospect of further reducing these motor cars, in view of the fact that before the War the Navy never used any at all?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a matter of the needs of the Service. I cannot give any undertaking, but they will not be retained when there is no use for them.

    OFFICERS RETIRED (WOUNDS OR SICKNESS).
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give a return of officers, executive and nonexecutive, of the Royal Navy who have been retired on account of wounds or sickness contracted in the late War prior to 1st July, 1919?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret that no statistics on this subject are immediately
    1768
    available, and I am advised that in order to compile a return, even of the permanent officers concerned, an amount of time and labour on the part of the staff would be involved which would seriously interfere with the ordinary work of the Department. If temporary officers were included—
    Sir B. FALLE: I only mean permanent.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The work would, of course, assume still larger dimensions, and would, I am advised, necessitate the employment of a special staff. In the circumstances, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press for the return

    SCHOOLMASTERS (PAY).
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) why has it been found necessary to advertise for naval schoolmasters in view of the fact that all naval ranks are being reduced in number owing to demobilisation following the War; is he aware that dissatisfaction exists in that branch consequent upon the recommendations of the Jerram-Halsey Committee not having been accepted by their Lordships;
    (2) if he will explain why, although all classes of warrant officers received increases of pay in 1918, as a result of the findings of the Hyde-Parker Committee, naval schoolmasters were the only branch not to receive further increases in July, 1919?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, before the War, naval schoolmasters were employed only in Harbour Establishments (with the exception of eight in the Training Squadron). During the War, however, it was decided to employ Warrant schoolmasters afloat, and temporary officers were appointed for this purpose. Owing to the success which attended this new departure in the interests of lower deck education, it has been decided to continue it, and an increase in the pre-war complement of the schoolmaster branch is necessary in consequence. As all the temporary schoolmasters were demobilised on the cessation of hostilities, it is necessary to enter fresh schoolmasters on a permanent basis for service afloat. If is true that letters have been received from schoolmasters expressing their dissatisfaction at rot having been treated similarly to other warrant officers in respect to pay. I am afraid I can only say that it was considered that the rates

    1769
    compared favourably with the salaries of teachers in civil life, and for this reason it was decided to make no change.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Is it a fact that there were at least 200 temporary school-masters engaged during the War, that they were invited to rejoin under the new circumstances, and that practically only eight or ten have done SO owing to the poor conditions of service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know. I cannot say I have heard that.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will inquire.
    Commander Viscount CURZON: Is there any analogy in the conditions of service of naval schoolmasters ashore and afloat?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. The conditions of service afloat are entirely different from those ashore. The question I had in mind was as to the pædogogie attainments and the capacity of these teachers.
    Viscount CURZON: Do you draw no distinction whatever between service ashore and service at sea?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If I am asked I would Say that life on shore has many more amenities and much more comfort than life at sea, obviously.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dockyard Members' Committee received a deputation the other day, and that they strongly recommended the case of these schoolmasters for consideration by the Admiralty? We sent a letter. Has the right hon. Gentleman received it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I expect it was sent to the Permanent Secretary. I have not seen it.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain why promotions to the approved percentages of head masters and senior masters have not been made, and why not a single appointment has been made to the special list, seeing that there is in the schoolmaster branch more than a sufficient number qualified, professionally and in the spirit of the Regulations, to fill the vacancies?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of officers of the schoolmaster branch (excluding probationers) is ninety. The number of head masters allowed is six, and there are six officers holding this rank. The number of senior masters allowed is twenty-three, and the number of officers holding this rank is fifteen. To qualify for promotion to senior master or for appointment on the special list a schoolmaster must have served for eight years and must have reached a satisfactory standard after taking an advanced course. A certain number of promotions to senior master have been made from among those who had completed eight years' service, although they had not taken the advanced course, and I am advised that it is not considered desirable to fill up the whole of the vacancies in this way, especially as there are several schoolmasters of outstanding merit who have completed about seven years' service whose promotion would thereby be blocked. I may, perhaps, add that both on account of lack of accommodation in the training establishments and because sufficient schoolmasters have not yet been obtained, it has not been practicable to hold advanced courses. They will be instituted as soon as circumstances admit.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).

    APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Committee promised by the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of utilising the machinery and personnel of the Royal Dockyards for the building and reconditioning of merchant vessels has yet been set up; and, if so, how many meetings have been held and when the Report may be expected?
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Prime Minister, if, in view of the very serious position caused by the continued discharges from the Royal Dockyards, he will say what period of time will be allowed the new Committee appointed by him to report; and will he say, in view of the urgency of taking immediate steps to stop further discharges, what he proposes to do in the matter?
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee promised

    1771
    by him to deal with the dockyard discharges has been appointed; if so, if he will state the composition and names of such Committee, including the Chairman, and when they will set to work; and what step is being taken to stop the discharges pending the recommendations of the Committee?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The Committee over which Lord Colwyn will preside will, I hope, hold its first meeting on Monday next, and sit daily until its work is accomplished.
    I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of the Committee.
    Upon the question of discharges generally, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary last Monday. We are fully alive to the gravity of the situation, and are anxious to avoid the suffering which may be caused. I hope to announce a decision at once.
    The names of the Committee are as follow:
    List of members of the Committee to consider the question of building merchant ships in the Royal Dockyards:
    Chairman—

    The Lord Colwyn.

    Two representatives of the Admiralty—

    Engineer-Rear-Admiral C. Rudd, C.B.

    Mr. W. H. Gard, C.B., M.V.O.

    One representative from—

    Sheerness—Mr. W. N. Rule, J.P.

    Chatham—Alderman A. W. Tapp, J.P.

    Portsmouth—The Mayor of Portsmouth.

    Plymouth—The Mayor of Plymouth.

    Pembroke Dock—Mr. D. Gwilliam Jones.

    Haulbowline

    Rosyth—Provost Norval.

    One representative from—

    Board of Trade.

    Ministry of Labour—Mr. J. S. Nicholson.

    Ministry of Shipping—Mr. G. S. F. Edwards.

    Treasury.

    Four representatives of the Admiralty Industrial Council—

    Mr. E. P. Harries, J.P.

    1772

    Mr. G. Bell.

    Mr. J. Kaylor

    Mr. T. Dadds.

    Secretary—

    Mr. J. Hewetson.

    Sir B. FALLE: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask if he will give the men of the dockyards a further opportunity of voting on the question they have already voted upon, now that the full facts are before them?
    Mr. LONG: The matter, as my hon. Friend knows, is extremely difficult and very complicated, and the suggestion he makes, that we should have another ballot of the men in the dockyards, is one that has already been under our consideration and is under consideration now, but I am very doubtful whether a fresh ballot would really help us in this emergency. What we have got to do, it seems to me, is to try and devise a plan under which the reduction of the labour in the dockyards shall be as small as possible.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can he say whether, in the event of cases of great distress, the National Relief Fund will be available?
    Mr. LONG: I have no right whatever to answer for the National Relief Fund. All I can say, on behalf of the Admiralty, is that while we cannot justify employment which is unnecessary, and undesirable therefore, we can, I think, perhaps anticipate the work of the next year on a three-years basis, and in that way find extra employment now. If we can we will do it. I should like to add, if I may, that the whole subject is complicated by the question of housing. We have more men in the dockyards than we actually require, but men are required in other shipbuilding yards. The transfer could be made tomorrow if there were housing accommodation in the other yards for them, but unfortunately there is not, and, therefore, we must do our best to prevent unnecessary or avoidable suffering.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: In view of the fact that the notices have been given for further discharges of men, may I ask whether, in the present uncertain state of affairs, their Lordships cannot see their way to withhold these discharges pending further inquiries?
    Mr. LONG: That is one of the questions which we are inquiring into and which we are going to discuss this afternoon

    1773
    when I return to the Board of Admiralty, and I hope we may be able, at all events, to announce some lessening of the discharges if not their cessation altogether.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Cannot he promise us that as far as regards the notices already served they shall be withdrawn?
    Mr. LONG: No; I cannot promise that. My hon. Friend will see what it would involve. It would involve keeping men in the dockyards for whom some work would have to be invented, and that really, in the present state of the country, would be wholly unjustifiable. May I point out, in addition, that under normal conditions there are periodical discharges from the dockyards arising out of different causes —age, for one—which has always been well understood in the dockyards? At the present moment we have a large number of men, as my hon. Friend knows, in all the dockyards in excess of pre-war numbers. In these circumstances, and having regard to the work we have got to do, I think that all we can possibly be asked to undertake is what I have already undertaken, namely, to give the fullest consideration to the whole case and to do the best we can at the Admiralty to lessen any hardships that may arise.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: I quite appreciate —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]. I think I am entitled on this very serious question to make one further inquiry. Having regard to the fact that the discharge of these men in Portsmouth means probable starvation to some of them, distress, and so on, and having regard to the fact that they were thanked by the Board of Admiralty and the Prime Minister for the splendid work they did during the War, are they not entitled to some extra consideration?
    Mr. LONG: I think they are entitled to extra consideration, and that is what we are endeavouring to show. I have tried, within the limits of an answer to a question, to show the House that the circumstances are extremely difficult and complicated, and that is one of the reasons why we are engaged in discussing this question at the Board of Admiralty, and I hope in the course of another hour to be discussing it with my colleagues, and our object will be to try and meet these different cases.
    Mr. WALLACEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view
    1774
    of the hardship inflicted on workmen, many of whom have lost sons in the War, by their discharge on reaching the age of sixty years, he will consider the alteration of the Regulations to provide for their continued employment should they be physically fit?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the normal procedure, in accordance with the Dockyard Regulations, to discharge workmen on reaching the age of sixty; but each case is dealt with on its merits, and, in some cases, retention is permitted up to the age of sixty-five. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate our difficulties confronted with the fact that reductions are inevitable, and accept my assurance that we do our utmost to mitigate the hardships involved.
    Mr. WALLACE: Will special consideration be given to cases of men who have reached the age of sixty before discharge, in view of the fact that many of them have lost sons in the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagine that that fact would be taken into consideration.

    INVERGOEDON.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to continue the dockyard establishment at Invergordon; if so, for how long; whether any ships are now being refitted there; how many men were employed there on 11th November, 1918; how many on 11th November, 1919; and what is to be done with the floating docks at this base?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not intended to continue the dockyard establishment at Invergordon after the completion of the work at present in hand and that necessary to clear the base of the miscellaneous vessels at present attached to the yard. At the present time there are—one battleship in hand for refit, two small craft and one target, and it is not intended to send any more work to the yard. The total number of workpeople in Admiralty service at Invergordon on 11th November, 1918, was 4,459. The number on 15th November this year was 2,714. As regards the floating docks, the one owned by the Admiralty will in all probability be returned to its original station at Portsmouth, while arrangements are being made to return the other to its owner.

    ROSYTH (HOUSE RENTS).
    Mr. WALLACEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the continued dissatisfaction of the workers in His Majesty's Dockyard, Rosyth, at the high rents paid for housing accommodation, he will institute an independent inquiry into the whole question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of the rents paid by the men is one that has been very fully considered by the Admiralty, and in this connection I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the reply given by me on the 12th August last to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fife West. Since that reply was given, the Admiralty have considered further representations made by the Rosyth Ratepayers' Association, but on the information furnished they decided that there was no case for a reduction in rent being made, and the association were so informed on 2nd September last.
    Mr. WALLACE: In view of the fact that the valuation has been recently raised, does he not think that a fresh case for inquiry, and does he not realise that an independent, competent inquiry into this matter would finally settle the whole vexed question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a fact that assessment has been increased by £5 recently. I give no undertaking whatever arising out of that, but the effect of that upon the rents should be looked into, and if my hon. Friend has any fresh evidence to justify us in making a further inquiry, I will be glad to receive it.

  RUSSIA.

    NAVAL SERVICE (ENLISTMENT).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when he expects to be able to apply the principle of only sending volunteers for such service to fight against the Soviet Government of Russia to the Royal Navy, as is already the case in His Majesty's Army?
    Mr. LONG: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member in answer to his similar question on the 29th of October.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a
    1776
    great many of these men enlisted to take part in the war against Germany and are feeling their position very keenly?
    Mr. LONG: I am not aware that anybody enlisted in the Navy to take part in the war against Germany. On the contrary, the Navy is a voluntary enlistment service, and everybody who enlists in the Navy enlists for general service and to obey orders. I am not aware of any foundation for the suggestion that enlistment was in any single case made for any particular seat of war. As regards the discontent, there has been some unfortunate evidence of discontent. Those are matters which the Board of Admiralty are inquiring into, but it has nothing to do with the question the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks, namely, whether these men shall be treated as volunteers or as conscripts.

    NAVAL COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Mr. SITCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men of all ranks have been tried by court-martial for naval offences in connection with the campaigns in Russia since the Armistice, including those tried for refusal to embark for Russian theatres of war; how many have been sentenced to imprisonment for such offences; and what has-been the maximum sentence imposed?
    Mr. LONG: The reply to the first part of the lion. Member's question is—two officers and eighty-seven men of the Royal Marines, for military offences; and nine ratings of the First Destroyer Flotilla, for naval offences. For the rest, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to questions on this subject on Wednesday last.

    UKRAINIANS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether General Denikin has issued orders that deserters are to be punished by death and their property confiscated; and whether, in view of the fact that Ukrainians joined the volunteer army to-fight the Bolsheviks and are now being used against the Ukraine, he will make representations to prevent those orders being carried out in the case of Ukrainians?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As

    1777
    regards the second part of the question, General Denikin is fighting the Bolsheviks and only such individual Ukrainians as adhere either to the Bolsheviks or to Petliura. He is not fighting the Ukrainian people.

    Loss OF S.S. "ADVENTURE."
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether a vessel laden with munitions for North Russia was at any time lost with all hands; and, if so, whether this mystery has been cleared up?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the ss. "Adventure" left Newcastle-on-Tyne for Archangel and Murmansk on 24th December, 1018, loaded with ammunition and general stores. The vessel has not since been heard of, and is presumed to be a total loss. This is the only case of which I have information.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is there any indication that there was any foul play in connection with this disaster?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have heard nothing of the sort.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS,

    AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND NAVIES.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if all pensioners who were under fifty-five years of age in August, 1914, and who were serving with the Royal Australian or Royal New Zealand Navy are eligible for the increased pension, and if all such pensioners who were over fifty-five in August, 1914, but who nevertheless volunteered and whose services were accepted, will receive the increase?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All long-service pensioners who have served in the naval forces referred to during the War are eligible, irrespective of age, for a reassessment of their pensions on the increased scales. If my hon. Friend has any case in mind in putting the last two lines of his question, I will gladly look into it.

    WAR GRATUITIES.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers in the Special Reserve who were
    1778
    called up on 5th August, 1914, have been granted any gratuities according to the precedent of the South African war?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. The gratuities under Article 497 of the Pay Warrant-apply to such officers.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether any steps can be taken to expedite decisions on the part of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department in view of the hardship now caused, by the delay which occurs after an application has been made to that Department, and before a decision is announced; and whether it would be possible for applicants to be informed of the grounds when a Grant is refused, as the present practice of giving no reason for their decision leads to dissatisfaction on the part of discharged and demobilised officers and men who, from facts available, would appear to be entitled to assistance from that Department?
    Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. As I have already informed hon. Members in reply to previous questions, steps have been taken to expedite the notification of decisions by the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department. These steps are already producing satisfactory results. I will consider the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member in the latter part of the question.

    TRADE BOARDS.
    Major HILLSasked the Minister of Labour if he can give a list of the trades about which inquiries are being made with a view to their inclusion in the Trade Boards Acts?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the principal trades in which inquiries have recently been, or are being, made with a view to the application of the Trade Boards Acts.
    Following is the list referred to:
    (1)Trades for which Trade Boards have recently been established:

    Boot and Shoe Repairing.

    Brush and Broom manufacture.

    Corset manufacture.

    Fur dyeing, manufacture, etc.

    Laundry.

    Paper Bag manufacture.

    Tobacco manufacture.

    (2)Trades to which the Trade Boards Acts, 1909 and 1918, have been applied by Special Order, and for which Trade Boards will shortly meet:

    Aerated Waters manufacture.

    Button making.

    Coffin Furniture and Cerement making.

    Flax and Hemp (spinning and weaving).

    Hair, Bass, and Fibre (dressing, weaving, etc.).

    Hat, Cap, and Millinery manufacture.

    Jute (spinning and weaving).

    Perambulator and Invalid Carriage manufacture.

    Pin, Hook and Eye and Snap Fastener manufacture.

    Rope, Twine, and Net manufacture.

    Stamped or Pressed Metal-wares manufacture.

    Tailoring (retail bespoke)

    Women's Clothing:

    (a) Wholesale Mantle and Costume manufacture.

    (b) Dressmaking and making of Women's Light Clothing.

    (3)Trades in respect of which Notice of Intention to apply the Acts has been given:

    Jute, Flax, and Hemp finishing.

    Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods making, and Linen Piece Goods making-up.

    Milk distribution.

    Toy manufacture.

    Waste Materials reclamation.

    (4)Trades in which inquiries are in progress or are being instituted:

    Distributive Trades, including, among others:

    (a)Men's and Women's Outfitting and General Drapery Trade.

    (b)Grocery and Provision Trade.

    (c)Meat Trade.

    (d)Fish Trade.

    (e)Fruit and Vegetable Trade. Catering.

    Food manufacture.

    Rice and Provender milling.

    Hairdressing.

    Made-up Textiles and Oilskins (including the manufacture of tents, tarpaulins, sails, sou'-westers, and other heavy textile articles).

    Used Sack repairing.

    Machine Embroidering.

    Lace making.

    1780

    Umbrella and Sunshade manufacture.

    Ostrich Feather and Artificial Flower preparing and manufacture.

    Bedding and Allied Trades (manufacture).

    Lint and Bandage manufacture.

    Manufacture of Spurts and Games requisites.

    Manufacture of Braces and Suspenders.

    Manufacture of Textile Smallwares, and Haberdashers' sundries.

    Brass-ware manufacture, including Capstan Lathe work.

    Gas Mantle manufacture

    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Labour whether, with a view to improving the wages of the most poorly-paid workers engaged in the manufacture of lace, net, and curtains, he will make an Order applying the Trade Boards Act to those processes of the trade to which it does nut at present apply, and also to those persons who are learning those processes of the trade?
    Mr. WARDLE: As my Noble Friend is aware, the Trade Boards Acts already apply to the finishing of machine-made lace and net. Inquiries, which have now reached an advanced stage, have been instituted in the lace, net, and curtain making trade, with a view to ascertaining whether the conditions prevailing in the trade or in any branch thereof render the application of the Trade Boards Acts desirable.

    DEMOBILISED OFFICERS (GOVERN- MENT APPOINTMENTS).
    Captain THORPEasked the Minister of Labour whether the suitability for Government service of demobilised officers who are registered with the appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour has been considered; and how many such officers have received Government appointments?
    Mr. WARDLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of ex-officers who have been placed in temporary Government employment by the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour up to 14th November was 1,905. Appointments to permanent posts in the Civil Service rest, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, with the Civil Service Commissioners.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Dr. MCDONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to accelerate land settlement for sailors and soldiers; if he has studied and adopted any of the schemes submitted to the Government relating to this need; and if he will take the earliest opportunity to enable local committees to fulfil their urgent obligations in this direction?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): All possible steps are being taken by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and by county councils to acquire, equip and adapt land for ex-Service men. The Board have approved schemes in nearly every county in England and Wales. For particulars of the area of land acquired and the number of ex-Service men settled, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Rothwell.
    Dr. MACDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman state what measures are being taken now in this direction?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have already said that all possible measures are being taken.
    Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that such a high price is being paid for land for the settlement of those men that they will not be able to live on it?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir. The increase in the price of land has been on the whole very small having regard to the increase of other commodities. Under the terms of the Land Settlement Act the deficits on the holdings fall not on the smallholders but on the State.
    Sir O. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that prices are about 50 per cent, higher than the pre-war prices?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What is the price of coal?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I may say that the average price for land paid for settlement to-day as compared with before the War has only increased by about £8 an acre.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask what steps an ex-Service man has to take if he requires a small holding?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: He applies to his county committee.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not £8; an acre an increase of 20 per cent.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Labour if it is the intention of the Ministry of Labour under the new reconstruction scheme to make all ex-Service men at present employed as temporary clerks in Exchanges throughout the United Kingdom permanent officials and to make all other than ex-Service men at present employed in Exchanges who were not eligible for service with His Majesty's Forces, and those in possession of an exemption certificate, permanent officials?
    Mr. WARDLE: No, Sir; I cannot encourage any hope that all the temporary Exchange clerks of the types referred to will be made permanent. I may say, however, that all new permanent posts on the male establishment of the Employment Exchanges are to be filled for the time being by ex-Service men.

    MOULDERS' STRIKE.
    Major HILLSasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information about the moulders' strike?
    Mr. WARDLE: I understand that the employers have informed the trade unions concerned that any alterations in wages, and also the adjustment of future working conditions, shall be the subject of discussion after resumption of work takes place. I understand that the Associated Ironmoulders of Scotland have meanwhile withdrawn their notices to cease, work, which would, in the ordinary course, have expired to-day.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an offer for a meeting has now been made by the moulders? The Scottish moulders cease work to-day. There is grave danger of the spread of the whole dispute, which the House is aware has a crippling effect, and will the hon. Gentleman's Department take steps to try to bring about a meeting of both parties, seeing that the men have now asked for such a meeting?
    Mr. WARDLE: My information in regard to the Scottish moulders is that they are not ceasing work to-day, but that they have postponed action so far as they are

    1783
    concerned. If my right hon. Friend's information is correct with regard to another offer of a meeting, I will inquire into it, and see whether anything can be done.

    CONSULAR OFFICERS (RETIRE MENT).
    Captain HACKINGasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the reference and terms of the Order in Council under which Sir William Wilkinson, late Consul-General at Hankow, could be, and was, called upon to retire at the age of sixty years?
    Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: Sir William Wilkinson was not called upon to retire under the terms of any Order in Council. All servants of the Crown, civil as well as military, except in cases where it is otherwise provided by law, hold their offices only during the pleasure of the Crown. There are no provisions of the law excepting the Consular Service from this general rule. The Secretary of State, acting on behalf of His Majesty, has the power to call upon a Consular officer to retire at any time.
    Captain HACKING: Is there any security of office for the Civil servant who is under the age limit and who is efficient?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly! There is no service in the world more secure than that of Consuls and other Civil servants.
    Captain HACKING: What is the security if the man is under sixty years of age and efficient?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered that.
    Mr. G. MURRAY: Do these gentlemen come under the Pensions Act?

    DIFFERENTIAL TARIFFS.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any treaty or other security against the imposition by the United States of America of a differential tariff upon the export of cotton seed or cotton oil to this country; and whether any protest has yet been received from the United States Gov-
    1784
    ernment against the policy imposed by the Colonial Office whereby an export duty has been placed upon any oil kernels exported from West Africa and other Powers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The imposition of preferential export duties is prohibited by Article 2 of the Anglo-American Commercial Treaty of 3rd July, 1815. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the French manufacturers have for years carried on a thriving trade in oil nuts with our Indian Empire, he will draw the attention of the French Government to the fact that the Secretary of State for India has recently refused to impose disabilities upon Indian exports to French and other territories, and invite that Government to withdraw the prohibition against the oil exports from French territories to British manufacturers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am consulting the competent Departments of His Majesty's Government on the question of approaching the French Government in the sense suggested by the hon. Member. I will inform him in due course of the decision taken in the matter.

    LORD CAVE'S COMMISSION (RHODESIAN SETTLERS).
    Mr. ACLANDasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the declaration made on behalf of the Rhodesian settlers by Sir Charles Coghlan before Lord Cave's Commission in Rhodesia, that they wished to make it perfectly plain that the Rhodesian settlers repudiate any liability for whatever sums Lord Cave decided should be paid to the British South Africa Company; and whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to give an assurance that this House will be consulted before any decision is taken which will involve placing the burden in any way upon either of the other two parties, the native races of Rhodesia or the British taxpayer?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I have seen Sir Charles Coghlan's

    1785
    statement on the subject. The question of the ultimate liability for the sum which may be held to be due to the British South Africa Company remains a matter for consideration, and as I stated in the House in the Debate on the Colonial Office Vote on the 30th July, the Government are committed to consult the House before any payment is made or any settlement come to as to the method of payment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Apart from any decision come to as to what liability rests upon the shoulders of the British tax-payer?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I have said that before any decision is finally come to this House will be consulted.

    COLONIAL CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a further statement with regard to the abolition of the Regulation whereby a, Colonial Civil servant, accepting office at a salary of over £500 per annum, has to pay his own passage and that of his family to the Colony to which he is appointed or transferred; whether he is aware that this Regulation which was formerly a handicap is now a great hardship, owing to the largely increased cost of railway and ocean travelling; and whether, if it is not deemed advisoble to abolish the Regulation altogether, he will consider the desirability of increasing the limit to £800 per annum so as to bring the Regulation more into conformity with the general rise in the cost of living and salaries?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The question of passages for officers on first appointment, and when coming on leave, is being considered in connection with Colonies in Which a general revision of salaries is taking place, but I am not in a position to announce any general decision on the subject.

    BRITISH TROOPS (COST).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the cost of the British troops in this country from the beginning of the current financial year to 3lst October; and what is the estimated cost of the whole financial year?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total costs of the troops in the United Kingdom, exclusive of gratuities and other terminal charges of the War, and also exclusive of pension charges, is roughly estimated at £73,000,000 for the period 1st April to 31st October, 1919. The corresponding figure for the whole financial year is £104,000,000.
    Captain REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the cost of the Army of Occupation in Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: Not separately.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is there any need for an Army of Occupation in Ireland; there is plenty of food there, and a great deal of personal liberty?

    AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government contemplates making a Grant of £30,000 per annum or thereabouts, to run for five years, to the Agricultural Organisation Society; if not, has any amount been granted; and, if so, will he state the amount and whether the Grant or Grants is for the promotion of trading?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Apart from Grants for allotment and other special work, Grants to the Agricultural Organisation Society are made from two sources —the Development Fund and the Small Holdings Account; much the larger proportion coming from the former. The Treasury have paid to the society £20,000 during the current year on account of Grants proposed from the Development Fund; and I understand that the Development Commissioners will probably recommend the Treasury to make to the Society Grants for the current and three following years, which are expected, with contributions from the Small Holdings Account, to make up a total of £120,000 for the four years. After the 31st March, 1923, it is not contemplated that any further Grants will be made to the Society (which should by then be self-supporting), except, possibly, for allotment work or any special piece of work falling outside the normal activities of the Society which the Society may undertake with the approval or at the request of the Government.

    1787
    No part of these Grants or of any income of the Society is or will be spent in trading, the Society being a purely propagandist and advisory body, and giving no pecuniary aid to trading societies. It is, of course, an essential function of the Society to promote trading, in the sense, of organising and advising farmers' societies for co-operative trade.
    Mr. RAFFAN: What grant is given to this organisation for which the right hon. Gentleman calls allotment work?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot give the amount, but I will send the figure to the hon. Member if he wishes. It is for promoting and assisting allotment societies.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Union of Allotment Holders strongly objects to this Grant being given, and will he consider their views in connection with the matter?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am quite aware of that; but I do not understand the reason for their objection.
    Mr. J. DENNIS: Is any portion of this Grant applied by the Agricultural Organisation Society in support of a concern called the Agricultural Wholesale Society?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask if he is not aware that the allotment holders' objection is that they can do the work without any public charge?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Our view is that it is absolutely necessary for Grants to be made. We are very anxious that every opportunity should be given for the formation of allotment societies throughout the country. In regard to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Dennis), I have already said that no money whatever is given by the Agricultural Organisation Society to any trading body. The Agricultural Wholesale Society is a trading body, and it receives no grant from the Agricultural Organisation Society.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the allotment societies will do this work for nothing why should you give them a Grant?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have said that if we are convinced that they can do it for nothing the Grant will cease!

    AMERICANS VISITING ENGLAND (REGISTRATION).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Americans from the United States of America coining to this country are obliged to register with the police; how often this registration takes place; and if the same can be avoided by the guarantee of one or more householders?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. An American paying a short visit to this country is not required to register with the police. If he takes up his residence here he is required to register and to inform the police of any change of his permanent address or any absence there from for a period exceeding two months. I think that the course suggested in the last paragraph of the question is unnecessary and would be far more irksome than the very light obligations which I have described.

    WHITLEY COUNCILS (CIVIL SER VICE).
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Sub-committee of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service proposed to investigate the question of the organisation of the clerical classes only; and whether, in the circumstances, he is prepared to accept the Report of the Committee on Women in Industry for early application to the manipulative classes in Government Departments who are not covered by the investigation of the National Whitley Council?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The manipulative classes are not covered by the Sub-committee of the National Whitley Council; but it is understood that their organisations are at present engaged in the preparation of wages claims and these will be duly considered when they have been presented.

    LINEN INDUSTRY, NORTH OF IRELAND.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the hardship imposed on employés in the linen industry in

    1789
    the North of Ireland by stopping the out-of-work donation on these people who are out of work through no fault of theirs, but owing to the shortage of flax, particularly from Russia; and if he will take steps to meet this case by giving these people some temporary assistance?
    Mr. WARDLE: With the exception of about 600 or 700 workpeople, the linen trade; operatives in the North of Ireland whose donation was stopped on 24th November were not out of a situation, but were working short time. In these circumstances I do not consider that it would be justifiable to give them further assistance out of public funds.
    Sir E. CARSON: Are the Government still controlling the price of flax?
    Mr. WARDLE: That is a question I cannot answer.
    Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: What steps are being taken to get flax from Russia; we know there are very large quantities?
    Mr. WARDLE: That question must be put to the appropriate Department.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The War Department?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Peace Department!

  DISABLED MEN.

    KING'S PROCLAMATION (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce that no further Government contracts shall be given to firms who have not given employment to a percentage of disabled men, as requested in the recent Proclamation of His Majesty the King?
    Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I cannot at present add anything to the answer given on 11th November by the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for the Rother Valley Division of York.
    Colonel ASHLEY: How can the hon. Gentleman expect private firms to come in under the terms of the Proclamation if His Majesty's Government do not set an example?
    Mr. WARDLE: His Majesty's Government is getting a good example.

    PEACE TREATY WITH AUSTRIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Treaty of Peace with Austria will be presented to the House of Commons in the form of a Bill and the same procedure followed us in the case of the Treaty of Peace with Germany; and, if so, when it is expected that this will be done?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Treaty was laid yesterday. Legislation will no doubt be necessary to enable effect to be given to the-economic Clauses of the Treaty, but, as-no date has yet been fixed for ratification, I am not in a position to say anything more on the subject at present.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask why the very, important matter of the Peace Treaty with Austria is being treated differently, and the procedure adopted by His Majesty's Government different to that adopted in respect to-the German Peace Treaty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is being treated differently except from the point of view of everyone—including, I am sure, the hon. and gallant Member himself—that the Treaty with Germany was more important than that with Austria, and had to be settled first.

    EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Prime Minister when the Second Heading of the Irish Education Bill will be taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry it is not possible for me to name a definite date.
    Sir E. CARSON: May we take it that the Bill will be read a second time before we adjourn?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope so, in spite of the pressure of business.
    Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill was introduced, on its First Reading, without any statement being made from that bench, and has that been the practice with a measure of this importance? May I ask, further, when the right hon. Gentleman holds out any hope to Irish Members of seeing what this Bill contains, because it is not even printed yet?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is in course of being printed. As regards the first part of

    1791
    my hon. and gallant Friend's question, it is a custom that has been adopted over and over again with Bills quite as important as this one.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. CHARLES WHITEasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to consider the Report of the Committee on Old Age Pensions; and whether, if there is a possibility of delay he will recommend the Government to immediately increase the existing pensions by 2s. 6d. a week, the lowest increase recommended by the Committee, pending a final decision on the matter?
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government intends to introduce a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Old Age Pensions; and, if so, when will the Bill be introduced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject on Monday last by the hon. Member for Ely.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make an announcement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee has only reported quite recently. Proposals have now been put before the Government, but we have not yet had time to consider them.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the fact that winter is now upon us, and to see that the increase is made as soon as possible?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that in any case an immediate change can be made, because it would require a larger staff, but I quite realise the importance of It. The difficulty is that each day has only twenty-four hours.

    LEGISLATION (UNCOMPLETED BILLS).
    Mr GILBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of Acts of Parliament which have already been passed during the present Session and the number of Bills still before the House, the Government propose to take
    1792
    any action by which uncompleted Bills at the end of the Session can be carried forward in the same position to the next Session of Parliament, so that the work of Members on any Bill shall not be lost?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The suggestion of the hon. Member is being considered by the Government, but no decision has yet been taken.

    PRINCE OF WALES'S FUND.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can make any further announcement as to the disposal of the Prince of Wales's Fund?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what I said on Thursday last in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Smethwick.

    MILITARY STORES (BLACK FOREST).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the report that great stores of guns, munitions, and other supplies, sufficient far a great Army, are hidden in the Black Forest in Germany; and, if so, whether he will take steps to see that this matter is cleared up by the Allies?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to reply to this question. I have not seen the report to which the hon. and gallant members refers, but the information at the disposal of the War Office affords no grounds for attaching credence to the statement. As regards the second part of the question, as soon as the Peace Treaty comes into force steps will be taken by the Inter-Allied-Commission of Control to ensure the execution of its terms.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MESOPOTAMIA (Cost or TROOPS).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the approximate cost of keeping British troops in Mesopotamia from the beginning of the present financial year to 31st October; and what is the estimated cost for the whole financial year?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total cost of the British troops maintained in Mesopotamia,

    1793
    exclusive of gratuities and other terminal charges of the War and also exclusive of pension charges, is roughly estimated at £4,000,000 for the period 1st April to 31st October, 1919. The corresponding figure for the whole financial year is £6,000,000.

    MILITARY BOOTS.
    Mr. MACQU1STENasked the Secretary of State for War how many gum thigh-boots are in the possession of the War Office or the Disposal Board; what did they cost to buy; how much has been spent in transporting and handling them; where are they now; and, seeing that they could have been sold at or about £45 per ton as scrap rubber in January, 1919, and can now only fetch about £30, who are the officials or official responsible for the delay in selling them and the cost of storing them and shifting them about?
    Mr. FORSTER: No stock of these boots is being maintained by the War Department. I understand that the number remaining on fraud with the Disposal Board is 507,193 pairs, which cost, when new, approximately, £456,500. The total amount spent in transport, viewing, etc., since the 1st April is, approximately, £1,800, but this covers boots already disposed of as well as those waiting disposal. The boots still on hand are at the stadium, White City. As these boots could not be obtained in large numbers in an emergency, it was necessary to hold them until the end of June with a view to possible contingencies, but there was no delay in reporting them for disposal as soon as the situation cleared.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is in the possession of his Department over 1,500,000 very heavy Army boots (B 5), and another 250,000 in course of manufacture; that this supply will take about four years to exhaust; whether most of these boots can now be sold for civilian purposes at a small profit, or at least at cost and supply urgent civilian wants, and enable the Army to be furnished with a boot of a pattern better suited than the existing boot for both peace and war purposes, and so keep the manufacturers of Army boots and their workmen employed; whether these improved boots may reasonably be expected to be supplied, in the course of the next four years, at a reduction in cost considerably below the price realisable for the heavy Army boot above suggested to be sold; and will he consult the technical advisers of the Royal Army
    1794
    Clothing Department on the above matters, and also instruct them forthwith to have a more satisfactory style of boot prepared suitable for peace and war?
    Mr. FORSTER: The number of boots in stock, and in course of manufacture, are approximately as stated. Taking into account reserves and probable issues, the stock is below the estimated requirements of the next three years. With regard to the remainder of the question, it is not admitted that a better boot suitable for both peace and war purposes can be provided. The present boot is the result of practical experience in the field. It was produced by Royal Army Clothing Department experts in consultation with the medical authorities, and I understand has given general satisfaction. It would not, in the circumstances be advisable or economical to dispose of the present stock as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the fact that these boots can now be sold at a profit, and that as time goes on the cost of making boots will be cheaper? I should like also to know if my right hon. Friend will answer the last part of the question— namely, whether ho has consulted the technical advisers, and, if so, who were the gentlemen whom he consulted?
    Mr. FORSTER: With regard to the last question, I have already said that it was produced by the Royal Army Clothing Departments experts in consultation with the medical authorities.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I want to know who they are?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot give, without notice, the names of the experts consulted, but if my hon. and learned Friend puts down a question, no doubt I can give him the information.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (HAIR FOR MATTRESSES).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Air Ministry insisted on reserving 100 tons of hair from a proposed sale in Ireland of 130 tons by the Disposal Board; whether, seeing that this amount will make 7,000 mattresses, he will state what the Air Force have been sleeping on hitherto and where and why they want 7,000 beds now; what is the rate of deterioration of teased hair such as the hair in question when in store; and does it

    1795
    tend to lose stiffness and value with rapidity if not immediately made into mattresses?
    Mr. PARKER: The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's queston is that a request was made to the Disposal Board by the Air Ministry to reserve 90 tons of hair, and that the Ministry has been informed that the hair so reserved is at Neasden. Whether this hair was reserved from a proposed sale in Ireland or not is not within my knowledge. In regard to the second part, I would explain that to a considerable extent airmen have hitherto been sleeping on straw palliasses and on bed boards, and that the hair referred to above has mainly been obtained for the manufacture of hair mattresses to remedy this state of affairs at the stations to be permanently retained by the Royal Air Force. As it is not the intention of the Air Ministry to store hair in excess of immediate requirements, it does not appear that the remainder of my hon. Friend's question calls for a reply.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are thousands and thousands of beds, belonging to the Army, stored up and down the country. I could give him instances. For what purpose are they making new ones when these store a are enough?
    Mr. PARKER: I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend must put that question down. I do not know anything further about the matter.

    STAFF APPOINTMENTS.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the number of officers, other than Regular officers, who on 15th November, 1919, were holding Staff appointments or who were attached to the Staff and drawing full pay whilst not on regimental duty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This information is not available, and I am afraid it would involve considerable research to obtain the figures. In view of the reductions in staff which are being made, I regret I cannot undertake to have the information prepared.

    REMOVAL OF OFFICERS.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that there are 4,500 Regular officers superfluous to the establishment of the Army, it is the intention of
    1796
    the War Office to forthwith remove from the Service all senior Regular officers who are medically unfit and likely to remain so, or who were sent home from the Expeditionary Force on adverse reports, with a view to accelerating the promotion of the very large number of captains and junior majors of the Regular Army who during the War successfully filled the places of the aforementioned senior officers, and to further allow the granting of Regular commissions to selected temporary officers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All Regular officers who are permanently medically unfit are placed on the half-pay list. The Army Council have already under consideration the War records of all senior officers, and those who have shown themselves to be unfitted for the duties of their rank are being called upon to resign their commissions or to retire.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not the fact that in many cases officers are now being reported upon by their peace-time commanders? In view of the reduction in the Army, and the urgent necessity for absolute efficiency, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the question of war records shall be considered in every single case?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
    Major Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply refer to officers of all ranks—generals and lieutenant-generals as well as junior officers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly. The numbers of lieutenant-generals and major-generals which exist surplus to any establishment that we can contemplate in the future are very great.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be influenced in his action by the Reports of any Commissions on Mesopotamia or the Dardanelles, or anything else, as to whether any officers of high rank are efficient or not?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Everything will be taken into consideration I do not know what my Noble Friend has in mind.

    UNITED SERVICES FUND.
    Earl WINTERTONasked (1) the Secretary of State for War whether

    1797
    any steps were taken to consult the opinion of demobilised ex-Service men as to the constitution of the Committee, of which General Lord Byng was chairman, to inquire into the best means of disposal of canteen profits;
    (2) who are the military and naval members, respectively, of the Committee that is responsible for the administration of the United Services Fund; and what is the representation, if any, of the Comrades of the Great War and the National Federation of Demobilised Soldiers and Sailors on that Committee?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In answer to these two questions, I would refer my Noble Friend to my reply yesterday to the hon. Member for Workington.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    Lord H. CAVEMDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that numbers of medical officers who joined the Army voluntarily in 1914 or before the passing of the Military Service Acts have persistently applied for demobilisation, and that their applications have been refused; whether some of these medical officers are receiving £'60 a year less than others who voluntarily enlist for a further six months though there is no certainty that these volunteers will not be demobilised on or before the same date as the others; whether large numbers of younger medical ' officers have been demobilised after short periods of service; whether, if so, there is any justification for this different treatment; and whether he can make any promise with regard to the early demobilisation of the medical officers referred to or, alternatively, can undertake that their rate of payment during service shall be not less than that of the medical officers who consent, often for personal reasons, to stay in the Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that many medical officers who joined the Army voluntarily before the passing of the Military Service Acts, and who afterwards came under the provisions of those Acts, are still of necessity retained on military service, and that some of these officers are receiving less than those who have undertaken to serve for a further period of six months. A considerable
    1798
    number of medical officers with comparatively short service have from time to time been demobilised for special reasons, more particularly in order to meet the urgent needs of the civil population, and in accordance with the demand of the Ministry of National Service. Medical officers are now being demobilised in order of priority, having regard to length of service, age, etc., immediately they can be spared. I regret it is not possible to extend the terms given to officers who bind themselves for a definite period to those who will not undertake this obligation.

    DERBY RECRUITS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War when a soldier who enlisted under the Derby scheme and was called up in November, 1916, and is now serving in Mesopotamia will be released?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: He should leave Mesopotamia by the 1st February next at the latest, provided the necessary transport is available.

    CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Reginald Godfrey Webb, No. 52994, 14th Hussars; whether this young man on enlistment stated that he was nineteen years of age, although his actual age was only sixteen years; that he was induced to enlist whilst in London on holiday; that his mother has made repeated applications for his release; and whether, in view of the fact that Webb is only seventeen years of age now, he will give instructions for his immediate release?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This case has already been considered, but the facts put forward did not justify the discharge of the soldier being authorised. In view of the statements made in the question, which vary in several important particulars with those previously alleged, I am having further inquiry made, and will inform the hon. Member of the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. CLYNES: In the event of the facts being found to be in harmony with the statements in the question, will the right hon. Gentleman order the release of this soldier?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would like to know what the actual facts are before giving an answer.
    Mr. IRVING: If the right hon. Gentleman is instituting a new rule, will he also apply it to others?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a question of instituting any new rule. The only question is what is the interpretation of the present rule and that depends upon the actual facts. The facts are in dispute, and I am making further inquiries to make sure that the War Office facts are correct. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is correct

    FIELD STORES, ALDERSHOT (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give an assurance that women who were employed by the Field Stores, Aldershot, before the War will have the option of remaining in the Service; whether ho is aware of the large number of women who are being discharged; and whether he can state the reason for transferring the clothing department elsewhere, thus causing the discharge of numbers of women?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to n similar question asked by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) on the 11th November. I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the last part of the question, the transfer was effected in the interests of economy.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Major W. MURRAYasked (1) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the continuance of the foot-and-mouth disease in England, he will now take steps to prohibit the removal of live stock from England to Scotland;
    (2) the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a number of requests from Scottish owners of live stock and others desiring that they should be more efficiently protected from the dangers of foot-and-mouth disease now prevalent in parts of England and on the Continent; and what, if any, steps it is proposed to take in order to safeguard live stock in Scotland?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board have received representations both direct and through the Scottish Department as to taking special steps with a view to protecting Scotland. They consider that the practice of prohibiting movement of animals over a large area surrounding the place infected with foot-and-mouth disease gives the best security not only to Scotland, but also to the rest of England and Wales. No case is known to the Board where infection has resulted from the virus being carried by stock out of the district so scheduled.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What steps are the English Board of Agriculture taking to inform themselves of the opinion in Scotland with regard so this matter?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are constantly informing ourselves as to opinions in Scotland.
    Mr. SCOTT: I asked what steps are being taken by the Board to inform themselves of opinions in Scotland?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my hon. Friend will give me notice, I will give him a detailed reply.

    RIVERS (POLLUTION).
    Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he intends to introduce legislation at an early date giving to fishery boards and other bodies responsible for the protection of rivers fuller powers than they now possess for dealing with questions of pollution by trade effluents and domestic sewerage?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope it will be possible to introduce legislation next Session upon this subject.

    FOREIGN HOPS.
    The following question stood upon the Paper in the name of Viscount WOLMER:
    77. To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the approximate average prices at which foreign hops are now being imported into this country?
    Viscount WOLMER: May I ask why my question has been missed?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I regret that I have no answer to this question, but I was given to understand that the answer would be given by another Department.
    Viscount WOLMER: Can the hon. Gentleman inform me which Department?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think the Board of Trade, but there has been some misunderstanding. If the Board which I represent is responsible, I apologise to the House.

    NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (POWERS) BILL [Lords.]
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee E.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 215.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COM -MITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE E.
    SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee E: Major Entwistle.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    County Court Judges (Retirement Pensions and Deputies) Bill, without Amendment.

BILLS PRESENTED.

  NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL,—
  "To provide for the Registration of Nurses in Ireland," presented by Mr. MACPHEESON; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL,—"To enable the Par-
  1802
  liamentary electors in prescribed areas by a direct vote to prohibit the issue within such areas of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors and also the common sale or supply of such liquors in licensed premises, clubs, or elsewhere within such areas," presented by Mr. RAFFAN; supported by Mr. Broad, Mr. Galraith, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Sidney Robinson, and Mr. Trevelyan Thomson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,—"To amend the Law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. BALDWIN; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

  PEERAGE (SURRENDER) BILL
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower His Majesty to accept a surrender of any Peerage."
  I desire to make it perfectly clear that this Bill does not express in any sense the views either of myself or of my colleagues with regard to the future constitution of the House of Lords, nor is it simply a Bill to enable a peer, if he chooses, to sit in this House. I frankly admit that, although we are living in democratic days, there is to-day no dearth of candidates for the peerage—the right hon Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) can apply it to either side of the House—and the object of the Bill is to permit any man not only to surrender his peerage and the right to sit in the Upper House, but also all privileges attaching to membership of the Upper House. In the seventeenth century, I believe, it was not an uncommon thing to surrender the peerage, with the result that there was a famous test case, known as "The Earl of Norfolk's Case"—in which it was clearly laid down by the Law Courts—it was subsequently confirmed by the House of Lords that the peerage could not be surrendered. I have taken an extract from Pike's "Constitutional Law" dealing with that point. It reads as follows:
  "The doctrine that a peer cannot surrender or in any other way restore any dignity at all to the sovereign is thus Lord-made law of comparatively recent growth. It seems, at first sight, to contradict the fundamental doctrine that the sovereign is the fountain of honour, as it withdraws from him the power to receive back an honour once conferred. There must of

  1803
  necessity be two parties to a surrender, and it appears to be hardly within the rights of any particular body so to define its own privileges as to affect other interests, and in particular those of the Crown, without the express consent of the sovereign."
  That opinion was never challenged, so far as I have been told, until 1895, when the present Earl Sclborne challenged the right of summons to the other House. It is true that he, backed by the present Lord Curzon and Lord Midleton, presented a Bill, which did not receive a Second Reading in this House. The object of that Bill was, clearly, not to take away all the privileges attached to a peer, but was merely limited to the right of a peer, if he so desires, to sit as a Member of this House. The difference between what one can gather was the intention of Lord Selborne and the then Lord Wolmer on that occasion and the Bill which I now ask the House to accept, is that in Clause 1 of the Bill it is provided—
  "His Majesty may accept a surrender by any peer of any peerage held by him, and if accepted by His Majesty such surrender shall determine the peerage so surrendered, and all rights and privileges in respect thereof, including the right to receive a written summons and to sit in the House of Lords or to take part in the elections of representative peers."
  It will be observed that that Clause, if it becomes the law of the land, clearly prevents the possibility of getting the best of both worlds. It lays it down, first, that a peer has a clear right to say, "No, I believe I can serve my country best by remaining a Member of this House." But, concurrently with that, it also says that if he so chooses, and if he accepts that position, clearly it must not carry with it any right or privileges attaching to the other House. I submit that we have here a clearly defined, and, if I may say so, a sound constitutional position. It enables a, man to say that, in his judgment, he does not feel capable of undertaking the responsibility of sitting in the other House, and I would ask whether this House of Commons, or the Constitution of the country ought to say to a man who himself feels that he is incapable of discharging these responsibilities, who himself feels that his conscience tells him ha ought not to accept the responsibility, that he should accept it. I would say quite clearly that it is not unfair and that it is a sound constitutional position to reply, "No, if you yourself feel that you are incapable of discharging this work, certainly we are not going to compel you to
  1804
  do it." That is the first point involved. But there is a second, and one that is primarily responsible for this Bill. It is that there are Members of this House to day who feel that their training, their knowledge, and their whole conception of public life and public service is centred in this House. They are men who have made promises to a constituency, which constituency itself feels that it can truss them, and we ought not, because of this flaw—if I may use that phrase—in the Constitution, to deprive these men of the right and privilege of serving in this House if they so desire. It is perfectly true that I might have brought in this Bill by a mere presentation, but that would have been unfair, because the House ought clearly to understand what is the purport and object of the measure. I believe there is opposition to it—opposition on the ground that it is dealing piecemeal with the great question of the House of Lords. All I have to say is that there have been various promises of reform of the House of Lords, and if those who are opposing this Bill, and who object to deal piecemeal with the House of Lords, are desirous of helping in dealing with the House of Lords, there is nothing in this Bill which will prevent them doing it. At all events, I submit that, in asking the House to give this Bill a First. Reading, I am asking it to say that in a constitutional country like ours, where, after all, Parliament is, and should be, supreme, there ought to be nothing in the Constitution to first deprive a peer, because he is a peer, of the ordinary privileges of humble citizenship and then to prevent any citizen who wants to serve his country from serving his country in the manner he thinks best to do so.
  4.0.P.M.
  Mr. E. WOOD: I rise to invite the House to refuse to grant permission to the right hon. Gentleman to introduce this Bill, and I hope, if necessary, to divide the House upon it. I must say at the outset that those of us who are opposed to the action with which the right hon. Gentleman is associated, would be the first to recognise that he has treated the House of Commons with the greatest courtesy in affording it the earliest possible opportunity of expressing its views upon this question. All hon. Members present will have listened with great interest and admiration to the speech with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Motion. We are always accustomed in this House

  1805
  to listen with interest to whatever may fall from him, but to-day we have listened with an extra interest, because of the novel role in which we find the right hon. Gentleman acting. I believe there was a distinguished individual in the early Middle Ages who was known, on account of his actions against Churchmen, as the "Hammerer of the Church." I am not without hope that after the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-day he will go down to posterity as a constitutional lawyer and as a protector of the peers. I am acting as I am to-day not without considerable reluctance. In the first place, I should always be reluctant, unless it were necessary, to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. In the second place, I am bound to say that the particular individual whose case is the parent of the introduction of this Bill in one of my warm personal friends, for whose friendship I have the greatest possible regard. In the third place, I myself, perhaps, as long as the House of Lords remains as it is at present, by the natural order of events if things remain as they are, may be called upon to face compulsory severance from this House and from all those affectionate relations and sympathies one has ever had in it. Therefore I am sure the House will agree that one has every personal ground for trying to take the opposite view from what I do. Nevertheless, I feel bound to ask the House to agree with me and reject the Motion.
  The right hon. Gentleman has made a very persuasive speech. He advocated as his main ground that we should aim at removing any hindrance that lies in the path of peers rendering services to their country where they best may. He has based his argument on the broad democratic ground of the right of service. With that argument I warmly associate myself, because the right of service is the greatest right which from the King to the humblest subject anyone can claim. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was better than the conclusion he invites us to support. I would deny the implication that service in the other place need be of any less value than service in this House. In the second place, I would point out that the zeal of those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, wish to remove a supposed injustice from the shoulders of peers, may lead them into some danger of finding themselves in the position of granting an additional privilege to a body of persons who are already entitled to sit in
  1806
  one House by granting them the option to sit in two. It is a position which required much more consideration from my right hon. Friend. He reminded us that this matter was considered by this House in more than one form twenty years ago. Without following him into the legal aspects of the matter which were then discussed and which formed the subject-matter of inquiries by Committees—any hon. Member interested can inform himself on the subject—I would say that all those inquiries went to show that this matter was one which, as soon as it was approached and investigated, was seen to raise questions much larger than merely individual questions. In my judgment, it is bound to introduce far-reaching results on the whole working of our Constitution Speaking for myself, as long as the House of Lords remains as it is, I would regret any change that made it difficult—this is bound to be the effect of this proposal— for that Chamber to draw recruits from among those who had served an apprenticeship in this House. That may be a matter of opinion.
  Whether this proposal to enable the Crown—for that is, I think, its form—to, accept the surrender of peerages be right or whether it be wrong, I would emphatically state that it cannot be right that this proposal, far-reaching as I believe it to be, should be introduced, by way of a private Bill, by a private Member, of whatever distinction, really in order to meet an individual case. Indeed, in that I believe I have the support of the right hon. Gentleman himself, because at the outset of his remarks he said that this Bill did not represent either his own views or the views of those with whom he habitually associates on the question of the future constitution of the House of Lords. In fact, I believe this is—I speak under correction from my lawyer Friends—what the ancient Romans used to call privilegium. That was an attempt to introduce alterations in the general law on the ground of individual hard cases. That was always jealously resisted in the days of Rome, and I hope it will be no less jealously resisted by the House of Commons. My first objection to the proposal is that it is wrong to handle a fraction of the problem without handling all of it. Strong as that objection would be under ordinary conditions, it is redoubled because of the position in which we find ourselves at the present moment. It is not as if there were no likelihood of the whole question of the

  1807
  Second Chamber being one for immediate or early consideration. If undertakings mean anything in this House or out of it, this subject is one to which, as much as to any other, this Government stands pledged. I do not profess to be sanguine enough to believe that when that question is brought forward, as it must be brought forward soon, there will be found unanimity as to its right solution, yet I am satisfied that among all broad-minded and fair-minded men in the House of
  Commons who look at the matter broadly, there would be substantial unanimity that when this matter is handled it must be handled as part of a single whole, and we should only prejudice the wise handling later by attempting to handle it piecemeal and without due consideration.
  Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower His Majesty to accept a surrender of any peerage."
  The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 169.

  Division No. 138.]

  AYES.

  [4.10 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas)

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton)

  Briant, F.

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Casey, T. W.

  Lunn, William

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Mason, Robert

  Seager, Sir William

  Clough, R.

  Matthews, David

  Seddon, James

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Seely, Maj.-General Rt. Hon. John

  Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

  Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)

  Newman, sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

  O'Connor, T. P

  Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

  Finney, Samuel

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Waterson, A. E.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Guest. J. (Hemsworth, York)

  Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

  Thomas and Mr. Griffiths.

  Hallas, E.

  Remnant, Colonel Sir James

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hurd, P. A.

  Alien, Colonel William James

  Dennis, J. W.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Johnstone, J.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Bagley, Captain E. A.

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  Kidd, James

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Falcon, Captain M.

  King, Com. Douglas

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

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

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gange, E. S.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Lordon, John William

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

  Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Bennett, T. J.

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

  Lowe, Sir F. W.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Lynn, R. J.

  Bird, Alfred

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  M'Guffin, Samuel

  Berwick, Major G. O.

  Glyn, Major R.

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

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Goff, Sir Park

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Breese, Major C. E.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Green J. F. (Leicester)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.

  Greer, Harry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Butcher, Sir J. G.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Marriott, John Arthur R.

  Campbell, J. G. D.

  Griggs, Sir Peter

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

  Campion, Colonel W. R.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hailwood, A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cayzer, Major H. R.

  Hennessy, Major G.

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox)

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

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

  Murray, William (Dumfries)

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Hope. Lt.-Col. sir J. (Midlothian)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Cheyne, Sir William Watson

  Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

  Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.

  Curzon, Commander Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.

  Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Sturrock, J. Long

  Whitla, Sir William

  Pratt, John William

  Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Ramsden, G- T.

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Willey, Lt.-Col. F. v.

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

  Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)

  Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

  Wilson. Colonel Leslie (Reading)

  Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

  Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl.)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Woods, Sir Robert

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

  Tryori, Major George Clement

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Waring, Major Walter

  E. Wood and Major Howard.

  Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL [Lords].
  Lords reason for disagreeing to Commons Amendment and Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment, considered.
  SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.— [Removal of Disqualification on Grounds of sex.)
    A person shall not be disqualified by sex from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming any civil profession or vocation, or for admission to any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise), and a person shall not be exempted by sex from the liability to serve as a juror:
    Provided that—

    (a) notwithstanding anything in this Section His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise Regulations to be made prescribing the mode of admission of women to the Civil Service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which women admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, and providing for the exclusion of women from admission to any branch of the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's Possessions, or in any foreign country; and

    (b) any judge, chairman of quarter sessions, recorder or other person before whom the case is heard may, in his discretion, on an application made by or on behalf of the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and the accused) or any of them, or at his own instance, make an Order that having regard to the, nature of the case and the evidence to be given, the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only as the case may require, or may on an application made by a woman to be exempted from service on a jury in respect of that case by reason of the nature of the evidence to be given or of the issues to be tried, grant such exemption.

    Commons Amendment: After the word "function," insert the words "including that of sitting and voting in the House of Lords."
    The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons for the following reason:
    "Because they do not consider that this alteration in the Constitution of the House of Lords should be made at this time or in this manner."
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."
    An Amendment was inserted in Committee in this House under which a person would not be disqualified by sex or
    1842
    marriage from sitting or voting in House of Lords, and it is with that-Amendment that the Lords have disagreed. They have agreed with all the Amendments which were made in Committee and on Report, save and except this particular one. They have only made one alteration in another, which, also, I shall ask the House to agree to later on. I know some hon. Members attach importance to this Amendment on the ground that it was a matter of principle, and therefore, pressed it to a Division. All told, there would be only some twenty ladies who, it was presumed, might ossibly have an opportunity of sitting and voting in the House of Lords, but the number is even less, for on inquiry it was found that of the ladies who hold peerages eleven hold thorn by patent, and the patents in their case were special patents granted in the case of distinguished soldiers and persons who had rendered great service to the State, and as they had no male heir, the patent designated their daughter as the particular person to whom, the peerage should devolve, but even then provided that after the designated female holder the peerage should pass into the male line and it can only be held in the male line. The peerage, as drawn up by patent, expressly gave no right of place, seat or voice to the designated female holder in the House of Lords, and therefore it is not a matter which comes within the ambit of a, Bill to amend the law with respect to disqualification on account of sex because the particular disqualification in these eleven cases arises by virtue of a particular patent, and the general alteration of the law would not affect those cases. There remain nine cases and no more to which it would be possible for this Amendment to apply. The Vote the House has just taken may be interpreted in this way. After listening to the speeches I think the determination of the House was that it would be unwise to deal with this matter of the constitution of the House of Lords in a piecemeal fashion or with regard to particular cases. It would be better to leave it to be dealt with as a whole as and when the reconstitution of the House of Lords is taken up, as we hope it will be in the immediate future. The House of Lords give, as their reason for disagreeing with the Commons Amendment that they do not consider that this alteration in the constitution of the House of Lords should be made at this time or in this manner. If I interpret rightly the

    1843
    vote just given, I think I am on strong ground in asking the House to accept the Amendment which has been made by the House of Lords, But J would also beg the House not to create a disagreement with the House of Lords. This Bill has now, been amplified. It stands as a Bill which gives a very large measure, almost a complete measure—I only introduce that qualification because I am conscious that some of my hon. Friends wish to go even further—of relief on the question of sex, and it would really be disastrous that, after we have got this Bill as complete as it is, we should engage in a controversy with the other House which might imperil the measure. I very much hope the House will agree with the Lords Amendment, because I regard this Bill as one which all quarters of the House desire to be passed, and I should deprecate any action which could in any way endanger its subsequent fortunes.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I do not agree altogether with what my hon. Friend has said as to the Bill removing all sex inequalities. I am sorry another place has insisted on deleting the Amendment that we passed in this House. There was considerable debate upon the question, and it went strongly in favour of throwing open another place to women. The Government Whips were taken off, and we carried the Amendment by a large majority. On that account I very much regret that another place has taken this action. At the same time I do not attach very great importance to this provision. The importance I did attach to it I placed upon it because I regarded it as an outward expression of sex inequality as long as women do not sit in another place. Apart from that, I quite agree that it is not an Amendment of any great importance. At the same time, I quite honestly think it is one of those questions which must be considered as part of the general reform of the Second Chamber. From my own point of view, therefore, as one who followed the Bill with close interest when it was here before, and did what I could to extend ifs provisions for making it easier for women to enter the liberal professions, the Civil Service and other branches of public life, I am not prepared to enter into a constitutional conflict with the House of Lords upon this point, and whilst I regret that they have taken this action I am not prepared to press it to a Division.
    Commons Amendment: At end of Clause add the words,
    "Rules of Court may be made as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this Section relating to service on juries, and the Rules may require or authorise the application or any Order thereon to be made in interlocutory proceedings.
    "Any Order in Council made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith and, 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 the Order is laid before it, praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or that part thereof and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under."
    Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment: After the word "made" ["Rules of Court may be made "] insert the words
    "('(a) prescribing the manner in which juries are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel: and
    (b) exempting from attendance as jurors any women who are for medical reasons unfit to attend; and
    (c)')."
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    These Amendments which have been made by the Lords are for the purpose of making the Bill more effective in dealing with one or two matters which have been overlooked in this House. May I explain exactly what the House of Lords has done, because it is by no means easy to follow in view of the practice of the two Houses as to the printing of Bills. In order to follow one has first of all to obtain the Amendments which were made to the Bill as it went to the House of Lords, and then to obtain the Amendments which the Lords made to those Amendments, and although I hoped that another system would prevail under which the Bill would have been reprinted, I was told the practice which prevented that hope being fulfilled, and therefore I have been at pains to work out what the result of this Amendment is. It is provided that "Rules of Court may be made as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this Section relating to service on juries, and the rules may require or authorise the application, or any order thereon, to be made in interlocutory proceedings." After we had provided that ladies should sit upon juries, it was necessary to take steps to meet

    1845
    the point that was properly raised by the hon. and learned member for the Bassett-law Division (Sir E. Hume-Williams) that it would be very inconvenient if some lady asked to be excused from a jury, and then it was found that an insufficient panel had been obtained. Therefore, we provided that rules should be made to meet this difficulty, and that application should be made with regard to the composition of the jury at what we call interlocutory proceedings; that is, proceedings before the case actually comes into Court. So far so good. That practice has not been altered by anything that the House of Lords have done. But the House of Lords felt that we had not adequately provided for seeing that juries were properly drawn from men and women alike. It is quite obvious that if women are going to undertake the duty of acting upon juries there must be no discrimination either in favour or against them. The Juries Act, 1825, provides, by Section 26, that when a panel of jurors has been tabled the jury that is to sit is to be drawn by a ballot taken by an officer of the Court, who has to write the names on a piece of paper or parchment, put them into a box, and then draw out the names of the persons who are to form the jury. Unless that is provided for it might be said that some discrimination had been made whereby the jury had been composed of so many men and so many women, and the women or the men might be in greater numbers. It is very necessary that the system of ballot should be made legal, and should apply to the Act which we are now passing. The House of Lords have provided for that being done.
    Two other points remain. It was pointed out that in the case of a woman it might be very necessary to give them the liberty to be excused in certain circumstances. A woman far advanced in pregnancy might desire, and rightly desire, to be relieved. A woman shortly after childbirth, when she was nursing her child, might also desire to be excused, because if the case took some time it is quite obvious that both she and the child might suffer. Therefore, the House of Lords have put in the power to make rules and provision for these two cases. They have also dealt with another point which is highly technical. Under the Juries Act, 1825, the ballot which has to be taken applies to assize cases and to civil cases, but does not apply to cases which are tried at Quarter Sessions. It is just as important that the juries at Quarter Sessions
    1846
    should be drawn without any discrimination as to either sex, as it is important that that should be done both In civil cases and in assize cases. Therefore, it is necessary in the rules that are to be drawn up to give facilities for drawing juries indiscriminately both at Quarter Sessions, assizes, and in civil cases. For that purpose in reference to the jurors who are to be drawn for criminal cases at Quarter Sessions there is a body in existence, called the Rules Committee, appointed under the Indictment Act, 1915. That Committee consists of the Lord Chief Justice of England and another judge, a recorder, a chairman of Quarter Sessions, and, I think, a Clerk of Assize. There may be one or two other persons also who have due knowledge of the system and practice of our Criminal Courts. Dealing with these matters the House of Lords have added to what we have done. Incorporating their Amendment the provision would read:
    "Rules of Court may be made—

    (a) prescribing the manner in which juries are to be summoned and to be selected from the panel, and

    (b) exempting from attendance as jurors any women who are for medical reasons unfit to attend."

    That deals with the question of women in a particular condition.
    "(c) as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this Section relating to service on juries—
    That was our own rule.
    "and the Rules so made may require or authorise an application to be made under this Section, or any Order thereon, to be made in interlocutory proceedings—"
    That was part of our own rule.
    "and shall have full effect notwithstanding any existing Rules of law or practice to the contrary. As respects any Criminal Court in England the expression 'Rules of Court' means Rules made by the Rule Committee established under the Indictments Act, 1915."
    That incorporates all the matters dealt with. The Rules by these Amendments will become much more effective. The selecting of men and women from the panel will be by ballot, and no exception can be taken to it. These Amendments carry out and amplify the intention expressed in this House, and I ask the House to agree to the Lords Amendments.
    Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment:
    Leave out the words "and the Rules" ["and the Rules may require"], and insert instead thereof the words "Rules so made."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "application" ["authorise the application"], and insert instead thereof the words "an application made under this Section."—Agreed to.
    After the word "proceedings" ["interlocutory proceedings ", insert the words
    "and shall have full effect notwithstanding any existing rule of law or practice to the contrary. As respects any Criminal Court in England the expression 'Rules of Court' means Rules made by the Rule Committee established under the Indictments Act, 1915."
    —Agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Shortt.]
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Before the House gives its assent to the Third Reading I desire to say a few words as one who has taken part in the discussions in this House and in Committee upstairs. As this Bill was introduced it was, in my judgment, and in the judgment of many others far more competent to judge, an exceedingly bad Bill. It was a bad Bill as regards the administrative machinery and as regards the treatment of the existing electricity authorities. I think it is a matter of general agreement and for general congratulation that the Bill has been enormously improved as it has passed through Committee and the Report stage. It has been improved in particular in three ways. In the first place, the district electricity board which, as this Bill left the House on Second Reading, constituted the main backbone of the measure, now remain in the Bill only as the last resort. Many of us think that is a great improvement. In the second place, the joint electricity authorities have now become the normal procedure which will be adopted for the working of the Act. That also seems to many of us a great improvement. In the third place, far more equitable terms have been secured for those who on the direct invitation of Parliament—this is a point on which I have more than once felt myself bound to insist—have invested their money in what were at that time very speculative undertakings. I do not think the House generally has quite appreciated the enormous debt which it owes and which the country owes to those who have been the pioneers in the elec-
  1848
  trical industry. They have invested very large sums of money in what was then a speculative industry, and the whole country is under a very great debt of obligation to them.
  As the Bill left this House on Second Reading that debt was very inadequately recognised. Some of us while the Bill has been passing through Committee have fought very assiduously to obtain better terms for those original investors. As regards my own case, I have been actuated throughout solely by considerations of public policy. My own interest in the matter is absolutely negligible. I have always contended that a very important principle was involved in the Compensation Clauses of the Bill, and I rejoice that in that respect very considerable improvement has been effected.
  Speaking on behalf of those members of all parties who have taken any part in the discussion, I may say that we tender our very grateful thanks to those members of the Government who have been in charge of the Bill. To the Home Secretary in particular, and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, we owe a very great debt for the way in which they have met the representations made to them by the Committee and this House. I hope I shall not be out of order if at this point I express our grateful thanks to the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division (Sir S. Roberts) who presided over the prolonged proceedings in Committee. That the Bill has become a reasonably good Bill Is in no small degree due to the geniality and tact with which the hon. Member for Sheffield presided over the Committee stage.
  But though the Bill in its present form represents a very great improvement that is very far from saying that it is perfect. It seems to me to be very much the reverse. In my judgment it would have been very much better if no attempt had been made to set up the very elaborate machinery contained in this Bill. A far simpler Bill would have attained the same end with less friction and more effect. If instead of adopting the elaborate machinery which is contained in this Bill we had simply brought together representatives of the existing authorities: the municipalities, the power companies, and what are known as the Provisional Order companies, and discussed a friendly arrangement in regard to the future supply of electricity in this country I believe that some arrangement

  1849
  could have been arrived at with very little trouble which would have been satisfactory to all parties, and would have attained the end desired by all who have taken part in the discussion of this Bill— the securing for the country of a larger and cheaper supply of electricity. I hope and believe that it will come to this in the end, and that the amended provisions of this Bill will be worked and will have to be worked—and I regard that as a matter of good omen—by friendly and harmonious co-operation between the parties whom I have enumerated. But I should like to know why we only come to this in the end, why we should not on the contrary have started with it, and why we should have spent nineteen laborious days upstairs settling the details of this very elaborate and difficult machinery? No doubt those days were very educative to myself and other Members, but our education might have been Arrived at by other means with less trouble to ourselves and less expenditure of public time. I recognise that the Bill as it now stands is a very great improvement, and I congratulate the House and the Government on the result.
  Mr. THOMSON: While associating myself with the declarations of the hon. Member opposite as to the attitude of those who were responsible for the piloting of the Bill I am afraid that I must raise a discordant note as to one or two of its provisions. I may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but I make a final appeal to the Government to reconsider two points which many of us feel to be a real blemish in this matter. One is that they have not sought to secure on the district boards the right of popular control. The second is that they have an extraordinary system of arriving at the values of undertakings which are to be taken over, values which are based rather on the question of the persons to whom the undertakings belong than on the character of the undertakings themselves. On the first point I would appeal to the Home Secretary that where you have public money, public interests, and public monopolies at stake, there you should have a basis of popular control. I have always understood that public control and public expenditure went together. It seems to me that this Government of all the talents has come to the conclusion that that point of democratic Government has to be overhrown. You have these district boards set up they acquire from
  1850
  various undertakers electricity generating stations and main transmission lines. The undertakers, whether they be municipalities, or private companies, are paid for the undertaking. Therefore, I submit that, as undertakers, they no longer have a claim to representation on the boards which have acquired their property. The same applies whether to a municipality or a private company. Certainly they have no claim to a majority of representation on the board.
  The claim for public representation is not made because the authorised undertakings were in the hands of municipalities, but rather on the broad ground that as the public have monopoly rights and you have a public service those matters ought to be in the hands of a body which has at any rate a majority of popular representatives on it. As to that, the Bill provides no such principle. It provides machinery whereby in certain cases you may have the representatives of popular bodies in the majority. But that is a cardinal principle which ought to have been settled by this House. The majority of these undertakings are at present in the hands of local authorities which are democratically controlled, and it is more than possible when this Bill becomes law —there is no provision in the Bill to prevent it—you may have undertakings which are now in the hands of the local authority and under popular control handed over to boards on which there may not be a majority of popular representatives. That depends on the undertakers, and this is a principle which should not be agreed to.
  On the question of compensation, I submit that it is a misfortune to set up two standards of value which vary not according to the work of the undertaking required, but depend upon the authority which happens to own the undertaking. You have the case of a local authority, when a generating station is transferred under the Bill, and the price to be paid for that is the worth, less depreciation. That is a perfectly sound basis, with which I think the majority of the House will agree, but when you come to the case of power companies Clause 12 says that when in addition to having taken the generating station they also require you to take their distributing system, the price to be paid for the generating station is cost without any regard to depreciation whatever. It is unfair to differentiate in this way

  1851
  between undertakings which are in themselves of the same class and to say that because one happens to belong to a power company therefore you ought to pay at a much higher level for it than for that which belongs to a municipality.
  It has been said that the power companies, like the distributing companies, have not the protection of the 1888 Act, that they have a freehold, and we have no power to buy it out. I submit that the local authorities are in exactly the same position. They do not come under the 1888 Act. They have the same unrestricted right without any power over them, other than what this House has over power companies, of purchasing them, and they have as much a freehold as the power companies. It seems an extraordinary precedent that compensation is to be paid for an undertaking not on the worth of the undertaking, but on the question of the person to whom it belongs. If it belongs to a municipality and is attempting to give a public service without making profit, you pay one price, and if it belongs to a private company out, and rightly out, for profit, then you pay a higher price. A distinction of that sort gives occasion to unfriendly critics, who say that this is a House where capitalist interests dominate and the public are forgotten. I beg the Government to remove the possibility of such insinuations by making the basis of compensation the same for the municipality as for the power company.
  5.0 P.M.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend putting the municipalities, with all their great duties and responsibilities, on the same level as a mere profit-making concern like a power company. Municipalities are using public money not for the purpose of making profit, but for providing electricity as cheaply and efficiently as possible for the people in their area. They are relieved of that duty, and they are assured that none of the capital expenditure will be lost, and if one public body buys from another and the second ensures the first against loss, that, surely, is not unfair ! But with regard to a company which has been allowed by Parliament to collect together the capital of private persons for profit making by providing electricity, surely they must be treated in a different way altogether! With regard to the question of public control, I would remind my hon. Friend that there
  1852
  is no public money in this at all. There is the money which is paid by the consumer for the electricity which it consumes, which in no proper sense is public money. Public money is money collected either by-taxes or rates, but the money which the district boards, the joint authority or whatever it may be, receive for the whole of their revenue comes from the sales of electricity. The Electricity Commissioners receive revenue from the contributions of every form of undertaker, whether district board, joint authority, or private undertaking. They are all contributing to the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners. There is no tax and no rate. Therefore, while I quite agree that, where public interests are concerned, public representation is essential, and is provided for in this Bill, and public control is necessary where you expend public money, public money is entirely absent from the provisions of the Bill which is before the House at present. I should, therefore, merely like to ask the House now to pass, the Third Beading of this Bill. I am very grateful for the kind words of the first speaker with regard to those of us who had charge of this Bill, and I may tell the House that, in my view, the work of the Committee on this Bill, at any rate, has shown what good work a Grand Committee can do. No one can admit more frankly than I do that the Bill has been greatly improved by the, whole-hearted assistance of members of the Committee during the nineteen days of our sitting. I do not pretend that it is perfect. It is a sound attempt to ensure for this country a cheap and efficient supply of power. Experience may show in days to come that the Bill requires amending, but at any rate it is now a sound basis for us to begin with. I therefore ask the House to give this Bill a Third Reading,
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  IRISH LAND (SAILORS AND SOLDIERS)— [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the provision of land in Ireland for men who have served in the Naval, Military, and Air Forces of the Crown in the present War, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament—

  1853

  (a) of the Expenses of the Land Commission in managing, letting, and improving land, and of the deficiencies on resales of land by the Land Commission;

  (b) of the Expenses of the Local Government Board for Ireland in the provision of cottages, plots, and gardens for ex-Service men; and

  (c) of the Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland for the purpose of promoting cooperation."

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) [MONEY.]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the removal of the limit imposed by Section forty-seven of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and by Section thirty-seven of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, on the contributions which may be made by the Treasury under those Sections, and to extend the powers of district boards of control in Scotland to borrow money."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Shortt, Dr. Addison, Mr. Munro, and Major Baird.
  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) BILL,—" to remove the limit imposed by Section forty-seven of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and by Section thirty-seven of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, on the contributions which may be made by the Treasury under those Sections and to extend the powers of district boards of control in Scotland to borrow money," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. H. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): I beg to move,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any additional sums which may become payable under Section 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to increase the rate of unemployment benefit payable under the National Insurance (Unemployment) Acts, 1911 to 1918, and to make certain consequential Amendments in those Acts."
  1854
  It will not be necessary to say more than a few words in explanation of what is involved in this Financial Resolution. It is proposed to read the Bill a second time to-morrow, if the House assents. The intention of the Bill is to increase the benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, at present in existance, from 7s. to 11s. per week. That in itself involves no extra grant of money by the House of Commons. Where the extra expenditure is involved is in the following, respect: Under Section 106 of the Insurance Act of 1911 and of the Amending Act of 1914 it is provided that the State shall give a subvention of one-sixth to any trade union that provides in itself a certain amount, or any amount, of unemployment benefit, but the amount is limited to one-sixth where the trade union pays no more than 17s. If it pays anything in excess of 17s. then the one-sixth does not apply in respect of any such sum in excess. What has happened in general has been this, if I may take a rough illustration. The trade unions in many cases have paid unemployment benefits to-the extent of 10s., while the State has paid 7s., with the result that the State has given a subvention of one-sixth of 10s. to the trade union. What will happen-now, with the amount of benefit going up, is that the 11s. will be paid by the State instead of 7s., and accordingly it is necessary to increase the amount of the limit-within which the State pays its subvention of one-sixth. Therefore, the Financial Resolution is required for the purpose of providing these extra moneys. In total, we do not estimate that this subvention will, under present circumstances at least, amount in any year to more than £6,000. By no possibility, and even then only under the most extreme circumstances, will it ever reach any sum above £20,000. The estimate now will not exceed a sum of something like £6,000. It will apply, according to present conditions, to something like 200,000 insured workpeople.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. As I gather, the first part will not entail any additional expenditure-upon the country. The report of the Government actuary is, as far as I can understand it, to that effect. Now we come to another thing altogether, and that is the provision under Section 106 of the principal Act, which provides in certain circumstances for a subsidy being paid by

  1855
  the Government to trade unions. Why on earth should the Government pay a subsidy to trade unions? Why should they pay a subsidy to trade unions any more than to federations of employers? Trade unions are very great associations which wield great influence already, and apparently are going to wield as great, if not greater, power in the future. They are associations with large sums of money, in some cases with very large sums of money. To use a colloquial phrase, why cannot we leave them on their own bottoms. I have always very much objected to these subsidies. In the first place, I do not think they are necessary, and, in the second place, I think they are; a bad thing altogether.
  Sir R. HORNE: But it is the law now.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is a very bad law. It is a bad law introduced into the Act of 1914. I am not quite certain that I am right, but as far as my recollection goes, the Act of 1914 was introduced at the beginning of the War.
  Sir R. HORNE: It began with the Act of 1911.
  Sir F. BANBURY: A very bad Government was in power in 1911, and it is only to be supposed that they would do things which more sensible persons would not agree to. My recollection is that the lion, and learned Member for Cambridge University objected in 1911 and in 1914 to these provisions. I suppose it is a little late to attempt to overthrow them now, though I should very much like to do so. I do not propose to do that because I do not think I should get any very great amount of support. But sometimes I think it is well to divide in order to show the principles which actuate you, and to have it recorded that you have some principles which you are prepared to back. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this subsidy will not cost more than £6,000 and in any event not more than £20,000.
  Sir R. HORNE: £25,000 in extreme cases.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It has gone up in the last few minutes. I think I prefer, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, to take the Estimate which he gave in his opening speech, and not the Estimate which he has given now, when he is rather inclined to think that I am going to move
  1856
  an Amendment. I do not propose to put in as much as £20,000, because that is very exceptional. I propose to give the right hon. Gentleman something like 140 per cent, increase on his original estimate of £6,000. I propose to add at the end the words
  "but in no case shall such sum exceed fifteen thousand pounds in any year."
  I trust the Government will accept that. It is extremely reasonable.
  Amendment proposed: At the end, add the words "but in no case shall such sum exceed fifteen thousand pounds in any one year."
  Sir R. HORNE: While I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's suggested words will affect in practice the operation of what I have proposed, I regret very much that I cannot accept his Amendment in principle, and for this reason: If you are going to give this subsidy to trade unions who are insured and are paying insurance benefit, it is absolutely impossible to work upon any limited sum. It must either apply to everyone who comes within the scope of the Act or to none. You cannot say if you have an enormous increase in insurance in this country—it would be a very good thing for the country if it happened—that once you have got to a certain number of unions, which would eat up the whole of the £15,000, thereafter you will give nothing to anyone else. It would be impossible in any year to say where you were, or how many unions you could recognise. While I appreciate entirely the desire for economy, and will endeavour to aid it in every way, in principle this Amendment is impossible
  Mr. MARRIOTT: On this point I desire to support the Minister of Labour, for the reason that here we have one of the eases in which what I may call the benefit side of the trade union movement is differentiated from the militant side of that movement. I should regret exceedingly if anything were done by this House which would in any degree discourage the benefit side of the trade union movement, and, very regretfully, on this occasion I must dissociate myself from the right hon. Baronet. We are very grateful, at least I am, for the information contained in the White Papers, but would it not be possible to let us have them in time to read them before the matter comes up? It may

  1857
  have been my own fault, and I do not know what time this White Paper was at the Vote Office.
  Sir R. HORNE: At seven o'clock last evening.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I apologise. I have been continuously employed, and even had I obtained it then I should not have had time to read it. Apart from this instance, I would ask that we should have the information on which the, Government base their Financial Resolutions in reasonable time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite sure that I am convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, because if there were a large increase in membership that would not mean unemployment.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: It would mean an increase of Government liability.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It might lead to unreasonable wages being demanded, and I do not want to do anything to support an abnormal rate of wages or to have them kept up by payment of Government money. I would like to know what happens in a strike.
  Sir R. HORNE: When a man is on strike his union may pay him strike pay, but he does not get unemployment pay or any subvention from the Government.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Tradesmen who are thrown out contingent, on a strike get benefit but not the strikers.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): How does the right hon. Baronet connect this with the Amendment?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not connect it, and I do not propose to pursue it. Under
  1858
  those circumstances I will not press the Amendment, though I regret some limit has not been introduced. A good many years ago when I first proposed Amendments of this kind to Financial Resolutions they met with more or less derision from all sides, but opinion has considerably changed, and Governments of late have been inclined to accept limiting. Resolutions, and in many instances they have done so.
  Amendment negatived.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Lieutenant - Colonel Weigall be discharged from the Committee.
  Ordered, That Lieutenant - Colonel Hilder be added to the Committee.— [Colonel Gibbs.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley), 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 after Five o'clock.