Commons Sitting of 29 July 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Brighton Corporation Water Bill,
Thames Conservancy Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 21st July, and agreed to.
Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Midlothian (Calder District) Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

POOR LAW RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy ordered, "of a Statement of the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1924 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 121, of 1923)."—[Mr. Wheatley.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPS' VALUABLES (SAFETY DEVICE).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the question of the provision of a safety device for ships' valuables has received the consideration of his Department; whether he is aware that the Dutch Royal Mail already insist upon such a
    1858
    provision, and that both America and France are prepared to give consideration to this provision; and whether the Board of Trade will be prepared to give consideration to the provision of such a device, provided that it does not entail expense upon British shipowners not similarly borne by foreign nationals?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): The provision of a safety device for ships' valuables is a matter in which the Board of Trade have no statutory powers, and they have taken no action with regard to it. If the Noble Lord will be good enough to send me the information to which he refers, and will explain why it is, in his opinion, desirable for the Government to intervene, I will go into the matter.

    DOVER HARBOUR (REFUGE DUES).
    Mr. SYDNEY JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that since the Dover Admiralty (or outer) Harbour has been taken over by the Dover Harbour Board, refuge dues are charged on windbound vessels which receive no advantage from the harbour erections and the cost of their maintenance; and, having regard to the desirability of doing nothing to deter masters of sailing vessels from putting into and remaining in the harbour in the interests of safety of masters and men while weather conditions are unsafe, will he make representations to the Dover Harbour Board, urging that the new imposition on weather-bound sailing ships be withdrawn?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to reply. The Dover Harbour Board were authorised by Parliament last year to levy half dues on vessels putting into the harbour in distress, which in all the circumstances are, I think, not unreasonable. I am not prepared, therefore, to urge the Harbour Board to withdraw the charges levied, but I have communicated a copy of the hon. Member's question to them.

    FOOD SUPPLIES AND PRICES.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information that the price of bread will be still further advanced in the near future?
    Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if there is likely to be a deficiency in the Canadian wheat crop this year; and, if so, will he state from what other countries the deficiency is likely to be made good?
    Mr. WEBB: An announcement has appeared in the Press that the price of bread in London is to be increased on Monday next from 9d. to 9½d. per 4-lb. loaf. So far as can be foreseen at present, although the abundant world crops of wheat which were secured last year will, in all probability, not be repeated this year, there is no reason to anticipate that the requirements of the world in respect of bread will not be met. Until the harvests of the Northern Hemisphere have been reaped, it will not be possible to say whether wheat prices are likely to continue high.
    In this connection, I should like to refer hon. Members to a summary statement. regarding the world's wheat supplies which appears in the current issue of "The Agricultural Market Report," prepared and edited by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. This Report indicates that the Canadian crop must fall short of last year's yield; but as it is too lengthy for an answer, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with a table of bread prices for recent years.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a rise in London flour of 7s. since July; that the Canadian Government are instituting inquiries into the matter; and will he say whether he is taking any steps in the matter?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the state of the supply of wheat justifies the rise which is now taking place?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable to interfere with the natural law of supply and demand?
    Mr. WELLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a report from Canada that the wheat crop is likely to be short by 120 million bushels this year, and will he say what are the Government plans to encourage wheat growing in this country?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 300,000
    1860
    fewer acres under wheat cultivation in this country than in 1922?
    Mr. RATHBONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the rumour now current that the Government of this country intend to buy a lot of wheat because they are afraid of a shortage next spring, is untrue?
    Mr. WEBB: There is no truth in the suggestion made in the last supplementary question. The Government are under no apprehension as to the provision of wheat for the ensuing year. As stated in my answer, there is no reason to suppose that there will not be ample wheat in the world for the requirements of the wheat-eating population. It is true that the prospects of the Canadian wheat crop are not so good as last year, but it would be premature to give a figure of the number of quarters that it will fall short when it is harvested. [HON. MEMBERS: "What will be the price?"] I cannot predict anything as to the price. The price of bread is nearly as high as it was at this time two years ago, during the whole of 1922. Since then, we have had a fall in price, but it has gone up again to something under one penny less than it was nearly throughout 1922. Any apprehension of an exceptional rise is, I think, unwarranted. In answer to the hon. Member who asked me whether the Government would take steps to interfere with the law of supply and demand, I should say, certainly, with all my heart, if only I knew how to do it.
    Following is the Report referred to:

    EXTRACT FROM THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET REPORT.
    Prepared and Edited by the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
    Friday, 25th July, 1924.
    Agriculture at Home and Abroad. World's Wheat Supplies.
    Preliminary official estimates issued this month of the wheat production of North America this season indicate a very substantial reduction as compared with last season, particularly in the case of Canada.
    United States.—The Deport of the Department of Agriculture relating to the position at the first of the month, puts the total estimated production of winter and spring wheat at 396 million cwts., which compares with 421 million cwts. last year, and 472 million cwts., the average of the preceding five years. During the last few seasons the quantity retained for home consumption and seed has averaged about 325 million cwts. On the basis of these figures the surplus available for export from this year's crop would be over 70 million cwts. It appears

    1861
    to be generally accepted, however, that the crop has improved since the 1st July, and that the next official estimate should show an increase on the July estimate.
    Canada.—The area under wheat is officially estimated at 21,616,000 acres, a reduction of a million acres as compared with last year. The first official forecast of the production is 171 million cwts. which compares with a final return last year of 253 million cwts. Recent weather conditions in that country have given a more favourable appearance to the crop, and the official estimate is now generally regarded as being too low, although the crop must fall far short of last year's yield. Home consumption and seed requirements in Canada average about 52 million cwts. annually, so that a substantial surplus will, on present appearances, be available for export to Europe.
    As regards the Southern Hemisphere, although it is as yet much too early to attempt to forecast the yield, prospects so far are favourable. In Argentina the area under the crop is reported to have been largely increased, as much new land has been brought under cultivation, and the appearance of the crop is stated to be promising. In Australia, conditions generally are stated to be satisfactory, although in some parts more rain is needed. The surplus from the Indian crop harvested last spring is substantial, and liberal exports are anticipated.
    In Europe, the outlook is lees encouraging. A severe drought in Rumania during May affected the growth of the crop, and it does not seem probable that much wheat

    AVERAGES OF THE RETAIL PRICES OF BREAD PER 4 LBS.

    (As shown in the returns received by the Ministry of Labour and published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.)

    —

    1921.

    1922.

    1923.

    1924.

    s.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    1st January

    …

    …

    1

    3¾

    10

    9

    8½

    (31st Dec, 1921).

    1st February

    …

    …

    1

    3¼

    9½

    9

    8½

    1st March

    …

    …

    1

    1¾

    10

    9

    8½

    1st April

    …

    …

    1

    1½

    10¼

    9

    8½

    (31st March).

    1st May

    …

    …

    1

    1½.

    10¼

    9

    8½

    (30th April).

    1st June

    …

    …

    1

    1½

    10¼

    9

    8½

    (31st May).

    1st July

    …

    …

    1

    1½

    10

    9

    8½

    (30th June).

    9

    (7th July).

    1st August

    …

    …

    1

    1½.

    10

    8¾

    —

    (2nd August).

    1st September

    …

    …

    1

    1¼

    9¾

    8¾

    —

    1st October

    …

    …

    1

    0½

    9¼

    8¾

    —

    (30th Sept.).

    1st November

    …

    …

    0

    11½

    9¼

    8½

    —

    1st December

    …

    …

    0

    10½

    9¼

    8½

    —

    will be available for export from that country next season. Reports from Russia are contradictory, but on the whole it will not be safe to regard that country as a source of supply during the coining season In importing countries although snore favourable weather conditions have prevailed generally during the last two months it seems doubtful whether the production will come up to the average, and the import requirements during the twelve months may therefore be as large as in the season now closing.
    The general position therefore is that, as compared with last season, there is a shorter crop in North America, but that the prospects in the other principal overseas sources of supply are on the whole not less favourable than they were at this time last year, and the quantities of the last crops still available for export are fairly substantial: while on the other hand the requirements of importing countries over the next twelve months will probably remain about the same as in 1923–4. The factor most influencing the outlook at present is the uncertainty as regards the Canadian crop, and to this is to be attributed the recent rise in prices aided, no doubt, as is usual in such circumstances, by market speculation. But there is no evidence at present that the world's supplies of wheat during 1924–5 will be under requirements, and although prices may for a time continue to be at higher levels than in the corresponding period of last year, and to that extent improves the position of our own producers, there is no justification at the present time for suggesting a coming shortage, still less a scarcity of wheat."
    Mr. CLARRYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the articles of food and comparative prices in December, 1923, and in June, 1924, which have shown any material alteration, and are comprised in the total food index figure of wholesale prices, namely, 159·7 and 159·3, respectively?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade those staple articles of popular food on which, since the beginning of the year there have been increases of prices, together with the reasons therefor; and whether his official advices indicate that any such increases are to be expected in the near future?
    Mr. WEBB: As the answer contains tables of figures, showing many decreases of price as well as increases, the hon. Members will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the tables:
    The average price quotation for June, 1924, used for the purposes of the Board of Trade Index Numbers of Wholesale Prices, which showed a change exceeding 15 per cent. as compared with the average quotation for December, 1923, were as follows:

    Increases of more than 15 per cent.

    Increase per cent.

    Potatoes, at Birmingham

    132·8

    Apples*

    104·2

    Potatoes, at London

    98·1

    Oranges

    82·9

    Mutton, English

    22·8

    Beef, port killed

    21·6

    Barley, Californian malting

    20·1

    Mutton, Scotch

    19·2

    Wheat, British, "Gazette average"

    17·1

    Bacon, Irish, green sides

    16·8

    * In the cases of apples and onions, the descriptions available in December and June are not identical. The December quotations relate to Nova Scotian apples and Spanish onions, the June quotations to Australian apples and Egyptian onions.

    Decreases of more than 15 per cent.

    Decrease per cent.

    Cod

    16·2

    Butter, Danish

    18·7

    Cheese, New Zealand

    20·0

    Cheese, Canadian

    20·6

    Pork, British

    21·1

    Butter, New Zealand

    21·9

    Haddock

    25·0

    Bloaters

    27·9

    Sugar, Tate's cubes, duty paid

    35·5†

    Milk

    36·5

    Onions*

    36·7

    Sugar, fine crystals at Glasgow, duty paid

    37·0†

    Eggs, Danish

    52·1

    Eggs, Irish

    56·9

    † The reduction of the duty on sugar affects these figures. The ex-duty prices fell by 22·6 per cent. in the case of cubes and 24·0 per cent. in the case of crystals.

    No trustworthy information exists as to the influences operating in the various markets to bring about such changes, nor am I in a position to forecast the course of food prices in the near future, either generally or in detail.
    Mr. WELLSasked the President of the Board of Trade if there is any increase in the quantity of wheat and flour imported into this country at the present time from the Argentine as compared with last year?
    Mr. WEBB: During the first half of this year the imports of wheat and wheat flour, registered as consigned from Argentina, amounted to 13,036,000 and 149,000 cwts. respectively. These quantities show increases, as compared with the first half of 1923, of 2,482,000 cwts. in the case of wheat and 52,000 cwts. in the case of wheat flour.

    COMPANY REGISTRATION (BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHARE HOLDERS).
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider introducing legislation to prevent a company registered under the Companies Act, all the directors and shareholders of which are of foreign origin, from using

    1865
    the word British as the first word of its title; and whether, in the interests of British trade, he will introduce legislation to the effect that any company registered under the Companies Act in the title of which the word British appears must make provision in its memorandum or articles of association that at least 51 per cent. of the capital shall remain in the possession of British subjects?
    Mr. WEBB: The suggestions made by the hon. Member will receive consideration when the next revision of the Companies Acts is undertaken.

    ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to give special consideration to the reparation claims of seamen which became belated owing to their continual absence on service abroad or which have been rejected through failure of claimants to answer requests for further information which did not reach them owing to absence at sea?
    Mr. WEBB: Very special consideration was given by the Royal Commission to claims by seamen and their dependents, as is shown by paragraph 14 of the Final Report of the Commission. All belated claims will now receive the most careful consideration in connection with the £300,600 provided for solatia to belated claimants.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    DYESTUFFS.
    Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement with regard to the proposed agreement between the British Dyestuffs Corporation and the Interessen-Gemeinschaft; and if he has any information to the effect that the latter company is seeking to make a similar agreement with the French manufacturers of dyestuffs?
    Mr. WEBB: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the matter mentioned in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, it is understood that an arrangement was made some years ago between
    1866
    the Interessen-Gemeinschaft and certain French dye manufacturers, but I am not aware of any contemplated new arrangement.
    Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that an attempt has not been made to set up an international trust?
    Mr. WEBB: I think there is no question of a complete international trust. We have in this country independent producers who are not at all inefficient.

    GLASS INDUSTRY.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a request on behalf of workpeople employed in the glass trade to see a deputation to place before him the facts concerning the present position of that trade; whether he has seen the deputation; and if he will state what is the value of glass goods imported into this country during the 12 months ending 30th June, 1924, and the amount produced in this country during the same period?
    Mr. WEBB: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. So far as the deputation wished to discuss the continuance of the duties which, under the terms of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, automatically expire on 19th August, I felt that no useful purpose would be served by a discussion. But as regards the matters which the deputation wished to raise regarding the supply of glassware under Government contracts, I offered to take these up with the Departments concerned on receipt of the necessary particulars. This offer is still open. As to the last part of the question, the total net imports (i.e., imports less re-exports) of glass and glassware into the United Kingdom registered during the 12 months ended 30th June, 1924, were valued at £4,362,000. Pending the completion of the Census of Production now being undertaken, there is no information available regarding the amount of glass produced in this country during any recent period.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the destruction of British trade in this country is the only problem that the Government have got for helping unemployment?
    Mr. WEBB: I am not aware that there is any destruction of trade in this country.
    Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: Is there any inherent reason why this four million pounds worth of glassware which is imported should not be made in this country?
    Mr. WEBB: In so far as it can be made in this country more advantageously than elsewhere, I see no reason.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any reason why poor people should have to pay more for glassware than is necessary?
    Sir F. HALL: Is there any reason why a working man should not have an opportunity of earning his living in his own country?

  BRITISH TRADE.

    COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the composition and the terms of reference of the proposed Committee of Inquiry upon British Trade?
    Mr. S. WEBB: Yes, Sir. I am glad to announce that Sir Arthur Balfour, of Sheffield, has been good enough to undertake the duties of chairman of this Committee, and the other members of the Committee are as follow:

    Mr. John Baker.

    Sir W. H. Beveridge.

    Mr. Henry Boothman.

    Mr. W. T. Charter.

    Mr. C. T. Cramp.

    Mr. Hugh Dalton.

    Sir Harry Goschen.

    Mrs. M. A. Hamilton.

    Mr. F. A. Hargreaves.

    Sir Norman Hill.

    Sir John Hindley.

    Mr. David Landale.

    Sir W. Clare Lees.

    Mr. P. J. Pybus.

    Mr. Arthur Shaw.

    Sir Allan Smith,

    Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith.

    The reply from one further proposed member is still outstanding, owing to his absence abroad.
    1868
    The terms of reference are:
    "To inquire into and report upon the conditions and prospects of British industry and commerce, with special reference to the export trade, and to make recommendations in regard thereto."
    It is proposed also to furnish the Committee with a memorandum which, without constituting a definition of the inquiry, may serve as explanatory of the subjects on which investigation is specially desired. I will have a copy of this memorandum circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir A. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the terms of reference sufficiently wide to enable the Committee to investigate first, the hours of labour, and the wages paid in competitive industries in the principal competing countries; second, the restrictions, if any, in force in this country and in other countries in competitive industries; and, third, the corresponding burden of rates and taxes in competitive industries in this and the competing countries? I hope that they will be sufficiently wide.
    Mr. W. THORNE: H the right hon. Gentleman is going to make inquiry into all the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend, will he also make inquiry into the amount of the product per hour per day by the British worker as compared with the worker in competing countries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Then hon. Members opposite will come a cropper.
    Mr. WEBB: All the topics referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Sir A. Bean) will certainly be within the scope of the reference to the Committee, and this will be made clear when hon. Members have an opportunity of reading the explanatory memorandum which will be circulated.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the Mr. Dalton referred to the gentleman who is responsible for the issue of the pamphlet to which reference was made yesterday Further, as it was the intention of the Government not to appoint Members of Parliament to serve on this Committee, may not that be taken as an estimate of that gentleman's chances?
    Mr. WEBB: I have no information as to either of these supplementary questions. Mr. Dalton as an economist of

    1869
    distinction was asked to act on the Committee long before there was any question of his candidature.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very few of these gentlemen have any practical knowledge of these questions? Is he aware that most of them are theorists? Does he not think it advisable to put a representative of labour who has worked in industry and a manufacturer upon this Committee?
    Mr. TURNER: Is it not a fact that two of the members of the Committee represent the textile industry of Lancashire and Yorkshire, who have great experience of the work?
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Who represents the iron and steel trade on this Committee?
    Mr. WEBB: I would ask hon. Members to reserve their opinions on the names until they have them before them with their designations, and they may be glad to be relieved of any criticism until they have the names before them. Nearly all the names are those of gentlemen who are engaged, and have been a long time engaged, in the principal branches of industry.
    Following is the Memorandum:
    The first question to which the attention of the Committee should be directed is the present position of British overseas trade and the prospect of British participation in the markets of the world being such as to ensure sufficient and continuous employment and a satisfactory standard of living in this country. The examination of tendencies and developments in the markets of the world and also in the chief competing countries will be involved, together with an inquiry into the growth of competition with British goods in these markets, the likelihood of its continuance, and its probable consequences.
    The second question is the ability of British industry to meet competition under the conditions thus determined, and to adapt itself to changes in the nature of overseas demand. This involves an inquiry into British productive capacity and organisation, including the supply and efficiency of capital, labour and management, the present and future adequacy of raw materials and possible
    1870
    improvements in their utilisation, and the part played by the United Kingdom in new developments of industry, particularly those which are the outcome of scientific research. Matters to which attention might be directed are the present extent of large scale production, its possibilities and limitations; the efficiency of plant and equipment; power supply and transport as factors in cost of production; marketing organisation at home and abroad; and the current methods of industrial and commercial finance. It will be necessary, in addition, to take account of the effect of State regulative action upon costs and output.
    The third question is that of the relations between those engaged in production. This will involve inquiry into methods of industrial remuneration, the main causes of unrest and disputes, and the methods of avoidance or settlement of disputes, as, for example, co-partnership, co-operation, wages boards and voluntary arbitration, State regulation of wages, and compulsory arbitration and compulsory enforcement and extension of agreements.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LIEUTENANT C. H. GLENDINNING.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position Lo state whether it is his intention to appoint a commission or committee to hold a public inquiry into the case of Lieutenant C. H. Glen-dinning?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): I have given this matter the personal consideration which I promised in the House on 20th May. The case has been examined by the Army Council, and I have now made my Report to His Majesty, under Section 42 of the Army Act.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what that means? Is there going to be an inquiry?
    Mr. WALSH: I stated to my hon. Friend months ago, in answer to a special request, that I would give the matter my own personal consideration. Not only did I make that announcement, but I am bound, under the law of the land, to act under Section 42 of the Army

    1871
    Act. That was the procedure which I promised to the House. That procedure I have adopted. I am bound to make a Report to His Majesty, and I must wait for His Majesty's decision before I can take any further action.
    Mr. LANSBURY: That is all right. We can wait and see.

    OFFICERS (TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers serving on temporary commissions with the Regular Army have been demobilised since 31st March, 1924; and what is the total number of such officers still so employed?
    Mr. WALSH: The number of temporary officers at present serving is 294, and the number formally "demobilised" since the end of March is 20.

    SANDHURST COLLEGE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MEYLERasked the Secretary of State for War what reductions in the establishment of companies at Sandhurst has been necessitated by the shortage of cadets; and what steps the Government propose to take to counteract the present disinclination of parents to allow their sons to seek commissions in the Army?
    Mr. WALSH: With effect from January next, the five existing companies will be temporarily reduced to four. As regards the last part of the question, Government policy on this important question cannot appropriately be dealt with by way of question and answer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not one of the main difficulties the very high fees charged in Sandhurst?

    ARMY SERVICE CORPS (OFFICERS).
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War what are the qualifications which entitle officers of the Royal Army Service Corps to draw corps pay; and whether officers who have passed the technical examination at the Royal Army Service Corps school of instruction at Aldershot are entitled to such pay?
    Mr. WALSH: The qualification which entitles an officer of the Royal Army Service Corps to draw corps pay is that
    1872
    he has qualified in the examination for Associate Member of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, or in any other examination which the institute accepts as equivalent to their own for the purpose of granting associate membership. The technical examination at the Royal Army Service Corps school of instruction does not qualify for corps pay.

    HIRE OF MARE, TERRITORIAL CAMP, PORTHCAWL.
    Mr. RHYSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the claim of Mr. David Griffiths, Llwyndewi, Whitland, Carmarthenshire, for payment in respect of a mare hired out for the Territorial camp at Porthcawl last August; whether he is aware that the mare was returned on 27th August suffering from acute strangles, and that Mr. Griffiths refused to take possession of her in that condition; that the mare was eventually returned on 3rd October and that Mr. Griffiths is claiming 50s. a week from 12th August to 3rd October, being the agreed rate for the duration of the camp, and £10 damages, as the mare was not available for sale at the end of the summer; whether he is aware that repeated claims for settlement have been made; and whether immediate steps will be taken to investigate and settle the matter?
    Mr. WALSH: I have ascertained that the Territorial Association concerned did not hire the horse from Mr. Griffiths, but from a firm of contractors at Cheltenham who, I presume, obtained the horse from Mr. Griffiths in their turn. In these circumstances any claim which Mr. Griffiths may have lies not against the Department, but against the Cheltenham firm. In case, however, the hon. Member thinks that the Department has any moral responsibility in the matter, I may add that the firm from whom we obtained the horse have made no complaint to us; but have, on the contrary, stated that the horse was returned to them, after the camp, in good health and condition.
    Mr. RHYS: When a horse is hired out to the Territorial Army has not the man who hired out the horse to the Territorial camp some moral claim against the Department, and will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to see that justice is done?
    Mr. WALSH: No. That is exactly the point which I have endeavoured to submit to the House. The firm of contractors from whom the Territorial Association obtained the horse have indemnified the Association definitely against any loss due to sickness, injury or death. Therefore the claim, if any—into that particular point I do not propose to enter—of Mr. Griffiths is against the contractor and not against the Territorial Association.
    Mr. HANNON: Is not this a question that ought to be dealt with privately, and not by question and answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes. We ought not to spend so much time over it.

    DEATH PENALTY (WAR SENTENCES).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War what was the nature of the assistance, if any, afforded for their defence to the 32 soldiers under 21 years of age upon whom the death penalty was inflicted during the late War?
    Mr. WALSH: This question can only be answered by reference to the individual cases. I am having them examined, and will communicate further with the hon. Member in due course.

    ORDNANCE WORKS, CHILWELL (DISCHARGES).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that of the present 268 moil employed in the ordnance workshops at Chilwell 31 are under notice of dismissal for the 30th, and that the remaining 214 will be discharged on or before 1st October; whether, in view of the fact that the majority of these men have spent the greater part of their business lives in the Army or Army Departments and have, therefore, very little experience in civilian business, special efforts are being made to find these men employment under the War Department; and if he will state how far these efforts have been successful in the case of men already dismissed from Chilwell?
    Mr. WALSH: I am aware that 23 men are under notice for discharge on 30th July and that about 200 others will probably have to be discharged by 31st October. I am not aware, however, that the majority of these men have passed their lives in the service of the Royal
    1874
    Army Ordnance Department, and are thereby unfitted by inexperience from undertaking other work. Chilwell was only taken over as an Ordnance Depot in 1919, and the large majority of the employés there have only been in ordnance service since that date.
    With regard to the last part of the question, no pre-War employés have yet been discharged from Chilwell, but when the necessity for their leaving Chilwell arises I trust that most, if not all, of them can be absorbed in other War Department establishments. I regret that it has not been possible to provide employment for the post-War men.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the War Office making any effort to obtain employment for these men?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: How many men have already been found employment? The right hon. Gentleman promised to find work for these men.
    Mr. WALSH: What I did promise—and what the Department is doing to the best of its ability, under exceedingly difficult circumstances, having regard to the vast number of unemployed in the ordinary branches of industry—was that we would do our best to find employment for those whom we have unfortunately been compelled to discharge. That we are doing.
    Mr. BETTERTON: How far has the right hon. Gentleman been successful in finding employment for the men already discharged?
    Mr. WALSH: I could not answer offhand.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I put that question on the Paper.

    LULWORTH COVE (WAR OFFICE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what are the War Office intentions with regard to the land they hold at Lulworth Cove?
    Mr. WALSH: The War Office have decided to exercise their powers of purchase under the Acquisition of Land Acts, but this will not preclude the resumption of negotiations for a lease of the land if suitable terms can be arranged.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand then that, having lost

    1875
    their cause before the Courts, the War Office are now going to fall back on those powers which were intended for the purchase of land principally for housing?
    Mr. WALSH: I do not know that the War Office has lost its cause before the Courts. So long as legal rights remain, they can always be exercised by private individuals or by a Government Department. We are going to proceed under the law of the land, which enables us to acquire land by compulsion, if necessary.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the War Office are going to remain in possession of this beautiful piece of country indefinitely?
    Mr. WALSH: Oh, no!
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What are you going to do?
    Mr. WALSH: What we are going to do is a matter for future policy.
    Sir K. WOOD: Did not the learned Judge who heard the case say that the War Office ought to vacate this land?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman not stated to the House that the War Office propose to exercise their rights of purchase?
    Mr. WALSH: I have also stated that that will not preclude negotiations for a lease, if a lease can be satisfactorily arranged.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is strong feeling in the country that this beautiful piece of land ought not to be purchased, or even leased, for a purpose of this kind?

  SCOTLAND.

    LOANS TO FISHERMEN.
    Mr. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the total amount of the 12 loans which his Department has approved of under the recent scheme for assisting Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the very limited operation of the scheme for the provision of loans to the Scottish drift-net fishermen for the purchase of nets, due to the high rate of
    1876
    interest exacted and to the stringent conditions attaching to the loans, he is now prepared to modify these conditions and provide the loans at a lower rate of interest than 5 per cent.?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I propose to answer these questions together, seeing that the two appear to be directed to the same purpose. The amount approved at the time referred to was £413. I do not agree with the suggestion that the limited operation of the scheme up to the present time is due to stringency of the conditions. There are other factors that must be taken into account. In the first place, the existing nets and gear have proved sufficient to enable the catch for the period since 1st April to be increased from 583,000 crans in 1923 to 690,000 crans in 1924, the corresponding figures for the whole year being 687,000 crans in 1923 and 931,000 craws in 1924. I cannot at present give the comparative values, but the values this year are greatly in excess of those realised in 1923 and the fishing has been much more remunerative to the fishermen. In the second place, it appears to me that the importance of bringing in £150,000 of new capital into the Scottish herring fishing industry is being much under-valued by the hon. Members. In the third place, may I say that I believe that this constant campaign for modification of the existing conditions is also having its effect in retarding the operation of the scheme?
    Mr. STUART: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman considered it necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for £150,000?
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that money is being advanced to other sections of the community at a much lower rate of interest than 5 per cent.? Why should the fishermen be asked to pay 5 per cent. when money is being advanced to others at 3½ per cent.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that, so far as this scheme is concerned, the fishermen who most needed the help have not been able to get it under the conditions of the scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman modify the scheme?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that this is introducing £150,000 of new

    1877
    capital into the industry? Is he not aware that this loan is not taken advantage of because of the stringency of the conditions attached to it?
    Mr. STUART: May I have an answer to my question?

    CLYDEBANK (NON-PAYMENT OF RENT).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOURasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his negotiations with a view to securing a settlement of the difficulties in Clydebank have been continued; and whether any progress has been made?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am still in negotiation, and am not in a position to add to my reply to the right hon. and gallant Member on the 17th July.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Is there any prospect at all of any progress being made; and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that if no progress is made the local authorities will be put into a serious position with regard to assessment for rating? Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any prospect to them?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this morning's Scottish papers there appears the announcement that to-day evictions are being asked for against tenants in arrears in Clydebank, and whether this position will not give rise to great trouble in that district and cause an extra burden to be thrown on the local authorities? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking in this matter?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I had not heard of the information which has just been conveyed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). In reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour), while negotiations are in progress there is always hope of settlement.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that an answer of that character will be sufficient for a local authority which will be compelled, if there is no payment and if the rates are owing, to assess at a much higher rate the remaining part of the community in the district?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The local authority referred to by my right hon. and gallant
    1878
    Friend is aware that I have been doing all that it is possible for man to do to effect a settlement in this matter.
    Mr. HOPE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has any other impersonated difficulties behind him which he would like to settle, but cannot?

    SEED-TESTING STATION.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, seeing that the losses incurred on the seed-testing station amounted to £5,910 on the 31st March, 1923, he will say whether any further loss was made on the seed-testing station during the year ended 31st March, 1924; and if he has any hope of this institution being placed on a self-supporting footing?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The accounts for this station for the year 1923–24 will not be completed for some time yet, but the Board's estimate for the year in question contained provision for meeting an excess of expenditure over receipts for this service. In view of the scientific nature of the work and its great value to the development of agriculture it can hardly be expected, nor, so far as I am aware, is it the experience of other countries where a similar policy is in operation, that it can be placed on a self-supporting footing.
    Mr. HANNON: Is this intended as an experimental station, or is it to be conducted on a business basis?
    Sir F. WISE: How many farmers use this seed-testing station?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put on the Paper.

    SMALL-HOLDING COLONIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary for Scotland the aggregate losses upon the small-holding colonies in Scotland in respect of estate management and farm management, respectively, as on the 31st March, 1924; and whether, seeing that the total losses under each of these heads were £150,419 and £78,200, respectively, on 31st March, 1923, he proposes to take any measures to put these schemes on a self-supporting basis?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The accounts relating to the period ended 31st March, 1923, have recently been published, and as the corresponding accounts for the following

    1879
    year will not be completed until towards the end of the current financial year I cannot give the aggregate figures desired by the hon. Member at present. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that Parliament has fully recognised the importance and value of land settlement to the country, especially in relation to its responsibility to the ex-service men, and that this national policy must inevitably cost money. Everything practicable, however, is being done to minimise the loss.
    Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue this scheme indefinitely without regard to the cost to the country as evidenced by the figures set out in my question?
    Mr. ADAMSON: This is a policy which has been settled by this House.

    HOUSING SUBSIDY (RURAL AREAS).
    Mr. FALCONERasked the Secretary for Scotland the rural areas in Scotland which will be entitled to the subsidy of £12 10s. under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill as amended on Report?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of rural areas in Scotland which will be eligible for the increased subsidy of £12 10s. under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, as amended.
    Following is the list:

    LIST OF PARISHES IN SCOTLAND IN WHICH THE LANDWARD AREA WILL BE ENTITLED TO THE SUBSIDY OF £12 10s. UNDER THE HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)BILL.
    (1) Scotland, excluding Highlands and Islands.
    Aberdeen County:

    All parishes except—

    * Aberdeen.

    Aboyne.

    Crathie and Braemar.

    Glenmuick.

    Newhills.

    Peterculter.

    * Parish wholly burghal.

    Ayr County:

    All parishes except—

    Auchinleck.

    Beith.

    Dalmellington.

    Dalry.

    Dreghorn.

    Irvine.

    Kilbirnie.

    Kilmaurs.

    Largs.

    Muirkirk.

    Riccarton.

    Stevenston.

    Banff County:

    All parishes.

    Berwick County:

    All parishes.

    Bute County:

    All parishes except—

    Kilbride.

    * Rothesay.

    Clackmannan County:

    All parishes except—

    Alloa.

    Alva.

    Dumbarton, County:

    All parishes except—

    Arrochar.

    Bonhill.

    Cardross.

    Kilpatrick, New.

    Kilpatrick, Old.

    Kirkintilloch.

    Roseneath.

    Row.

    Dumfries County:

    All parishes except—

    Dornock.

    Gretna.

    Kirkconnel.

    East Lothian County:

    All parishes except—

    Ormiston.

    Prestonpans.

    Fife County:

    All parishes except—

    Aberdour.

    * Anstruther Easter.

    Auchterderran.

    Auchtertool.

    * Parish wholly burghal.

    Fife County—cont.

    All parishes except—

    Ballingry.

    Beath.

    Burntisland.

    Culross.

    Dunfermline.

    Inverkeithing.

    Leslie.

    Markinch.

    St. Monans.

    Torryburn.

    Tulliallan.

    Wemyss.

    Forfar County:

    All parishes except—

    Lochlee.

    Montrose.

    Kincardine County:

    All parishes except—

    Bervie.

    Kinross County:

    All parishes.

    Kirkcudbright County:

    All parishes.

    Lanark County:

    All parishes except—

    Blantyre.

    Bothwell.

    Cadder.

    Cambuslang.

    Cambusnethan.

    Carluke.

    Dalserf.

    Dalziel.

    Glasgow.

    * Govan.

    Hamilton.

    Monkland, New.

    Monkland, Old.

    Rutherglen.

    Shotts.

    Stonehouse.

    Midlothian County:

    All parishes except—

    Calder, Mid.

    Calder, West.

    Carrington.

    Cockpen.

    * Edinburgh.

    Glencorse.

    Inveresk.

    Lasswade.

    Newbattle.

    Penicuik.

    Temple.

    * Parish wholly burghal.

    Moray County:

    All parishes.

    Nairn County:

    All parishes.

    Peebles County:

    All parishes except—

    Kirkurd.

    Tweedsmuir.

    Perth County:

    All parishes except—

    Aberfoyle.

    Arngask.

    Glendevon.

    Killin.

    Renfrew County:

    All parishes except—

    Cathcart.

    Eastwood.

    Greenock.

    Inchinnan.

    Inverkip.

    Kilbarchan.

    Kilmacolm.

    Neilston.

    Paisley.

    Renfrew.

    Roxburgh County:

    All parishes.

    Selkirk County:

    All parishes.

    Stirling County:

    All parishes except—

    Buchanan.

    Denny.

    Falkirk.

    Grangemouth.

    Killearn.

    Kilsyth.

    Larbert.

    Muiravonside.

    St. Ninians.

    Stirling.

    Strathblane.

    West Lothian County:

    All parishes except—

    Abercorn.

    Bathgate.

    Bo'ness.

    Dalmeny.

    Ecclesmachen.

    Kirkliston.

    Livingston.

    Torphichen.

    Uphall.

    Whitburn.

    Wigtown County:

    All parishes except—

    * Stranraer.

    (2) Highlands and Islands.
    All parishes in the following counties:

    Argyll.

    Caithness.

    Inverness.

    Orkney.

    Ross and Cromarty.

    Sutherland.

    Zetland.

    All parishes in the Highland District of the County of Perth.

    * Parish wholly burghal.

    COKE (SALE).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to complaints that coke is being sold in unsatisfactory condition, and the suggestion that all coke should be sold by weight and that it should be made an offence to water coke with a view to increasing its weight fraudulently; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. WEBB: I have received from the London County Council a suggestion to the effect mentioned by the hon. Member, and the matter is being considered. Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the suggestion.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how coke is to be cooled unless by the use of water?

  TRANSPORT.

    THIRD-CLASS ROADS.
    Mr. BLACKasked the Minister of Transport whether he can now promise any Government grants to rural district councils for the improvement and maintenance of their ordinary third-class roads, seeing that these roads are now largely used for motor-car traffic and that otherwise they cannot be kept in a satisfactory condition?
    Mr. GOSLING: As I stated on the 17th June, in reply to a question by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New
    1884
    Forest and Christchurch Division (Colonel Ashley), a further sum of £1,000,000 has been allocated towards the improvement of important roads in rural areas. This is additional to the sum of £2,750,000 already allocated to this purpose during the past 18 months.
    Mr. BLACK: Is the Minister aware that the ordinary rural roads are deteriorating very seriously, and that it is impossible for the rural areas to carry out repairs and maintain them without further grants?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly the question on the Paper.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will not recommend the grant of any further money to the Leicestershire County Council until they put their roads in order?

    WORKMEN'S FARES.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Minister of Transport when the decision of the Railway Rates Tribunal will be given relative to charges for conveyance of workmen?
    Mr. GOSLING: I am not in a position to add to the answer which I gave on the 15th July to a somewhat similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Minister take any steps to have this question settled. Is he aware of the burden imposed on workmen by these excessive fares, and that the kind of reply which he has given does not satisfy those concerned.

    SPRINGHEAD LOCOMOTIVE WORKS, HULL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has been able to do anything towards preventing or delaying the threatened closing down of the Springhead Locomotive Works at Hull, with the distress and unemployment that will be caused by such action; and, if so with what result?
    Mr. GOSLING: As I explained to the hon. and gallant Member on the 24th June, the railway company propose to close down the Springhead Locomotive Works at Hull in order to enable them to concentrate at their Darlington works the locomotive work in the company's

    1885
    north-eastern area. I am not prepared to oppose these proposals, but I have called the company's attention to certain aspects of the case put before me at a deputation introduced by the hon. and gallant Member. The company have assured me that, while in the interests of economy they feel obliged to close the Springhead Works, every consideration is being given to individual cases of hardship which are brought to their notice, and I shall be glad to put before them any individual case of which the hon. Member informs me.

    OMNIBUS TOP-DECK COVERS.
    Mr. HUGHESasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the congestion and delay on the underground railways when heavy rainstorms make it impracticable for the tops of omnibuses to be used by passengers; and whether, in view of the great inconvenience caused thereby, he is now able to make a statement with regard to the Report that has been prepared by the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, with a view to the adoption of some form of top-deck covers for passenger-carrying motor vehicles, such as omnibuses?
    Mr. GOSLING: The Committee to which the hon. Member refers have not made any report to me upon the subject of top-deck covers for omnibuses. The designing of satisfactory and suitable top-deck covers for these vehicles presents many difficulties and I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. HUGHES: Will the Minister give permission for some form of top-deck cover approved by him to be tried by way of experiment on, say, a dozen omnibuses?
    Mr. GOSLING: The matter is still being looked into.

    LEVEL CROSSINGS (MAIN ROADS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has taken any steps to inquire into the possibility of doing away with level-crossings across our main arterial roads and substituting bridges for them; and whether he intends to do anything in the matter, in view of the employment which would be forthcoming for skilled and unskilled labour if this be done?
    Mr. GOSLING: Yes, I have been inquiring into this, and as part of the general scheme now under consideration for the improvement of some of the principal trunk roads of the country, we are proposing to get rid of certain level crossings. In addition to this, as I have already explained to the Noble Lord, I am always ready to consider favourably applications from highway authorities for assistance to any practical proposals of a similar nature on important roads.

    ROAD SURFACES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has taken or intends to take any steps to inquire into the slippery nature of the new road surfaces now being laid on the main arterial roads of the country, whereby many serious accidents have been caused?
    Mr. GOSLING: Complaints as to the slippery nature of certain road surfaces are being carefully investigated, and continuous attention is being bestowed on the whole problem of combining smoothness of surface with adequate grip for tyres. But, as the Noble Lord is aware, I have a Bill awaiting Second Reading which will enable me to make full experiments, and he can perhaps assist me with his great influence.
    Captain BRASS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these extra-slippery roads cost 22s. per square yard, whereas the ordinary concrete roads cost only 12s. per square yard?
    Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE: Are these experiments being undertaken in connection with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, with a view to the roads being made more passable for horses?

    PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES (POLICE INSPECTION.
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Home Secretary if he is prepared to take action to ensure that chars-a-bane, passenger-carrying lorries, etc., shall be subjected to similar police inspection as Metropolitan stage carriages and vehicles plying for public hire are at present subjected?
    Mr. DAVIES: In so far as these vehicles are required by statute to be licensed by the Commissioner of Police

    1887
    of the Metropolis, they are subject to the same police inspection as other licensed stage carriages in the Metropolitan police district.

  POST OFFICE.

    OVERSEAS SERVICES (PENZANCE-LONDON).
    Major Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELLasked the Postmaster-General how many new land lines have been laid through the West Country in the last year to carry increasing overseas telegraphic business from Penzance to London?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Vernon Hartshorn): No new land lines have been constructed for the purpose in question. The existing plant is sufficient to meet the present needs of the overseas services via Penzance.

    PACIFIC CABLE.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that his predecessor promised on 17th April, 1923, to convey a representation to the Pacific Cable Board as to the desirability of linking our Pacific cable with the American cables at Honolulu; whether he can state what reply was made; and whether the Pacific Cable Board are doing anything towards the duplication of the cable north of Fiji?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The matter was brought to the notice of the Pacific Cable Board. I understand that the Board prefer to follow the present route, and are now considering whether the duplication north of Fiji shall be by cable or by wireless.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. BLACKasked the Prime Minister whether, in response to the friendly representations of the United States Government, he proposes to take steps to put a stop to the sending from the United Kingdom of liquors which ultimately reach, although they are prohibited from sale in, the United States?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): The possibility of taking measures to put a stop to the sending from the United Kingdom of liquors which ultimately reach
    1888
    the United States is still under consideration, the difficulty being to frame measures which will not hamper legitimate trade.
    Sir A. BENN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether America has really asked us to assist them in enforcing the law, and whether it is not the law of the United States that any citizen of the United States can send out of America munitions of war even to belligerents in war time?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I must have notice of that question.

  AGRICULTURE.

    OUSE DRAINAGE BOARD.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the Ouse Drainage Board have issued demand notes for the second Ouse drainage rate for the period July, 1922, to March, 1924; and will he state the amount collected and the amount outstanding on the first drainage rate for the period from October, 1920, to July, 1922?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): I believe the position is as stated in the first part of the question. As to the second part, I am endeavouring to ascertain the desired particulars from the Ouse Board, and will send them to the hon. Member.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the Report on the Ouse Drainage Act is awaited with consider able anxiety; and can he now state when he proposes to make it public?
    Mr. BUXTON: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated in reply to the hon. Member fm. Huntingdon (Mr. Costello) on the 15th instant, reports of such inquiries are confidential and not for publication.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will estimate for the years 1913 and 1923, respectively, the acreage of arable land and the acreage under grass in Great Britain, and the numbers, respectively, of farmers and farm labourers employed in the industry in each of these years?
    Mr. BUXTON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The area of arable land in Great Britain in 1913 on holdings of over one acre was 14,360,000 acres, and of permanent grass 17,567,000 acres; the figures for 1923 were 14,479,000 acres and 16,189,000 acres respectively. The number of holdings was 513,000 in 1913 and 488,000 in 1923, and while in a number of cases two or more holdings were in the same occupation, the number of holdings may be taken as a close approximation to the number of occupiers. The number of workers, according to the returns furnished by the occupiers, employed on the 4th June, 1913, was 628,000 regular workers, and 112,000 casual workers; the figures for 1923 being 725,000 and 169,000 respectively. I should explain that the figures of the number of workers are not quite comparable for these two years. In 1913 the figures do not include members of the occupier's family; those for 1923 do not include the occupier and his wife, but include any other members of the family working on the holding.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Minister of Agriculture how many farmers in Great Britain are owner-occupiers of the whole of their farms; and how ninny are exclusively tenants?
    Mr. BUXTON: The total number of holdings of over one acre in extent in Great Britain in 1923, owned or mainly owned by the occupiers was 96,275, and the number rented or mainly rented was 391,532.

    GRETNA (SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the total money received from the sale of property at Gretna; and whether any of the works plant has been sold?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The total of the sales resulting from the auction last week is £107,716. The only works plant sold was the ether factory.
    Mr. HARDIE: Was not a promise given that a high reserve price would be
    1890
    put upon this property with a view to its being used for Government purposes, and may we know what that price was, and whether that price was stated to the auctioneer?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It is quite true that a reserve price was put upon this factory, as upon all other property which was put up for auction. The ether factory was not sold at the auction because the reserve price was not reached, but it was disposed of later for a sum which was only £250 below the reserve price. The reserve price was £20,000, and it was sold at £19,750.
    Mr. HARDIE: May I ask who it was that fixed the reserve price at that low sum, on a plant costing £250,000?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the fact that nobody was prepared to buy for the purpose of carrying it on as a going concern showed that the reserve price was a fairly reasonable figure.
    Mr. HANNON: What percentage does the amount of property sold bear to the total estimated value of the property?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am quite sure my hon. Friend, with his wide and intimate knowledge of business, cannot expect me to answer an inquiry like that by question and answer. It would require a great deal of investigation.
    Mr. HANNON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman's colleague in the Treasury state yesterday, in reply to a supplementary question of mine, that the value of the property sold was a small percentage of the total estimated value of the property?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: If that is what the hon. Gentleman means, certainly. It is public knowledge that the Gretna factory cost an enormous sum of money, and it is quite impossible to realise anything like its original cost. But the hon. Member and other hon. Members should recognise that the factory was erected during war time and for war purposes, and that therefore the question as to cost was a very minor consideration at that time. I think I may add that, in point of fact, with the exception of the ether factory, everything that we get from the sale of property at Gretna is, in a sense, clear profit, because the entire cost of the equipment and buildings was saved by the reduced cost of munitions.
    Mr. HARDIE: May I ask whether the Government in charge made every investigation as to the possibilities of the plant, and why did they not take the report which was given to them, and have it investigated, either by those in the Cabinet who understood, or by permanent officials who are supposed to understand?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have not seen any such report as that to which my hon. Friend refers, but I may say that this question of Gretna has received not only my own personal attention, but the attention of other Departments of the Government during the last few months, and everything possible has been done to make the best of this sale. I think the results of the auction are very illuminating. Had there been possibilities for private enterprise, I think there would have been a great deal more competition than there was at the sale.
    Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that private enterprise is playing the game?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As a matter of fact, the only works sold were the ether factory. All the other factories are still on our hands.

    ART TREASURES (SALE TO FOREIGNERS).
    Captain EDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the sale to foreign nationals, and consequent loss to this country, of certain of our national art treasures; and whether he will consider the possibility of imposing an export duty to check the expansion of this practice?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not unaware of the circumstance to which the hon. and gallant Member calls attention. The remedy that he suggests is one which I understand has already been considered and rejected on several occasions.
    Captain EDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that now almost every other country which possesses art treasures has regulations in force much more stringent than those suggested in the question?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am quite sure that everybody has sympathy with the object which the hon. and gallant Member has
    1892
    in view, but this matter has been considered times without number, and the possibility of working an export duty is very remote indeed. The hon. and gallant Member will realise how very easy it is to evade an export tax of this kind, and what irritating restrictions would be involved. I think, if there were such an export duty, every article of export would have to be very carefully examined by the Customs authorities.

    NEWHAVEN (CUSTOMS EXAMINATION).
    Captain BRASSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the inconvenience and delay caused to passengers travelling from Paris to London by the Dieppe-Newhaven route through the London train being held up unnecessarily long at Newhaven by the action of the Customs officials of that port forcing each passenger to open every single package he or she may possess, these packages being frequently closed again without examination; and, in view of this fact, whether he can see his way to issue instructions for a more efficient and less prolonged examination of passengers' luggage take place at this port, so that travellers may have their luggage examined there without undue delay, as is the practice at the other cross-Channel ports of Dover, Folkestone and Southampton?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am informed that the Customs procedure at Newhaven is the same as at the other ports mentioned in the question. It is not the case at Newhaven or elsewhere that passengers generally are required to open all their packages for examination.
    Captain BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to find out how often the train from Newhaven to London is late when the boat arrives punctually at Newhaven?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I anticipated some such question as that, and I am informed that no complaint at all has been made. It is quite true, I understand, that occasionally all packages of passengers are searched, but only when they have reason to suspect that there has been smuggling.

  INCOME TAX.

    FORMS (DISTRIBUTION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the great number of Income Tax forms distributed to persons who are ineligible to pay Income Tax; and whether anything can be done to prevent this unnecessary distribution, especially where the wages of people are well known from the returns sent in by the employers?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I think that the hon. and gallant Member is under some misapprehension in this matter. The issue of Income Tax forms of return is primarily governed by the law, but such administrative modifications as are practicable under the existing machinery of the Income Tax have been made in order to secure that the number of forms annually issued is reduced to the minimum necessary in the interests of the Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that individual incomes vary from year to year, and that liability to tax does not depend solely on earnings, but on total income from all sources.

    LANDOWNERS (ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS).
    Major STEELasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the purpose of the Government's Amendment of Rule 8 of No. V Rules in Schedule A is to entitle landowners to recover Income Tax on expenditure incurred in making additions and improvements where such additions and improvements are carried out in order that existing farmhouses, farm buildings and cottages may comply with the requirements laid down for new buildings by statutory provisions or local regulations and by-laws?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the discussion which took place during the Report stage of the Finance Bill on the Amendment of Rule 8 of No. V in Schedule A, which is now embodied in Clause 25 of the Bill, he will see that the Clause does not go so far as is suggested. I would add, however, that in practice it is not proposed normally to raise objection to the inclusion in a claim under Rule 8 of expenditure incurred by a landowner on additions or improvements to farmhouses, farm build-
    1894
    ing or cottages in anticipation of a notice under statutory provisions or regulations.
    Major STEEL: Will instructions be issued to all the collectors of taxes to interpret this new Clause in the meaning of the question as I have put it down?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have no doubt that the terms of the proposals which we embodied in the Finance Bill will be brought to the notice of the local inspectors, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that in administrative practice the case which he has in mind will be completely covered.

    SIR JOHN SOANE MUSEUM.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will request the trustees of the Sir John Soane Museum, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, to allow a suitable committee from the Board of Education, or the Victoria and Albert Museum, to confer with them with a view to making the Soane Museum more accessible to the public in certain months of the year, and to re-arranging the exhibits so that they can be more easily seen and studied by visitors?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the trustees; but as I understand that the trustees will not be meeting again for several months, it may be some time before they are able to give the matter consideration.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to give notice that on a suitable occasion I shall draw attention to the administration of this Museum.

    RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS (WAR SERVICE).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement on the findings of the inquiry recently held in the matter of the pensions of those retired naval officers who served during the War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The Report is being issued as a Command Paper.
    Sir B. FALLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us a kind of rough state ment?
    Mr. AMMON: The information will be given in the form of a Command Paper. The Report is not unanimous. The majority take up the position that on recall to service officers' pensions should cease. There is a Minority Report in favour of some other suggestions.
    Viscount CURZON: Will a summary of the evidence be issued with the Report?
    Mr. AMMON: No, I think not.

  EDUCATION.

    JUVENILE ASSOCIATIONS.
    Mr. E. SIMONasked the President of the Board of Education what local juvenile associations will be eligible for the proposed grant of £20,000; to what purpose the money is to be devoted; whether it is to be allocated by local education authorities; and under what conditions it will be granted?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I am afraid I am not yet in a position to make any detailed announcement with regard to the expenditure of the proposed grant of £20,000, but I hope to be able to issue draft, Regulations at an early date. In settling the conditions of the grant, I shall keep particularly in view the promotion of social and physical training of young persons between the ages of 14 and 16.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
    Mr. SIMONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of his statement that, he would like to see 40 per cent. of free places in secondary schools, he will ensure that in grant-aided schools the full cost of the free places shall be paid half by the rates and half by the taxes?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The cost of providing free places in grant-aided schools provided by local education authorities is already at present divided between rates and taxes equally. The incidence of the cost of providing them in other grant-aided schools not provided by local education authorities depends upon
    1896
    various factors. As have already announced in this House, I intend to review the existing arrangements for the award of free places, and the point which I think the hon. Member has in view will not be overlooked.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any action with a view to reducing the extraordinary fees that some local authorities are charging in the secondary schools?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better put that questkon on the Paper.

    SLAVE TRADING.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has despatched any remonstrance to an Arabian Government upon the practice of slave trading and/or slave owning; and whether it is proposed to publish any such despatches or instructions?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part I cannot say until the correspondence has been completed.

    SEXUAL OFFENCES (COMMITTEE).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to give the names of the members of the Departmental Committee who will inquire into the subject of assault on young girls, the terms of reference and any other information relating to the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): My right hon. Friend has now appointed a Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir Ryland Adkins, K.C., with the following terms of reference: "To collect information and to take evidence as to the prevalence of sexual offences against young persons, and to report upon the subject, indicating any direction in which in their opinion the law or its administration might be improved."
    The other members are Mr. H. W. Disney, Miss E. H. Kelly, C.B.E., J.P., Miss

    1897
    Clara Martineau, J.P., Dr. A. H. Norris, M.C., Mr. R. J. Parr, O.B.E., Mrs. Rackham, J.P. and Sir Guy Stephenson, C.B. The Secretary is Miss J. I. Wall, of the Home Office.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the open letter addressed by the Communist party in Great Britain to soldiers and sailors containing incitements' of a seditious and treasonable character; and if he will state what action is proposed to be taken as regards those responsible for the publication of the letter?
    Mr. DAVIES: Yes, Sir, and my right hon. Friend is considering whether any action is called for.
    Sir F. HALL: If I put a question down next week, will the hon. Gentleman be able to answer it? I beg to give notice that I will put a question down this day week.

    DOMINION AND INDIAN HIGH COMMISSIONERS (PRECEDENCE).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been come to with regard to the precedence of the High Commissioners of the Dominions and India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for The COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): As the House is aware, among the matters discussed at the Imperial Conference, 1923, was the question of the precedence of the High Commissioners in London. In accordance with the undertaking then given the matter was examined arid suggestions were put forward, with His Majesty's approval, by the late Government for the consideration of the Dominion Prime Ministers and the Government of India. These proposals have proved generally acceptable, and His Majesty has now been pleased to direct that the High Commissioners for Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland and India should be given pre
    1898
    cedence on ceremonial occasions, according to the following principles:

    (a) When British or Dominion Ministers being at the time members of their respective Cabinets, are present, the High Commissioners should take precedence immediately after them; this is subject to the qualification that the High Commissioner should not on any occasion be given a higher place than that accorded by the Table of Precedence to Secretaries of State.

    (b) When no members of the British or Dominion Cabinets are present, the High Commissioners should take precedence immediately after that accorded by the Table of Precedence to Secretaries of State.

    ESTIMATES.
    Third Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Legitimacy Bill,
Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill,
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
Halifax Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to,
Southend Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to postpone the coming into operation of the Law of Property Act, 1922, until the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six." [Law of Property Act (Postponement) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to measuring instruments." [Weights and Measures (Measuring Instruments) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act, 1918." [Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [18th ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25.
      CLASS V.

        MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.
        Motion made, and question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £2,919,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925. for sundry Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid."—[Note: £2,800,000 has been voted on account.]
        Mr. OBMSBY-GORE: The object of asking that this Vote should be taken this afternoon was to enable the Government to make some statement regarding the situation in Iraq in case they wished, before Parliament meets in the autumn, to ratify the Treaty that has now been accepted by the Constituent Assembly in Iraq. It will be remembered that Mr. Churchill, when Secretary of State for the Colonies under the Coalition Government, gave an undertaking that, before the Treaty was finally ratified by the Government, an opportunity should be afforded, to Parliament to review the situation. Again, last year, when the party on these benches were responsible for the Government we gave an undertaking that the matter should not be disposed of, first, until the Constituent Assembly at Bagdad had had a say as to the Treaty and the new Protocol—often called the Subsidiary Agreements—which were initiated when we first came into office. And this Government has also given a pledge that it will not ratify the Treaty till Parliament has been given an opportunity of discussing it—both the Treaty and the Protocol—thereby carrying out identically the same pledge as given by the two previous Governments.
        Since we last debated this matter there have been two outstanding facts. The first was the acceptance by the Con-
        1920
        stituent Assembly in Iraq of the Treaty and the Protocol. Secondly there was the failure of the British representative to come to any direct settlement with the Turkish Government in regard to the Northern frontier of the Arab State of Iraq. I wish first to ascertain from the Minister in charge what is the present. position in regard to the Mosul negotiations, that is to say, if the Turks agree to abide by the reference to the League of Nations under the Treaty of Lausanne, and if the League of Nations proceed, as I understand they will proceed, to deal forthwith with this disputed Northern frontier, has the Turkish Government given any indication as to whether it will agree to whatever determination the League of Nations may come? That is, after all, a vital question, far exceeding any other in importance with regard to the future of this territory. If the State of Iraq felt that its case for the inclusion of the City of Mosul and the region of the Tigris between Mosul and Bagdad was not going to be given a fair chance, but that Turkey was going to be enabled to re-enter the lower Euphrates Valley then good-bye to any hopes of a really separate independent political and economic entity in Mesopotamia.
        The whole region, from the Persian Gulf up to and including Mosul, is absolutely unanimous on that point, and it is not surprising, because it is vitally essential to the security and economic development of Iraq. The one fear there has been in the mind of the population has been lest we, in our anxiety to liquidate the responsibilities which we undertook after the War to the people whom we liberated from Turkish rule under great pressure, financial or otherwise, should not see them through the difficult diplomatic negotiations which are necessary to secure the legitimate ethnical and economic frontiers or this country. That is the first question I must address to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know what the exact position of the frontier negotiations, because almost everything hangs on that.
        My second question is, what has been happening in the Constituent Assembly in recent months? On the whole, the news that has been received by the Press from the Middle East during the past six months has been extremely scanty, which means that it is good news. In the East the appearance of incidents and news in

        1921
        newspapers usually indicates that things are not going altogether smoothly. But we have observed within the last six months that there has been a remarkable absence of news and incidents of any kind from the Near and Middle East, and particularly from Iraq, which is, on the whole, a good sign. It is a good sign because it means that the country is settling down to handing over the administration to the Arab Government, and the general liquidation of our commitments has not produced, with very few exceptions, any difficult incidents or difficult conditions. When one knows anything of that country, one realises what a difficult, task it is. The Government of Iraq was always a pretty hard job for the Turks, but virtually the Turks never attempted to make effective any settled Government in the more disturbed areas, and each tribe was more or less a law unto itself. Raids were constant, and the Government practically consisted of military garrisons in the principal towns, and there was some order in the principal market centres, and this was coupled with the Turkish tax gatherer who got what he could, and usually got more than he was entitled to get.
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: That holds good here.
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is certainly true. Iraq in the past has been governed on the basis of a Constituent Assembly endeavouring to fashion for itself a new constitution. I understand that in the coming few weeks that Constituent Assembly comes to an end and will be wound up, and in its place there will be a regular, newly drafted constitution to succeed it. We have no information as to the character of the new constitution. I understand that at this very moment the Constituent. Assembly is engaged on the new electoral law, and I think we ought to know what, in the opinion of the Colonial Secretary, is likely to be the character of the new constitution, which is to be the governing authority in the future in Iraq.
        4.0 P.M.
        My third question deals with the international position which we have now reached—I mean not so much as regards the boundary, but the status of Iraq in the world as a whole. On paper, as far as the European Powers are concerned and the world at large, Iraq is technically
        1922
        mandated territory. Technically the three Turkish vilayets—Mosul, Bagdad, and Basra—are mandated territory, to be administered under a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations. It has been perfectly clear for some time past that that is never going to be the status of Iraq, and the League was informed by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) when he represented this country on the Council of the League that although Great Britain had been given the mandate under the San Remo Treaty in the spring of 1920, we did not intend to undertake that obligation, but that Iraq was to be governed in an entirely different manner. The first step we informed the League we proposed to take, having established an Arab kingdom in that country, was to regulate our relations with that State which we were protecting pro tem by means of a treaty. The question now arises, is the Treaty in such a form that it is ready for presentation to the League of Nations, and are they going to be invited to recognise, once and for all, that this territory is not to have the status of a mandated territory, but is to become at the earliest possible date a completely independent self-governing State, only modified by the terms of a special treaty of alliance between His Britannic Majesty and this independent State? It is very important that that should be cleared up, not only because of the correspondence which passed between our Government and the American Government on this matter, but also from the point of view of the local inhabitants in the country. The, conception of "mandates" and the very word and title "mandate" became very obnoxious to the people of the country. It acquired, in the course of use, a connotation very similar to the connotation of the word Himayat, the Arabic word for "protectorate," which seemed to he the one thing which the people of Egypt wanted to get rid of; and I am quite sure that there will not be a satisfactory local feeling until the Arab State of Iraq arid its position in the world as a whole has been finally determined by the Council of the League. Obviously, having been designated as a mandated territory, until that status is definitely at an end and the Council of the League have definitely recognised the new State that is proposed;

        1923
        there will be some doubt and uncertainty in their minds, and it is vitally important that that uncertainty should be cleared up.
        The next question which I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is what has been done and what is being done during the period that we are responsible for advice and for finding technical officers and assistants and during the time that we are in process of handing over from what was the British military regime to the new Arab Government towards the economic development of the country. One hears extremely little as to what has been done. One knows that the military expenditure was perfectly gigantic, and one does want to know whether foundations have been laid which will enable that country to pay its way, to defend itself, and to find the wherewithal to defend itself in the future. It seems to me that that is vital. I have all along taken the view that, given a satisfactory peace between Turkey and her neigh-bours, it will not be the ambition of Turkey to sweep down from the mountains in the North of Iraq to the plains of Iraq and once more conquer that country. It would be a great deal of trouble to the Turk to enter that Arab world, but, being a much more numerous and warlike Power, he could sweep down from the mountains and no doubt march to Basra, unless something stood in his way, and everything depends for the future security of the independent Arab State upon their being able to maintain some sort of local Arab army and being able to pay it. They cannot do that unless there is the potentiality of a considerably increased revenue, and one of the moral duties which lay upon us as the conquerors of that country, having driven out the Turks, was to give a chance to that which once was one of the richest countries of the world again to enter production after the devastation of something like five centuries. The whole of the irrigation system of the country of ancient days is known. Its potentialities are known, and the whole question is what has been done and what is being done, and by what means, to lay the foundations of that development without which the country cannot stand.
        In this connection of the future defence of Iraq by Iraq itself, there is one further
        1924
        question about which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something. In my view, the very best of the native troops in that country are drawn from a small community in the neighbourhood of Mosul, namely, the Assyrians. They are, if I may say so without reflection on the rest of the community, the stoutest fellows in the country. Their home is right upon the disputed frontier. They have stood loyally by Iraq and have loyally co-operated with Iraq, and they furnish at the present moment the major part of the personnel of the levies in that area. I have a very anxious feeling for the future of that small and most interesting community. They are different from the Arabs on the one hand and the Turks on the other hand in racial origin. They are Christians belonging to a small Church of their own. They have co-religionists in the South of India, but, otherwise, they are a Church to themselves. They are extremely fine people, and it behoves us, before we finally liquidate our responsibilities in Iraq, to do our best for them, and to endeavour to ensure, so far as we can, that no ill happens to them either from Turk or Arab, but that they are given a chance in their own little national enclave, as it were, to carry on their lives. I am perfectly certain, if they are given a chance, they will be one of the most stable elements in that part of the world, making for the defence of Iraq and for peace.
        Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: How many are there of these Assyrians?
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not know, because they are considerably scattered, but perhaps the hon. Member can tell us how many there are in the actual levies. I have not the recent figures. I have interviewed several of them here in London, and as a matter of fact they are in process of collecting in the area between Lake Urumiah and Mosul in the country that was always their home. My impression is that they are considerably more numerous than was at first thought. They get on very well with another lot of people who are their neighbours, and who are very distinguished, the Tezidis, and with the Tezidis and certain of the Kurdish tribes there they could form a fairly homogeneous community which could, I believe, survive. The real trouble, of course, is the nomadic tribes.

        1925
        The Kurdish nomadic tribes, especially -on the Persian frontier, are, above all, the most unsettled of those people, and there is no doubt that one of the difficulties of the situation all along has been the fear on the part of Turkey that, unless all these Kurdish tribes are included within the Turkish frontier, they N' ill become a centre of a Kurdish national movement which will be extremely inconvenient to Turkey. As a matter of fact, I do not share their fear. I believe that the great mass of the Kurdish population will remain loyal to Turkey and will be incorporated in Turkey, and that the Kurdish nomadic tribes in Persia and in Mesopotamia do not seek for any cohesion with their ethnical compatriots over the Turkish border, because the character of the Kurd is still based on the local tribe and local leader, and there is nothing like the national side as we have running through the Arab and Turkish world. That is a side bound up with this question of the Assyrians.
        I now pass to another question, namely, the form of this vote as you have put it from the Chair. I think it is very unsatisfactory that we should have in the Middle Eastern Estimate, for which the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary is responsible, very large sums for the Air Force, and certain sums for the Army, which, anyhow, would appear in the Air Estimates. It gives an absolutely false impression of our Air Estimates, and an equally false impression of what the temporary administration of Iraq is costing. I know when I took the matter up, just before the change of Governments, that it was stated that it was too late this year to change. The Estimates had been prepared, and we could not change. But I know that the Air Force and the War Office will go on fighting to get as much as possible of their expenditure put on the Colonial Office Vote. That is only natural. Really, the only thing that ought to be in this Vote is the excess cost of those air squadrons, which are part of our air establishment, anyhow, clue to the fact that they are now stationed in Iraq and not stationed here at home. It is a question whether there is any excess cost.
        It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and undoubtedly the presence of such a very large proportion of the
        1926
        air defences of this country in Iraq during the last few years has been a tremendous asset to the Air Force. It has provided them, under climatic and other conditions, with an opportunity such as they never could have had in this country. They are in a climate where you can fly every day and all day, whereas here you cannot. They are living, more or less, under semi-active service conditions, with all that means with regard to discipline and control of men. I say all this because I do think that next year we ought to make quite sure that the Middle Eastern Services Vote is only for the Middle Eastern Services, and does not include several millions of money for squadrons of the Air Force, which we have to maintain anyhow, and which ought to be shown on the Air Estimates.
        In this connection, let me say that one should pay a very great tribute to the way in which the officers and men of the Air Force have taken over their duties in what you might call the first independent command in both Palestine and Mesopotamia, and particularly in Iraq. For the first time; the officer commanding the troops of the whole country is not a War Office man but an Air Force man. There is common agreement even in the Army itself that Sir John Salmond and the other officers have acquitted themselves in that task, the first of the kind the Air Force has undertaken, with very remarkable success. It was very largely the magnificent way in which the Army troops under Sir Berkeley Vincent co-operated with the Air Force which enabled the Air Force to discharge its role. From my experience of the Colonial Office last year, I would say that on all questions of policy and of administration referred to Sir John Salmond, the Air Officer commanding, we had the very best and most skilled advice, which was quite up to the very best standard of the General Staff officer of the Army or of the Navy. That is a great thing for the Air Force.
        Having made my complaint about. the form of this Estimate, my next object is to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us anything at all definite with regard to the probable Estimates for next year. Is there likely to be any further reduction in both the Air Force and the garrison of the country, and any reduction of any contribution, direct or

        1927
        indirect, that we have to make to the revenues of Iraq to make up the local budget? There has been a constant diminution during the last few years, and the point has come when one should ask how far the local levies, both the Arab Army and the levies, are financed out of local revenue and how far out of grants-in-aid from this country.
        The next point in that connection is to ascertain what has been the final settlement in regard to the railways. The railways were laid down by us as part of the military necessities of the War. They were conceived on strategic lines rather than on commercial lines. Since I first entered the field of Iraqian politics I have taken great interest in this matter, especially during my term at the Colonial Office. One of the greatest drains on the country was the enormous cost of maintaining these railways, owing to the gigantic Indian personnel which introduced into the country political complications of a very undesirable character. I believe that the Indians have now gone hack to India, and the personnel of the railways is almost entirely drawn from the natives of the country, which is a good thing economically. As I understand it, the railways have been definitely handed over to the Iraq Government, which has taken charge of them, and we have no further responsibility in connection with them. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether these railways are charged up in the general account against Iraq, whether they have become revenue-producing, and whether any revenue obtained from them will go to the general revenues of Iraq and into the ordinary Budget, or whether such revenue will be set aside as a special Sinking Fund to pay some interest on the capital value of the railways. That is as far as the railway position is concerned.
        There is the further question of the harbour and port of Basra. The port of Basra is really a magnificent port. I know there have been continual delays in disposing of certain portions of the port, and up to a year ago the Disposal Board had not succeeded in getting rid of the actual dock or in getting anything established there in regard to the future of the dock. As our policy is one of liquidation, it is important to know what
        1928
        final settlement has been reached in regard to the control of the harbour and ownership and utilisation of the docks.
        I would like further to know how the Treaty with Iraq has been accepted by the Constituent Assembly? What is the general attitude of the King and Government and the people to their British allies, and what further steps are now required to give full effect to the Protocol and subsidiary agreements connected with that Treaty The must important of them, from the point of view of this House, perhaps is the one which is to regulate the future status and services of such British officers as may continue in the service of the Iraq Government after our four years' mandate has come to an end. It is definitely understood that it is both the wish and the need of the Iraq Government that, after that period, and when our responsibility for the military or air protection of the country conies to an end, certain technical officers should remain behind for the purpose of development and for assisting the Iraq Government. It is absolutely essential, therefore, we should have a clear understanding as to the terms of service and the treatment which the British officers undertaking that service will receive. Many of them have been seconded from the Egyptian or Indian service. They have been allowed to take service under the Iraq Government, and the question of their pension rights and status is a very important matter which rightly deserves the watchfulness and protection of this House. I think I have covered most of the ground. I am quite sure that before the right hon. Gentleman and the Government advise ratification of the Treaty it will be agreed that Parliament should be informed what the intentions of the Government are. It has been admitted that it may be possible both to ratify the Treaty and to clear up the relations between Iraq and ourselves during this autumn. I hope before Parliament meets again it will have been found possible to do that, and I trust, too, that the right hon. Gentleman will take the necessary authority to do if forthwith. The great thing is to get things done in these countries. We have been drifting through a series of negotiations, and now we have arrived at the point when there is a chance that the thing may be put on a proper footing for the future, and this Government be

        1929
        enabled to exchange ratifications and to put the whole matter on a permanent international basis.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
        I will shortly explain my reason for so doing. I am rather surprised at the Opposition asking that this Vote should be taken to-day, especially in view of the speech we have just had, although on reflection I suppose it was rather difficult for the hon. Gentleman who had the great honour of representing the Colonial Office in this House to criticise his own policy, which the present Government are carrying out. The policy of the present Government is apparently the same as that of its predecessors. It is for that reason I propose to move the reduction of the Vote. Before we go any further, may I express the hope that this discussion in Supply is not going to take the place of a proper Debate on the Treaty, to give the House a chance of voting against its ratification. Most of the Treaties arising out of the War, including the Treaty of Lausanne, have been brought before this House in the form of Bills which have had to go through their various stages on which discussion was possible. That policy started with the Treaty of Versailles, for which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was responsible. After the present Government took office, the Tinder-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a very satisfactory pronouncement to the effect that in future all instruments, treaties and agreements would be laid before Parliament before ratification. I do not think it is implementing this satisfactory pledge to simply allow a discussion in Committee of Supply on a day chosen by the Opposition in order to support their own policy. Because the largest party in the House, through the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has approved everything done by this Government, I do not think it should be accepted as a mandate, instruction or injunction to the Colonial Minister to advise ratification of this Treaty.
        I should like to know whether the present Government are entirely carrying out the policy of their predecessors in Iran. If they are not, what is the
        1930
        difference? if they are not following it out faithfully, may we be informed in what respect they are differing from it As far as I can tell, they are following out the self-same policy. The Estimates which my right hon. Friend has presented were, I believe, prepared partly under the direction of the hon. Member for Stafford. The action of the Air Force in preserving order in Iraq, which was very strongly criticised by many leading members of the Labour party when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power—the same methods of quelling disturbances or teaching lessons to turbulent chiefs in Iraq by minor air action are being pursued with the same vigour. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman apparently takes a very curious view, if I may be allowed to say so, as to the constitutional character of our proceedings in Bagdad. The Constituent Assembly showed itself somewhat hostile to this Treaty when the hon. Member for Stafford fathered it in this House. They, apparently, did not wish to ratify it, and when they had ratified it they added a very curious rider that it should be null and void if Mosul were not included within the borders of Iraq. I want to know what is the effect of that rider, and whether, if we ratify this Treaty, we are taking responsibility for that rider and all its implications.
        Apparently, if left to themselves, the Constituent Assembly would have refused to ratify the Treaty, and I venture to say that that was a Heaven-sent opportunity for us finally to get rid of this incubus of Mesopotamia and get out of the country once and for all. Instead of that, the Prime Minister sent a curious telegram, in which he, apparently, warned the Government of King Feisal of the terrible things that would happen if this Treaty were not ratified. We have not had a very clear description of what happened, but I should like, if I may, to quote the correspondent of the "Times" newspaper, who, writing from Bagdad, gave, in the issue of that paper of the 25th June, a very full account of what occurred. In the part of his communication which is relevant to what I am now going to say, he said:
        "It looked as though the old curse of internal quarrelling and want of cooperation was again going to wreck an Arab State. The public Session which followed was futile. At 1.30 p.m., General Jafar Pasha el Askari, the Prime Minister,

        1931
        Moved that the House adjourn till Wednesday, 'for political reasons.' It was at once made clear to the Iraqi Government that Great Britain required an answer by Tuesday, midnight, at latest; otherwise the Treaty would be considered rejected. An attempt was made to convene a meeting in the afternoon, but there was no quorum The situation looked desperate at sunset. As a final effort the President summoned all the members to attend at 10 p.m. Palace officials and police officers were to be seen going round to deputies' houses and taking them to the House. Seventy members assembled. Ten or fifteen would not venture out after dark"—
        Apparently the Whips' Office is not quite so efficient. in Bagdad as it might be.
        "A motion that was equivalent to rejection was defeated by 42 votes to 24, and the Resolution for ratification was then passed. Of the deputies who were absent a majority are known to favour the Treaty, but to have been afraid to vote publicly in accordance with their convictions. One cannot blame them. They are new to politics; and they knew the dangers they would incur from the terrorists."
        Of course, there has been a very disgraceful campaign of political terrorism in Bagdad, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) has my complete sympathy in being faced with that difficulty. But that is not the point.
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I do not need sympathy.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman does not need sympathy. As he truly said in the House the other day, he is not a member of the Constituent Assembly of Bagdad. Three of the leading Deputies have already been murdered, and I daresay the right hon. Gentleman knows that they were murdered because they were known to be pro-Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman does not need sympathy, but I venture to say that they need his sympathy. My information is that the three Deputies who were murdered were known to be pro-Treaty, and a reign of terror has been initiated in Bagdad by pan-Arab extremists. These are very terrible things, but I am asking for further information, and if the "Times" correspondent is wrong, perhaps we shall have the right hon. Gentleman's denial.
        I asked a question a fortnight ago of my right hon. Friend on this very matter. I wanted to know how many Deputies there were in the Iraq Constituent
        1932
        Assembly, and the reply was that there were 110, that 69 were present when the vote on the Treaty was taken, and that 36 voted for acceptance, while nine abstained from voting. That very nearly corresponds with the figures given by the "Times" correspondent. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that the Assembly attached a rider in the following terms to its acceptance of the Treaty:
        "This Treaty and its subsidiary agreements shall become null and void if the British Government fail to safeguard the rights of Iraq in the Mosul Vilayet in their entirety."
        That was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. I then asked him why so few deputies were present. during a discussion of this important matter, and the right hon. Gentleman replied, "I was not there." I really think that that is treating the matter rather lightly. We are asked to ratify this Treaty, or, at least, I hope we are going to be asked to ratify it. The right hon. Gentleman is, apparently, going to invite the House to ratify the Treaty, and Treaty, and yet a clear minority of the Constituent Assembly were present, and only a still smaller minority voted for its ratification. I then asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was seized of the facts, and his reply was that he was seized of the facts, and that it was impossible to give an explanation. I dare say, in answer to a question, it is impossible to give an explanation but I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation now. Are we to understand that the ratification of the Treaty by the Constituent Assembly at Bagdad was brought about by scouring the streets of Bagdad in the middle of the night by police officers and paeace officials, and that then an actual minority was brought into the Assembly to ratify the Treaty, and a still smaller minority voted for it? In these circumstances, are we to commit this country to the support of King Feisal's Government in Iraq for, as I understand, 20 years, with all the commitments—
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know; I will deal with that in a moment -or until that Government has applied for admission, and been accepted into the League of Nations?
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not 20 years.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: if the hon. Member will forgive me. While I understand that the intention of the present Government is that it shall be for four years at the outside, yet I venture to say that if at the end of four years there are dangers threatening our forces in Iraq—if there are external dangers, either from the Idrissi or from the Turks in the north-west—it may be necessary for the British Government to come to this House and say that this country is committed in honour to remain there so that we shall be still further committed in those regions. I think it is a very serious step to ask this House to take, and I hope that, before we are invited to take it there will be a proper constitutional opportunity of voting on the Treaty in the form of a Bill, as was done in the case of the other treaties arising out of the War. In the meantime, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some facts on which we can reflect between now and that time. I should like to ask him, also, whether he will give us some enlightenment on the question of oil in the Mosul Vilayet. I have taken part in one or two of the debates on Iraq, and have been treated to some indignant rebukes from Members of the Coalition Government and from Members of the late Government for suggesting that oil had anything to do with our policy, and, apparently, I am about to be rebuked again by the hon. Member for Stafford. The only person who has been frank on this matter is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He, on one occasion in this House, I will not say blurted out the truth, but boldly faced the facts, in answer, I think, to a speech of mine, when he was Prime Minister and I was in Opposition, before the happy days when we were reunited. The right hon. Gentleman then said—he will not deny it, but will remember it very well—"Yes, there is oil in Mosul, and that is a very good reason why we should stay there. Why should we not try and get this oil?"
        Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: You cannot have read the papers.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman said that at the Box, and I remember it, and the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) remembers it too.
        Mr. J. JONES: Yes, I remember it, too.
        Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies, to say what is his opinion on this matter, and in particular what is his opinion, advice and information with regard to the position of the Turkish Petroleum Company—which I understand claims the oil-drilling rights in the Vilayet of Mosul—and does the present Government of Angora show any signs of recognising and ratifying those rights? It is a very complicated matter. The question of the civil list of the late Sultan comes into it. I understand that before the War the oil royalties or the oil lands were replaced on the civil list of the Sultan, and an American company, dominated, I believe, by British interests, has acquired those rights in the civil list. As I have said, it is a very curious history. The most authoritative statement on the matter is contained in the letters of Marquess Curzon to the American Secretary of State on this very question, and I should like to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the matter. Furthermore, I. should like to know whether any oil has been discovered. Are oil operations going on, and has anything more been heard of the grandiose scheme of a pipe-line from Mosul to the Levant? I should very much like, to have information on that point, and I think the House, is entitled to know it. This I do know, that oil was, found in Persia before the War, and that we got a great deal after the War, without any negotiations, protectorates or mandates or anything of that kind. We got the oil by arrangement with the local notables, who received a royalty on the amount of oil extracted. I believe we can get oil at Mosul now in that way, and in no other way—certainly not by trampling on Arab nationalism and outraging Arab feelings in this matter.
        The hon. and gallant Member for Skipton (Lieut.-Colonel Roundell) seems to express some dissent from what I am saying, but, if he does not agree, will he read the Treaty and the Protocols? The hon. Member for Stafford talks about the nationalistic feeling among the Arabs, but under these Protocols no official can be appointed without the approval of the British Government, and 25 per cent, of the expenditure of the country is to be expended on military equipment and

        1935
        armaments. That, I think, is a disgraceful thing to put into any Treaty drawn up by a representative of His Majesty's Government. In fact, from first to last there is no sort of independence at all. When the hon. Member for Stafford talks about a separate independent political entity, he must have an extraordinary idea of what is independence and what is separation. There is no independence at all. King Feisal's Government, by this Treaty, is put into leading-strings. There is a strong party in Iraq that is opposed to ratification, although, naturally, I condemn their extremist terrorist methods. With regard to the question of the actual election of King Feisal, that, after all, is ancient history, though I certainly think some reply should be made by the Colonial Secretary to the extraordinary article which appeared in the "Westminster Gazette" of yesterday. I think that that calls for some reply. I do not endorse the statements made in it at all, but certainly I think something should be said about them.
        The whole policy of our remaining in Iraq after the Armistice with Turkey was wrong. We advanced into Mosul after the Turks had laid down their arms for no adequate military reason, but for, I am afraid, very adequate economic reasons which are not creditable to this country. We remained in that country when we could easily have left, when Turkey was weak, before Mustapha Kemal's movement had started, and before we had seen the resurrection of Turkish military power. We could have left then, allowing the Arabs to set up their own form of Government and to invite our help, instead of forcing our assistance upon them. Even Dow it is not too late to reverse our policy. The strategical position is dangerous. The late Sir Henry Wilson is well known to have been very strongly against the questionable policy of trying to defend a frontier several thousand miles away from the sea. It is the only part of the world in which the British are committed to trying to defend a territory many thousand miles from the sea, except in the case of India, which has a naturally strong frontier on the north. In Iraq, as the hon. Member for Stafford has said, the northern plains are open to raiders from the north, and with a strong military power in Turkey,
        1936
        there will always be that danger in Mosul, which, apparently, we are to be committed in the dark to defend indefinitely.
        Mr. GREENE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman infer that we broke the terms of the Armistice by marching into Mosul?
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What I said was that it was not necessary for us to occupy Mosul, after the Turkish surrender, and after the terms of the Armistice. Speaking from memory—the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—I understand that we were entitled by the terms of the Armistice to occupy areas which were necessary for military safety, or words to that effect, but I say we did it, not for military reasons, but for economic reasons—in order, perhaps, to hold more territory for future bargaining, or, perhaps, for the purpose of safeguarding territories to which British interests had a claim for the purpose of extracting oil; but I do not think there was any clear military reason for that advance. If the hon. Member corrects me I will accept the correction, but in any case it is quite irrelevant to my main argument. My main argument is that we are in a strategically impossible position in trying to hold that country, and, with a reviving military strength in Turkey, our position will become increasingly dangerous there.
        There are two other matters I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with. One is with regard to the question of cotton. We were promised that there would be great cotton growing areas. What has happened there? Was that a dream, like the great oil deposits which were going to be discovered? Secondly, is there any possibility of railway communications being established leading from the Persian Gulf to the Levant or Constantinople? The original project of the railway to Bagdad and beyond was a British project. It was taken up by the Germans because the British pioneers were not encouraged. It is a matter of tremendous importance to the true British Empire, quite outside the mandated areas, that the means of communication with India should be shortened up, and I hope it will be possible to have the railway completed. I do not believe the Turks have any intention whatever of venturing again

        1937
        into the Mesopotamian plains. I have talked to many leading Turks who hold high positions in the present administration in Turkey. They are what I suppose hon. Members opposite would call little Turks—people who object to dissipating their strength in distant regions. They say the former Empire of the Sultans was weakened by adventures in the Yemen and Iraq and they want to consolidate the Turkish race within its own present boundaries, and they are opposed to adventures in Iraq and elsewhere. I believe there would be an immediate outcry in Turkey if any attempt were made to re-annex those regions, but I know that we are not wanted there, except perhaps as milch cows from whom golden milk may be drawn. We are having comparative peace in that country, supported by the white wings of the air squadrons of the Under-Secretary, but there are dangers threatening the country, internal and external, and British interests are negligible. I have mentioned the only three possible ones. As for our alleged pledge to the Arabs, surely our greatest pledge was to give them freedom, and while you hive British forces assisting to hold up the Government of a King who apparently cannot stand without that assistance, whatever else we have done we have not brought freedom to the people on whom we spent so much blood and treasure.
        Mr. THOMAS: My difficulty at the moment is that, in the ordinary course, this Vote would have given an opportunity of a survey of the general situation. I should have preferred it not being taken to-day, so that the various Commissions I have appointed to consider the whole situation might have an opportunity of reporting to me, and I might have. availed myself of the opportunity to state a broad general policy dealing with the whole Colonial situation. But, this bring the Middle Eastern Vote, I am in duty bound to reply to the criticisms which have been made. I hope the opportunity will also he taken of this Vote to refer to a question which is equally important, in my judgment, namely, the position of our Dominions in International Conferences. I am disturbed over the situation, and I hope the Committee will give me an opportunity at a later stage to say something on that aspect of the question. Therefore, I am
        1938
        rising at this stage, as it were, to deal with the question of Iraq, and L hope not ruling out the opportunity of saying something on the other matter.
        Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make a statement later on this important issue?
        Mr. THOMAS: Yes.
        Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Permission to speak twice will not be necessary in Committee.
        Mr. THOMAS: I want to be excused for taking up the time of the Committee in speaking twice.
        Earl WINTERTON: In order to get this clear, I understand the question the right hon. Gentleman refers to—no one on this side has any objection to it being raised; indeed, I understand one of my right hon. Friends intended to raise it—will have to be on another Vote. What the right hon. Gentleman wants is that this Vote should come to an end at some period during the evening, if the Committee be willing, when the second question may be raised.
        Mr. THOMAS: Yes, because this is cleanly a Vote on the Middle East, and it will not be in Order to raise the question at this stage. I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved his reduction, not because of any particular sin applicable to myself or to the Government, but because he seizes this opportunity to have a general fling at all Governments which have been responsible for Iraq. His speech and his action today can be summarised something like this: "All Governments in the past, including the Government with which I was associated when it was in power, were responsible for all manner of blunders. The reason for that is that they never availed themselves of my advice, and I am the only individual in a position to seize this opportunity to blame everybody in power, and the present Government is merely a side issue."
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Nothing of the sort. I voted against the other Governments, and I am consistent in this, that I shall probably vote against this Government as well.
        Mr. THOMAS: I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman is explaining his consistency and everyone else's inconsistency.

        1939
        That is the fact to which I was drawing attention. I do not blame him in the least. But whatever may be the complaint, let us not make debating points on this issue, because things said in the present position of Iraq may not be understood in the same sense there as we understand them in this House. Whatever may have been the reasons for going into Iraq—I know there are differences of opinion; I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) argue that we never ought to have gone beyond Basra. I have heard the argument against him that it would be absurd, having gone to Basra, to remain there, and not go beyond it. I have heard it argued that the one and only reason was the protection of the Persian Gulf. What I want to make clear is that, whatever may have been the reason, it was a war reason. It was a military necessity and justifiable, under the circumstances, in the view of those who were responsible at that time. That shortly is the situation.
        In giving effect to that, certain clear and definite pledges were made, and the position we find ourselves in to-day is precisely that in which any other Government would find itself, and they would he brought right up against this fact. Never mind whether you agree with the original policy. Never mind whether it was good or bad. Whatever may have been said on that aspect of the question, if pledges were given to the Arab population, can any Government, however much they may not be responsible. for the initial policy, take the responsibility of repudiating it? That, in a few words, is a summary of the situation, and that is exactly the position that we found ourselves in as a Government. if that be the fact, if those were the promises genuinely made in the name of the British people, I put it to the Committee that what we have to do is to say how far we can honourably give effect to our pledged word, without taking an unreasonable unconstitutional line or inflicting injustice upon anyone else. I come immediately to the charge made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Why he should have given a kind of preference to the "West-minister Gazette" I do not know, because on reading the "Westminster Gazette"
        1940
        yesterday I took that as being the key to the Debate to-day. I could almost name the writer of the article. I read it very carefully. In substance, the statement is this: When the Treaty was up for ratification, all manner of intimidation was brought to bear, it is implied at the instance of the Government, in order to ensure its ratification. Without going into details, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept that as the general statement of the article, and of what he said to-day.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, I did not say that.
        Mr. THOMAS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman went a bit beyond it. He said, "I have barely stated what the article said, and I have understated what I said would happen." I can only state the action of the present Government. We knew there were going to be difficulties about the ratification of the Treaty. We knew of the opposition to the Treaty. We knew the agitation that was being worked up. With the support of every one of my colleagues, I gave clear and specific instructions that no threats of any sort were to be used to these people that we did not intend to carry out, because I was convinced that there had been too many threats made, with no intention of carrying them out, with the result that no notice was taken of our word. My clear and specific instructions, given acted upon throughout, were these: "Here is the Treaty. It is fulfilling an obligation. It is carrying out the promises made by the British people. It is carrying out the mandate of the League of Nations. It is open to you to ratify or otherwise. If you do not ratify it, we merely go to the League of Nations, and say, We have discharged our obligations, and it is for you to say what is to happen.' ". Those were the exact instructions given from first to last, and not only given, but anticipated by me, because I even went the length of warning the League of Nations in advance, so that the matter would be on the Agenda for the very next meeting, of the possibility of the rejection of the Treaty, and telling them clearly what the policy of the Government was to be.
        5.0 P.M.
        I put it to my right hon. Friend, or any other Member of the House, could any Government act fairer than that? That

        1941
        was straight and honest to the Iraq people. That was saying to them, "We are going to be loyal, and discharge our obligations." That was saying to the League of Nations, "We have done our duty; it is for you to say what is to be the position in the future"; and it was saying to the whole of the world, " We are loyal to our pledge given by the British people." That is the answer I give to all this charge of intimidation. It is said that people did not turn up. People do not turn up to this House, but it is not always that they cannot turn up. It is sometimes not desirable that they should, and, therefore, I can only conclude that Members of Parliament there were no different from Members of Parliament here; and without any intimidation of any sort or kind, they did not find it desirable to turn up on that particular day. But the most significant fact is that at least a number of those who bitterly opposed the Treaty, who led the opposition to the Treaty—the principal leader at this moment is the Prime Minister, who, judging by my correspondence, shows every desire to be loyal, and I am quite sure believes the Treaty was the best thing that ever happened, and feels that he made a mistake when he opposed it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the price?"] I should say in his case it was the price of being Prime Minister. I do not know. I am stating the facts, and I am merely contenting myself with meeting the charge that we, the Government, were responsible. That is the charge made, and that is all I have got to answer. I answer it by saying that no kind of intimidation of any sort was brought. to bear so far as His Majesty's Government were concerned.
        I come to the next question raised by my hon. Friend, and that was, what do I know about the oil? My answer is that I know about as much as he does, and that is nothing. I will tell him what I have endeavoured to ascertain with regard to the promise made to the Turkish Petroleum Company. As I understand the position, it is shortly this Originally, this was a concession between the Germans and ourselves. Then the War came the French took over the German part of the bargain, and it became a French and British 50–50 deal. The next stage, as I understand, was that America came in, and there was
        1942
        another division of a third each to America, France and ourselves. The next stage was that Italy came in, and it became 25 per cent. each. That was the position when last I ascertained it. I do. not know what it is at this moment, but we cannot get away from the fact that a promise of concession was made to thin company, that is the original company of two, which is now a company of four. That promise was repeated at Lausanne by Lord Curzon. As far as I understand, that has been made clear to the Iraq Government. If my hon. Friend puts the question to me, I do not think it is a good thing—and I say it. quite deliberately—that a concession should have been recognised to any one body. I have no hesitation in saying it ought to be left free to all. That is my own personal view of the situation, but I am dealing with the facts as they were.

        That aspect of the question brings me at once to the question put by my hon. Friend as to what is the Government's position with regard to the frontier negotiations. Of course, I suppose it is true to say that the boring for oil in Mosul has some bearing, apparently, on that question, and the difficulty that we found ourselves in was shortly this: We attempted to settle the frontier, by direct negotiations, and failed. The next negotiations at Constantinople, when Sir Percy Cox represented us, came to nothing. Under the Treaty the question is now referred to the League of Nations, and the Foreign Office is dealing with the matter at this moment. It would be unwise, and, indeed, it would he dangerous for me to express a view at this stage of the negotiations. All I can say is that, as far as we are concerned, we hope to settle this matter amicably with the Turks. We believe it is capable of adjustment, and we are working in that direction. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend says, that as far as the cost of this Vote is concerned, it is unfairly borne by the Colonial Office.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask a question with regard to the subject of oil? Surely these negotiations were simply with regard to nationalities in the Mosul Vilayet, and oil did not figure in them at all?
        Mr. THOMAS: What I explained very carefully was that the latest commitment

        1943
        was at Lausanne, when a promise was given to the Turkish Petroleum Company. As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we are negotiating on the question of the frontier, not on the basis of oil at all, but on the basis of trying to secure justice to everybody in that particular quarter, regardless of any oil interests. It is quite true, as I have already indicated, that this Vote was unfairly borne by the Colonial Office, but it is only fair to say that a tremendous reduction has taken place. For instance, when Mr. Churchill first introduced the Estimates in 1920, the total was £75,000,000 for 1919–20. It was £40,000,000 for 1920–21. For 1921–22, £29,000,000 was provided, and the actual expenditure was £27,000,000. In 1922–23, £11,000,000 was provided and £10,000,000 spent. In 1923–24, £8,673,000 was provided. The figures of the actual expenditure are not yet available, but we are satisfied there will be a saving. Please observe the difference between £75,000,000 in 1920, and £5,700,000 for the current year. Of this figure Palestine is responsible for nearly £1,000,000, and Iraq for £24,714,000.
        Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures of the total British expenditure in Iraq since the Armistice?
        Mr. THOMAS: No: the right hon. Gentleman must total them up as I give them out. I have called attention to the main reduction. The only other point with which I want to deal is the question of the four years. I do not think anyone speaking from this bench can give any guarantee. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend would say, "Wait and see." We are committed to clearing out in four years. In the interval we are developing a situation there which all tends to show that we can get out in four years, but it would be equally dangerous for me to say that we could get out in four years, and then something should arise which would alter the whole situation. Therefore, I am not going to say it. We hope to get. out, and we intend to get out, if we are here, and if you will keep us here we will get out. It is only if you make the mistake of not keeping us here that you will be responsible. We hope to get out, but we want to leave the country honourably. We are making provision for the officers to whom we are under an obliga
        1944
        tion. There is a number of British officers who are taking service under the Iraq Government. We must accept the responsibility for them should anything go wrong. We do not think there is a liability, but, if there be, it is a liability we ought to take, and not throw upon the individuals. I have not pretended to know the history of Iraq, or pretended to know very much about it. I have merely given to the Committee a general statement as I understand it. I am satisfied my hon. Friends will say we are carrying on their policy, that my hon. Friends here will say we are doing better than they did, and that my hon. Friend who moved the reduction will say, "I am glad I moved the reduction, because I have now got all the information I want."
        Mr. WARDLAW MILNE: Although I entirely support the right hon. Gentleman's desire, as I am sure the whole Committee do, to give time for the important matters which require to be discussed to-day, I think if he had seen fit to wait a little longer he would possibly have been able to answer one or two other questions by Members who are interested in that part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman did not reply entirely to the very important questions raised by my hon. Friend, in regard to railways and other matters of that kind. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not in the least want to press him for any very definite statement at the present moment with regard to the question of frontiers, nor do I want to follow him in regard to the suggestion that if the Labour Government are in power, or in office, there is a certainty that we shall clear out of Iraq in four years. It will be noticed that the right hon. Gentleman made two statements which, if I may say so without offence, rather contradicted each other. He began by saying—very wisely, I think—that no one could state definitely when it was possible for us to get out, but that everyone hoped to get out in four years. He went on to say that if the House would guarantee that the Labour Government would be in power four years hence, they would get out of Iraq—two very different statements.
        The responsible members of the Constituent Assembly of Bagdad place enormous importance upon the question of Mosul. It is no use our wasting time

        1945
        talking about it from the standpoint of oil. It has nothing whatever to do with oil. I do not think there. is any difference of opinion in this House that we went to Mesopotamia for reasons utterly different from and utterly opposed to any question of oil or anything of that sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Hon. Members opposite are entitled to their own opinions, but if they will read the history of the times they will realise that there can be no question of our having gone there for such an ulterior purpose. The. position to-day is this, that Mosul is entirely dependent upon Bagdad and Bagdad is entirely dependent upon Mosul. The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that it was possible that raids might be made upon Mosul and that there was no possibility of any protection. That is con trary to facts. There is an impassable barrier, but that does not mean that it is impossible for raids to be made, because even across a so-called impassable barrier raids can be made. We speak of an impassable barrier in the North of India, but we know that raids have been made there from time immemorial.
        If Mosul is to remain part of Iraq, then immediately we are faced with the important question as to the possibility of the Government of that country in the future protecting its own frontier. The whole question of the frontier and of Mosul belonging to Iraq depends entirely upon what the Government of King Feisal can do in the future to maintain an army capable of protecting their own frontier. I do not want to enter into the question of negotiations. I have no doubt that the Turks will put forward many imaginary claims regarding Mosul, as in fact they have already done. Certainly 40 percent. at least of the normal population of Mosul are non-Turkish. That 40 percent. will, in my opinion, if the country is to be handed over to the Turks, be driven out. There is no doubt about it that the non-Turkish population will be forced out if Mosul is to be returned to the Turkish Government. That population wishes to remain in its own villayet.
        The Treaty terminates upon the entry of Iraq into the League of Nations. I do not know when that may take place, but there is no reason why it should be long delayed. The military agreement between this country and Iraq does not, however,
        1946
        depend upon the period of our occupation. That is a matter which is not always recognised. The question of the military agreement between this country and Iraq continues after the period of four years. It is on that point that I would have liked to press the right hon. Gentleman to give us sonic information, and, if he has an opportunity before the Debate ends, I should like him to tell us his view as to what is going to happen in that connection.
        This is not in any sense a party matter. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that it is not a question of the present Government having carried out the policy of their predecessors, or the late Government having carried out the policy of their predecessors. We went into Mesopotamia, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for definite war reasons, and we have to stay there until we can ensure that the Government of King Feisal can carry on safely and satisfactorily and hold its own among the nations of the world. That is not a thing that can be done in a moment. It is ridiculous to expect an assembly like that at Bagdad to function, satisfactorily in a moment. Some of its members are people who, as they say themselves, have not the ability to read or write. It was stated by one of the most eminent of the Bedouin chiefs, who bears one of the most famous names in Eastern Arabia, that he was more than anxious to work amicably for the future of this most wonderful land. It is not only a question of these particular people from the outlying districts, but there are vast numbers of people in the towns, highly educated communities, Jews, Christians, and others, who are also vitally interested in the future of Iraq.
        We have to take up this position, that until we are satisfied that the future peace of Arabia can be maintained without our troops, and without our support, we have to remain there sufficiently long to support the Government of that country for our own sake, as well as theirs. It is not only for the sake of Iraq but it is for our own sake. The whole peace of the world depends, in my opinion, largely upon peace in the Near East. That peace, again, depends largely upon whether in Mesopotamia we have a settled peaceful country, and not a country in a state of continual unrest.

        1947
        It is no use looking at the position from the point of view of what would have happened if we had remained there permanently. That is not now the question. A practical Government, such as the British Government would set up, working efficiently, is not likely ever to be popular in the East. Reference has been made to the collection of taxes to-day. In the old days the collection of taxes in Mesopotamia was a case of bargaining and haggling with the Government official. He was sent there to collect taxes by a system of asking for 12 or 100 times the amount to which the Government were really entitled, and goodness knows how many times more than he ever expected to get. It was a delightful system of bargaining and haggling, which went on for a couple of weeks or so, and in which the great sheiks, even, were accustomed to take part bargaining and haggling well on into the night, as to what they were to pay. In the end they paid a small fraction of what was asked of them, but probably all that the Government was entitled to get. Everybody was entirely happy under that system. It was a system which they liked and understood. Therefore, a system by which the Government demands exactly the amount to which it is entitled is not understood and is not appreciated.
        A great deal has been made of this question of oil. Personally, I am not the least interested whether there is or is not oil in Iraq. We did not go there for oil, and I do not suggest that we should stay there a day longer than is necessary for all the oil there is. There are, however, marvellous possibilities in that country. It is well not to exaggerate the position, but certainly it is a country of great possibilities. It is a country where an enormous population was supported on the land in days gone by, and there can be no doubt that that could be done again. There are wonderful traces of great irrigation works there which show what has been done in the past, but Turkish misrule for nearly 1,000 years has utterly destroyed its prosperity. There is a possibility that the salt which was the great drawback in Sind and in other parts of India where great irrigation works were in progress may also have had some effect in Mesopotamia. No doubt great crops of cotton and other things could be grown there.
        1948
        The interest I have in the country is simply and solely to ensure peace in the East. It is essential that we should have a peaceful country in Eastern Arabia. It is not essential that it should be British, but it is essential that it should be peaceful, and we can only get that by supporting the Government of King Feisal until be can stand alone. That is not, I hope, going to be a long process. The progress so far has been wonderful, considering the conditions. We cannot leave the country until the position arises that we feel that it is safe to stand apart and leave King Feisal to manage affairs for himself.
        In Iraq and the countries surrounding you have, in view of the rapid development of communications in the future, the most wonderful point. in the whole surface of the globe—a point at which it, is more than likely all the great air routes of the future across the world will cross each other. From the point of view of the development of the East and the security of our own Empire in the East we cannot afford to forget that across that district between Bagdad and Damascus there will practically cross all the great air routes of the world, from Petrograd in the North to Cape Town in the South, and from Great Britain or Hamburg right across to Singapore. Mesopotamia was the place where history began, and it may well be the place where history will end. It is going to hold the same place of importance in the future that it held in the past.
        Large numbers of nations have penetrated into Mesopotamia in past centuries, o and it is a curious thing that none of them have lasted unless they have had hold of each end of the chain, the Persian Gulf at one end argil the Mediterranean at the other end. I do not know what may happen in the future when we are splitting up the country as is being done at the present time, but of one thing I am certain, and that is that we must hold on there, not only for the sake of Iraq itself, and not only for the sake of the People of that country, but for the sake of our own pledges and for the sake of peace in the East.
        Mr. LAMBERT: From what I could gather from the speech of the Colonial Secretary, the politicians in Iraq seem to have a very elastic political conscience. A gentleman, who fought very much

        1949
        against the ratification of the Treaty, has changed his mind, and has now become a. fervid admirer of the Treaty. I want to be perfectly certain that the elastic conscience does not extend to the Treasury Bench. I remember that the Labour party voted en bloc for the Amendment which I moved that we should come away from Iraq as soon as possible. Are they going back on their word? Do they propose to remain in Iraq for some indefinite time? I do net want in the least to press the right hen. Gentleman or the Government, but I do press for some kind of settled policy. The Colonial Secretary was good enough to tell me to tot up the tens of millions of pounds that has been spent in Iraq. I have done so, and as far as I can make out, the total comes to about £150,000,000.
        How long is that expenditure to go on? We are told that it may go on for an indefinite time. No one knows the time. I want to get a more clear idea of what are to he the British commitments in Iraq. The right hon. Gentleman talked airily and with a considerable amount of -rhetoric about our pledged word. What is our pledged word? What are our responsibilities in Iraq? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that we must stay there until King Feisal is firmly established, but is he firmly established? Is he likely to be firmly established? Has he to-day the goodwill of the people, of Iraq? I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us. I ask that we should have some idea of what we are doing. Our responsibilities in Iraq at the present moment are very great. As I understand, we are there to defend the Mosul vilayet against any district. Mosul is 800 miles from the Persian Gulf. Do we realise what that means for the British taxpayer? I read an article some time ago by a distinguished military expert, General Sir William Robertson, who pointed out clearly the responsibilities which the British were undertaking in pledging themselves to defend the Mosul vilayet against any enemy. He said:
        "Most people condemn the Mesopotamian commitment on the ground of expense, but it is equally to ho condemned on the ground of Imperial security."
        That is what I am thinking about. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always pressing the Government to spend more money upon these far away enterprises. You
        1950
        cannot have a reduction of taxation unless you have a reduction of expenditure, and if you are going to throw your money away on Iraq, and on all these wild schemes, then you cannot have a reduction of taxation in this country. We know that our industry is being crippled by the terrific amount of taxation, and that being so, why not limit our responsibilities in these places?
        Mr. MILNE: The right hon. Gentleman gave the figures showing that there is a continuous reduction in the amount of our expenditure.
        Mr. LAMBERT: I know that, but the point is, when is the expenditure going to end? My hon. Friend must believe me that I am genuinely anxious as to what may happen 800 miles from the Persian Gulf. If you have to defend Mosul by British arms, what is going to be the end of it? One knows that the whole Bagdad expedition was one long blunder. It was a blunder to go there. It was condemned by the greatest military experts of the day. The Government. went there against their advice. General Sir William Robertson stated that he was against the advance to Bagdad. But political considerations entered into the matter and we had the advance to Bagdad. When is all this going to end? What is the position in Bagdad? It is stated plainly that King Feisal is not supported by his people, and he is there simply through the support of British armed forces. Do they collect taxes by dropping bombs? The hon. Gentleman who represents the Air Ministry said explicity the other day that they had not changed the policy of the late Government.
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): That was not the policy.
        Mr. LAMBERT: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he said that they were dropping bombs in Iraq. He said,
        "whether there are any casualties, I do not know."
        I do not suppose that the airmen can know. They drop their bombs, but they do not drop them in the sand. If they did, they would not have any moral effect in the collection of taxes. But the hon. Gentleman stated frankly that the Government are not reversing the policy

        1951
        of the late Government with regard to Iraq. If that be so, they have an elastic conscience, for when they are in office they say one thing, and when they are out of office they say another. I do not want to embarrass the Government, but I do ask that we shall know where we are. What is the position to-day between King Feisal and his subjects? Is he there because the British are there with their armed forces? When are we to get out of this country? I have not the smallest doubt as to what I should do. I should clear out as soon as possible. I do not believe that the British ought to under take this great commitment. It is seriously menacing the security of India. Our Indian frontier is north of Mosul, instead of being on the Himalayas. Therefore I want a clear definition from the Government as to what is their policy. If they are going on with a policy of staying in Iraq indefinitely, they will break the pledge which they made to the House of Commons, and which they made to their own constituents in the country.
        Lieut.-Colonel T. WILLIAMS: I have listened with a certain amount of depression to the Debate this afternoon. I had thought that every party more or less in this country had decided that we ought to get, out of Iraq as soon as we possibly could. My experience in Iraq dates back many years. I only mentioned this point so as to give some reason for thinking that my opinion may be worth while. I went to Iraq first, to Bagdad, in 1904. I was one of four who were sent. by Lord Curzon to that part of Asia to carry out. propaganda against the Russians. For two years I travelled up and down the Turkish frontier and in Kurdistan and Armenia. Altogether, I have spent from 1904 to 1909 in that part. of the world in very intimate touch with those people, and I was there again during the War. I can assure the House that this Debate has been very unreal. We have been discussing things without any real appreciation of the situation in Iraq. The fact is that we have an absolutely artificial position. I think that the policy of staying there, adopted after the War, was a great mistake. I said so at the time in the light of my previous expreience, and I think our whole policy has been a mistake.
        Everyone who knows about the situation in Iraq at the present moment and the
        1952
        history of the putting of King Feisal on the throne, knows that the position is a purely artificial one which is supported by British arms. It might be argued that you could in a certain time develop there a Government that could stand by itself. In four years I think that it is impossible. In 20 years I believe it to equally impossible. Anyone who knows anything about the Arab Government. and the tribal government which exists—there are only two towns of any size in Iraq—and the sort of government which these people have had, will agree with me that it is impossible to expect that you are going to establish a government there which will remain a steady government and which will give adequate protection to all the people. My own opinion is—people may say that I am pro-Turk when I say this—that two years and more under the Turks gave Iraq a very reasonable government which Iraq could support financially, and my opinion is that the Turks should come back to Iraq, and that in the inevitable march of events something of that sort will occur.
        But I have not risen to discuss this question of Iraq. This little Eastern Vote covers a fairly wide area, and all the various countries concerned are intimately connected. You cannot separate any particular country. I realise the difficulty of the Colonial Secretary. I realise that he has had to take over the inheritance of past Governments. We know that he has been trying very largely to clear up some of the results which have been forced upon us by the Coalition Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was the head. Therefore, I wish to say that I appreciate the difficulties of the Colonial Secretary and of the Government. But it is very necessary that those of us who have intimate knowledge of that part of the world should not lose any occasion of bringing the facts before the Government, and urging upon them the necessity of reconsidering the attitude which they have adopred.
        As far as Iraq, Trans-Jordania and Arabia are concerned. I believe that the Government are honestly trying to get out of our responsibilities there. But there is one part of the world where they have accepted the policy of past. Governments, and are as definitely committed to the policy of past Governments as they could well be, and that is in Palestine,

        1953
        and I wish on this Vote to raise the question of Palestine and to ask the Colonial Secretary—I do not expect to convince him—to reconsider the whole situation. If you look at the Near and Middle East one may truthfully say that in general we have now come round to a policy of consulting, and trying to pursue a policy in accordance with the wishes of, the inhabitants of those countries, but there is one exception, and that exception is Palestine.
        In Palestine we are definitely ignoring the wishes of the people of the country and the policy which we are pursuing is a policy designed to carry out the desires of international jewry, and you are up against the definite proposition that you have in Palestine a policy pursued contrary to the desires of the inhabitants. I hope that the House will alow me to recapitulate very briefly the facts about Palestine. Everyone knows that the population of Palestine is predominantly Mahommedan. The population is about 750,000. Of these 650,000 are Mahommedans. About 50,000 or 60,000 are Christians, and the balance are Jews. There is no doubt that the Mahommedans and Christians are intensely hostile to the whole Zionist policy in Palestine. A considerable number of orthodox Jews in Palestine are also hostile to the policy. Over 90 percent. of the people of Palestine are hostile to the policy which we are pursuing.
        We must remember that these people in Palestine, whether Jews, Moslem or Christian, are very largely the original inhabitants of Palestine. Events changed their religion. The original inhabitants, who had become Jews, under the Roman Empire became Christians, and under the Arab Empire became Mahommedans. The large majority of these people are in their national home. Outside Palestine you have a population of Jews of from 11,000,000 to 14,000,000. The policy that is being pursued in Palestine is in the interests of those 11,000,000 to 14,000,000. That policy is based on a Declaration, the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It is one of those declarations which one. would rather expect from the Government of that day, because it can be read several ways. It is quite possible, indeed, for the present Government to alter its policy, and I do not think that anyone could take exception
        1954
        to it under that Declaration. This is what the Declaration says:
        "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, …"
        Here a qualification is introduced. The declaration goes on:
        "…. it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
        It is common knowledge to everyone that the speeches of the Zionists and the actions which were taken in Palestine did justify the inhabitants of Palestine in assuming that the policy to be pursued was to control Palestine in the interest of the Jews until the Jews became a majority in the country, when the Government could be handed over to them for Jewish control. It is in the recollection of the House that various events occurred as a reaction to that policy. It is quite true that, seeing the impossibility of forcing that policy upon the people of the country without an enormous exhibition of force, we have latterly been pursuing a policy which is much more moderate. That is admitted. But still we will not change our policy and admit that we made a mistake, and that we are definitely going to run the country in the interests of the Arab inhabitants, whether Christian, Jew or Moslem. We have brought the country to such, a state, that I am assured by friends whose opinion I value, who have had great experience in the East, that the people of Palestine are now so fed up that they would welcome the Turks back. I can well believe it.
        The issue really is, shall Palestine be run in the interest of its present inhabitants or in the interests of international Jewry? I submit that we should have no hesitation in saying that the idea behind political Zionism is unsound, unworkable and against the best interests of the Jews themselves. There is no doubt that many Jews realise that fact. Mr. Morgenthau, the American Ambassador at Constantinople, characterised the Zionist desires as a disaster for the Jews. That statement is certain to turn out to be the case. The present policy is obviously a policy of controlling the country in the interest of

        1955
        a privileged minority. I put it to the Minister that, at any rate, that is a policy contrary to the principles of our party. If it is to be supported there must be some very strong overriding arguments to justify it. When you press the supporters of Zionism into a corner on this question they generally fall back on two lines of argument. One is that the Jews are a Palestinian race who were exiled from Palestine and have been persecuted ever since, and that they ought to be allowed to return. The second is that the return of these Western Jews, with their ideas of progress, will cause such great improvement and raise the standard of the people of Palestine so much, that the policy will be of great benefit to the people of Palestine themselves.
        I will deal with the second argument first. Those who know the East will agree that one of the great troubles between us and the East is our thinking that our ideas of progress must be suitable for the East. Eastern peoples do not appreciate our ideas of progress. I am satisfied to let the inhabitants of Palestine remain in the agricultural and pastoral conditions in which they live. I have lived in those conditions myself, and I think they are just as pleasant to live in as our Western conditions. If the people like them, it is no argument to say that they ought to he glad to benefit by some other system to which they have never been accustomed. Now I come to my strongest argument against the whole policy. That is the question, Are the Jews a race exiled from Palestine? If they are not, I submit that the whole case for Zionism falls to the ground. I want to bring forward some arguments, mainly from Jewish sources, that they are not a race. The first evidence I would give is my own. I am a doctor. I have spent 23 years in all the countries concerned—in Russia, the Balkans, Turkey, Persia, India and Arabia—and I have examined Jews from an anthropological point of view, and I have always been struck by the very great differences of race that obviously occur. Last year I went to the Near East specially to look at the Spanish Jews of Salonika and the Jews in Galatz. Anyone who saw them would agree that they obviously are different races. A study of other religions shows that it is extremely unlikely that
        1956
        a religion could have spread in this way by migration of peoples, and then that there should have been such great increase in their population. The evidence of other religions supported the assumption that probably this great spread of Judaism in all these countries was due to Proselytism, as it had been in the case of all other great religions—Christianity, Mohammedanism, Bhuddism and the rest. But when one comes to history also, one finds that it is so. It is not generally believed to be so.
        Of course, I cannot bore the House with a great deal of evidence, but I want to give evidence for each statement from Jewish sources. This is a short extract from a History of the Jews by Paul Goodman, a strong Zionist:
        "While Judaism was, on the one side, suffering from losses occasioned by the absorption of a number of its members among their pagan neighbours, and, on the other, by the ultimate secession of the adherents of Jesus of Nazareth, large accessions to the ranks were taking place by numerous conversions to the faith of Israel. It is an old and still current misconception that Judaism is averse to the incorporation of strangers within its midst. But it is an entirely erroneous idea that the Jews are opposed to proselytism out of sheer tribal exclusiveness. Apart from the assimilation of the autochthonous population of Palestine and the forced conversion of the Edomites, Judaism acquired numerous adherents from among the various nations with which it came into contact from the time of the Babylonian captivity till the rise of the Christian Empire of Rome …. you find Jewish proselytes all over the Roman Empire and in neighbouring Parthica."
        If any Member wishes to pursue this subject he will find any amount of evidence, from Jewish authors themselves, that the Jews know this fact, that their adherents all over the world are the descendants of proselytes. They will be able to confirm my various statements. Being convinced that the Jews are the descendants of proselytes, when you come to examine the position of Jews in the world you find that tine-tenths of them outside Palestine are in Russia and Central Europe. You naturally ask how they came there. Again history gives an indication. It is a known historical fact that there was a very large Empire in Southern Russia, the Empire of Khazar, which was converted wholly to judaism. The Emperor of the Khazar, the grandees and the various large masses of the population were converted to Judaism

        1957
        The Khazar Empire stretched through Bulgaria to the Caspian, from the Black Sea right up into Russia. I will give a small extract from a Jewish Encyclopaedia on this point:
        "It was probably about that time that the Emperor of the Khazar and his grandees, together with a large number of his heathen people, embraced the Jewish religion."
        That is not all the evidence. There is more that will help; there is the anthropological evidence. If you turn to the science of anthropology and examine what the results show you will find" that the real Jew, the Jew of Palestine, who is an Arab, belongs to one of the longest headed races in the world. The Jews of Russia, are one of the broadest headed races in the world. Anyone wishing to pursue this subject can get the evidence.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this discussion regarding the anthropological aspect of the question would not be more appropriate on the Vote for the Ministry of Health, and the reference to Russia more appropriate on the Foreign Office Vote than on the Vote of the Colonial Office?
        The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. and gallant Member is giving a rather detailed history of the race, but I understand that he is giving reasons why the policy of the Government should be altered. I hope that he will not go into too great detail.
        6.0 P. M.
        Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMS: I am sorry if I have gone into too great detail. It is obvious that my case rests upon this—that the Jews outside Palestine are not a Palestinian race. Therefore, it is necessary for me to give some evidence that I am not merely expressing a pious opinion. I will give the Committee only one further extract to show that there is anthropological evidence in favour of what I say. This is from a book on "The Races of Europe" by a distinguished anthropologist:
        "The original Semitic stock must have been in origin strongly dolichocephalic, that is to say African as the Arabs are to-day; from which it follows naturally that about nine-tenths of the living Jews are as widely different in head form from the parent stock as they well could be. The boasted purity of descent of the Jews is, then, a myth. Renan is right after ali
        1958
        in his assertion that the ethnographic significance of the word 'Jew,' for the Russian and Danubian branch at least, long ago ceased to exist."
        That concludes my evidence. I am sorry if I have bored the Committee, but I considered it necessary to support my statements by some evidence, and if any hon. Member wishes to pursue the subject further I shall be very glad to show him a great deal of further evidence. The case against Zionism rests on the fact that in Palestine you find a people who are in their national home, and it does not matter whether they are Christians, Jews or Mahommedans. Outside Palestine you have 11,000,000 people who claim Palestine as their national home and who are ready to go back there, whatever the people of Palestine may think at the present moment. My point is that, historically and generally, all the evidence goes to show that the Jews outside Palestine are not the descendants of people who ever came out of Palestine; that Palestine is not their national home, but that their national home is in Southern Russia and Central Asia. If I am right in my contention, it is obvious you are acting most, unjustly in subordinating the wishes of these poeple who are in their national home to the wishes of people whose national home it never was.
        Earl WINTERTON: The speech which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just delivered is the sort of speech which is exceedingly grateful to a party anxious to keep off the decision on any particular Vote, and as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not made the speech for that reason, I can only congratulate him, in the name of the Committee, on being such an enthusiastic and expert anthropologist. At the same time, he will not think it out of place if I observe that his references to the Jewish race and to his dislike for their racial characteristics, belong to the class of speech in regard to which one ought to exercise great care.
        Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMS: I am not aware that in my speech I expressed any dislike of the Jewish race. I am an anti-Zionist, but large numbers of Jews themselves are anti-Zionists.
        Earl WINTERTON: Let me put it differently. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman observes—as he did, because

        1959
        it was the whole basis of his argument—that the Jews are not a race, I should, if I may do so without impertinence, advise him to use that argument with considerable care in some circles in this country, because I do not think it would be very popularly received. What struck me about the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was that he delivered what I can only describe as a very elaborate attack upon Zionism in Palestine on the ground of the impossibility of reconciling the aspirations of Zionism with the aspirations of Arab and Christian nationalism in that territory, and yet neither the hon. and gallant Gentleman nor any one who Spoke from those benches either above or below the Gangway, except the Secretary of State for the Colonies, has put the case which I propose to put to the Committee for Arab nationalism or nationality—whichever you like to call it—in Iraq itself.
        I hope the Committee will accept from me the assurance, which is perfectly sincere, that I speak solely from the point of view of a supporter of Arab nationalism and nationality, not only because as it happens, I am a close personal friend of King Feisal and members of his former and present Governments, but because I had the privilege and advantage of serving as a comrade-in-arms with him during the campaign in 1918. From those years onwards I have been a strong adherent of Arab nationalism both in the House of Commons and on platforms in the country, and I have advocated giving a chance to Arab nationalism to find a home for itself in some part of the Middle East. It is from that point of view I propose to address myself to the Committee now. In the first place, while I am quite prepared to say that opponents of the Arabs are, or were, to be found in all parties, I challenge anyone in the Committee to deny that this country as a whole, and not merely any party in this country, is deeply pledged to provide a national home for the Arabs, and that when one speaks of providing a national home for the Arabs the main location must be in the historic Mesopotamian territory. There can surely be no difference of opinion about that. All parties are pledged to it, and when the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) makes a speech which in some parts seems anti-Turk and
        1960
        in others anti-Arab, in some parts anti-Conservative and in other parts—if I may use the expression—anti-the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), let me say that to my mind all these matters are of very small importance compared with the central fact that we are pledged as much as any people could be pledged, not one party but the whole nation, to set up an Arab nation under our auspices.
        If we are all agreed upon that point let me go to my next point. I agree fully with the hon. and gallant Gentleman—I know his opinion of the matter from previous speeches—that great mistakes were made by the Coalition Government in the year of the Armistice and the years immediately following. There was an attempt to graft upon Iraq a form of government wholly alien to that country, the sort of government which existed in India before the days of the reforms, a Government which the Arabs certainly did not want, for which they could not pay and which cost more than this country could possibly afford. Then better counsels prevailed and it was decided that our support of the youthful Arab nation in Iraq must be as slender as circumstances permitted or, in other words, that as soon as the nation could stand upon its own feet we mint withdraw military and financial aid. The result of that policy is to be seen in the state of affairs to-day and in the very striking decrease in expenditure for the present year compared with the year 1919–20 or even the year 1920–21. To listen to a speech such as that made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molten (Mr. Lambert) one would suppose this country had no commitment of any kind. The right hon. Gentleman said if he were dictator he would clear out of that country as soon as possible. That may be his view, and to do him justice it has been his view since the Armistice, but he ignores the fact that not only the Members of the party on this side but Members of his own party, and at any rate some Members of the Glove-nil-tent party were committed to the policy in the later stages of the War of setting up a national Arab state in Iraq. It is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would clear out as soon as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman and his party believe in the importance of a pledge given on behalf of the whole people of this

        1961
        country or not? Do they say that while it is true this country gave a pledge, yet if we find it inconvenient to carry out the pledge because it may cost more money than we anticipated, we should then get—out? Is that their attitude?
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely our pledge was to free the Arabs from the rule of the Turks. How are we doing that by keeping a bureaucracy and an army of our own?
        Earl WINTERTON: I am very glad the hon. and gallant Member has intervened, because that is the kind of interruption which I welcome. I was going on to deal with that very matter. Does any sane person, who has any knowledge of the Near East, either from being on the spot or from reading what has occurred there in the last six years, say that if we, at the time of the Armistice, had withdrawn our military and air forces from Iraq, the Arabs alone would have been able to maintain that country against the Turks.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We withdrew from the Hedjaz and left a government there in being. Why could not we withdraw from Iraq?

        Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps, as I was with the Northern Arab Army during the War, the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to correct his history. We have never been in the Hedjaz. Except for seven or eight British officers, of whom I was one, and an armoured car company which went, largely, to protect those officers, there was never a single British soldier in the Hedjaz. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not betray his complete ignorance of the course of events in the Near East in that way. Does he really draw any military comparison between conditions in Iraq and conditions in the Hedjaz? What were the conditions of Iraq? By a series of exploits almost unparalleled even in the last War, as regards sacrifice and heroism on the part of the troops of this country, we succeeded in bringing that country, which is 90 per cent. Arab or Kurdish, from beneath the yoke of the Turk under which it had groaned for so many years. After we had done that the Arabs, through their accredited representatives, asked us to allow them to set up a national government in that country. While it is true
        1962
        that certain events occurred immediately after the Armistice, due I think to mistakes in policy and to the belief that we were going to annex Iraq to the British Empire, there is no single Arab of any importance in Iraq who holds the view that without British assistance it would have been possible for the Arabs to have prevented the Turks from coming back to that country immediately after we had withdrawn. Nobody could take such a view on the plain military facts of the situation.
        What is the problem with which the Coalition and subsequent Governments have been faced? Knowing the feeling in this country, which is undoubtedly strong against entangling commitments in Iraq; realising that we have neither the money nor the men to maintain ourselves in that country except as a support of the young Arab Government until such time as that Government can stand upon its own legs, we entered into a treaty or arrangement or endeavoured to enter into a treaty or arrangement with the Government of that country through its accredited representatives. I, personally, as a sincere. well-wisher of the Arabs and a great friend of many Arab statesmen, resent as much as anyone can resent, the sneering and slighting references made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull to the action of their assembly in discussing the treaty. I think those references will be very ill received in that country. Wherever else the hon. and gallant Gentlemen's name is honoured as a supporter of small nationalities it will not be in Iraq. His general attitude is that of a protector of all young nationalities and I understand that people travel from the farthest quarters of Russia in order to have the great privilege and advantage of interviewing the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Russia is not a small nationality.
        Earl WINTERTON: On the contrary, there were a great many small nationalities in Russia who have been entirely wiped out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's friends the Bolsheviks. Whatever may be his attitude to small nationalities generally, I do not think the people of Iraq will be grateful for his intervention this afternoon. I defy anyone in this Committee to suggest any other line than that

        1963
        which the late Government and the present Government have taken and are taking in the matter of Iraq. We are reducing our commitments there as quickly as we can. We have been, and we are, urging the Arab Government in that country to fit themselves, not only to govern their country from an internal point of view, but to protect it from external aggression. I hope and believe—I believe there are many things which are hopeful, even in that country, where so many hopes have been blighted—that that country will, in a very few years, be in a position to protect and defend itself, and I believe that., when that day is reached, the chance of trouble over the Mosul Vilayet, or any other part of the Northern frontier, will be very much less than it is to-day. There is that danger to-day, and I do not. want to say anything about that, because I think it is far better that the question of the arrangements to be made with regard to Mosul should be left where they were left by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
        I have only one other word to say, and that is that I think it is very desirable that we should at the earliest opportunity have from the Government an authoritative statement as to their attitude with regard to the ratification of the Treaty, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, ignoring certain aspects of the Debate this afternoon, will accept. as the expression of this Committee and, I believe, of an overwhelming majority of the country outside, the opinion that the Treaty should be ratified, and that we should continue to hold out the hand of friendship that we have always held out to the people of Mesopotamia. I feel very deeply on this subject, in which I have been interested for many years, and if we can, as I believe we can, help this young Arab State to take its part in the comity of nations, we shall, at any rate in one part of the world since the War, have done an act which will not only be of great benefit to our own prestige, but will show that, not for the first time, the attitude of this great country towards countries in other parts of the world, and especially towards young countries, is one of help and assistance, and not of aggression and defiance, and, further, we shall have obtained for ourselves the
        1964
        friendship of a Power in the Middle East which may be of great value to us in years to come.
        Mr. THOMAS: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has asked, Does the Government intend to treat this Vote and this discussion as being sufficient in itself to warrant them in ratifying the Treaty Certainly. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to a promise made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That promise meant, and could only mean, that before a Treaty was ratified, an opportunity such as this would be given to the House to discuss it. I would put to my hon. and gallant Friend two points on that. This is the only opportunity that the House could have during this Session.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why?
        Mr. THOMAS: Because the House will be rising at the end of next week, and no opportunity, so far as Government business is concerned, could be given.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You could give another day.
        Mr. THOMAS: My hon. and gallant Friend knows very well that the other day would be Saturday or Monday, and that there would be serious objections to either. Besides, I cannot conceive of my hon. and gallant Friend making an abler speech on this matter than he has made to-day, and if we take that as being the measure of his criticism, I ask him, in common fairness, whether this does not present the opportunity without the need for another. At all events, as far as the Government are concerned, they intend to treat this as giving the necessary authority for ratifying the Treaty. I want to refer to one other point. The interests in the Turkish Petroleum Company are 25 per cent. Anglo-Persian, 25 per cent. Royal Dutch-Shell, 25 per cent. French, and 25 per cent. American promised. There are no Italian interests at present.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There is a much more important matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question of the position of this Rider added by the Constituent Assembly and also what our position, will be if we accept

        1965
        the Rider, which says we have to incorporate Mosul within the boundaries of Iraq, if the League of Nations, to which this matter has been referred, decide against them that Mosul shall go to the Turk? What is the position of the Government then? We really do not know the situation at all as regards that point.
        Mr. THOMAS: In answer to a question put by my hon. and gallant Friend a few weeks ago, I made it perfectly clear that the Government were not bound by the Rider, and he now follows that up by saying: What will the Government do if the League of Nations decide against us? Our answer to the League of Nations is that we have discharged our mandate. That is clear, as far as we are concerned. I do not anticipate difficulties with the League, but I do anticipate difficulties if this matter be held up, because, if my suggestion be not given effect to, that would he interpreted by all the enemies, both of the Treaty and of this country, as expressing the House of Commons opposition to it. It will not he correct, it will not he true, for any such interpretation to be made, and that is the reason why I ask the Committee clearly to understand that the passing of this Vote will be accepted by the Government as giving them the necessary authority to ratify.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the King of Iraq accept this Rider? Does he consider himself bound by it? Here we have a Constituent Assembly adding a Rider, and my right hon. Friend says he does not accept the Rider. If Mosul is given, not to Iraq, as I suggest might well happen, the Constituent Assembly of Iraq will say, "That is all right, we have no obligation under the Treaty." I say that that is a difficult position, and it has not been clarified by the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. T. JOHNSTON: With what was stated by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) at the conclusion of his speech about the purpose for which the British Empire interferes with small nationalities, I have no quarrel. I have no quarrel with the ideal which the sentence expressed. But some of my friends and I would like very much if, in a Debate of this kind, we could have
        1966
        the real truth told us as to why the British Government should spend almost £100,000,000 in such a State as Iraq. What are we there for? The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw Milne), who spoke earlier, specifically denied that there was any question of oil ownership or oil exploitation in our interference with Iraq at all. I hold in my hand a cutting from a paper called the "Financial Times," which I understand is edited by a Gentleman who sits on the Front Opposition Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is dated 4th June, 1924, and this article stretches, across two columns with a headline, and is stated to be written "by one who was present throughout the Lausanne Conference and has studied the whole question of post-War Turkey, Mesopotamia and Mosul." This is what he says:
        "There is at the present time a tendency to ridicule, the stress which has been laid on oil in the various conferences and negotiations since the Armistice .… The Mosul oilfield stands in a unique position, in that it has always been vested with a political significance, and the Great Powers have for nearly 20 years been struggling for a preponderating influence in its development. It is no secret that considerations of its future have played a decisive role in more than one international Conference."
        Further, he says—and I ask attention to this—
        "No more courageous fight for the retention of Mosul could have been made than by Lord Curzon at the first Lausanne Conference, and it will be remembered that he was ready to see the Conference break down rather than give way."
        That was the important subject at the Lausanne Conference. Further, he says that in a letter written from Lord Curzon to the United States Ambassador in London, dated 28th February, 1921, the following paragraph occurs:
        "The Civil List in 1906, considering the agreement with the Anatolean Company at an end, entered into negotiations with a British group with a. view to the development of the oilfields. These negotiations, which had the full support of His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, continued during the year 1907; they were suspended during the political crisis which broke out in 1908.… These negotiations, in which the British and German Governments took an active interest, terminated in the early part of 1914 when an agreement was reached for the fusion of the interests of the original Turkish Petroleum Company, and of the original British group in the new Turkish Petroleum Company. This agreement was signed not only by the

        1967
        parties immediately interested, but also on behalf of the British and German Governments respectively."
        It is no earthly use saying that oil has not entered into this question in face of that statement. The trail of oil is all over it. The article goes on:
        "Unfortunately the position of the Turkish Petroleum Company is not as strong as would appear from this statement, because the consideration which Turkey was to have received never materialised."
        Poor Turkey never got the consideration. but the British Government backing the Petroleum Company insist upon the British Company having its share of oil in Mosul, and all the millions, probably nearly £100,000,000, that this company has spent since the Armistice in bolstering up these concessionaires and their interests in Mosul ought to he frankly explained to the Committee. We should not have these financial arrangements hidden from the people of this country under the guise of phrases about our going out to Mesopotamia to do good to the poor Arabs.
        Mr. MILNE: There is nothing in what the hon. Member has road in the least incompatible with my statement that we did not go to Mesopotamia in connection with oil at all. As to the fact that he has read extracts pointing out that concessionaires in different countries have tried to work the oilfields, I have not any doubt about that, and I hope that British enterprise will go on doing that sort of thing. If the statement is correct that this Government has been spending money in backing up concessionaires and that this £100,000,000 has gone in that way, I trust, with the hon. Member, that the right hon. Gentleman will give him the figures, because there are no figures.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: I have been reading out for the last 10 minutes, and I have been showing that for nearly 20 years—
        Mr. MILNE: That was before we went to Mesopotamia.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: Of course, it was before we went to Mesopotamia with an Army, but the British Government through the British Ambassador at Constantinople—it is specifically stated here—have been interfering in Turkish affairs in order to bolster up this particular financial syndicate. If after the Armistice
        1968
        we spent millions—I do not know how many—probably anything up to one hundred millions—on our Army, and on our Diplomatic Service, well—
        Earl WINTERTON: This is really a very important matter, and I should like to put a question. In a charge of this kind we ought to know quite what is meant. Is the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that successive British Governments, including his own, have, for a financial consideration, gone to Mesopotamia in order to get oil for certain financial groups, or what is the suggestion?
        Mr. JOHNSTON: That is a perfectly reasonable question. I never said that members of any Government have taken any financial consideration. I never hinted at it. I have never accused anybody, and I am surprised that the Noble Lord should endeavour to drag a red herring of that kind into the discussion.
        Earl WINTERTON: I am merely endeavouring to arrive at the truth. I honestly do not understand what is the accusation—how it is suggested this money has been spent, and what has gene on between the financial groups to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and successive British Governments.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: I wish I knew that. What I submit I have proved is the statement—and that hon. Members on the opposite side have so far not disputed it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, hon. Members hare not done it so far. If they are so prepared, let them get up, and do it. I have quoted from the official report sent by Lord Curzon to the American Ambassador in London, and nobody has disputed that. One statement was that
        "We have been interested in oil. British Governments have been interested in oil, and the time and attention of the British Foreign Secretary at the Lausanne Conference and elsewhere has been actively taken up in the furtherance of oil interests."
        I think I have proved it. Let me go further. The writer of this article says:
        "The only thing definitely concluded by the 1914 negotiations was that the financial groups interested, agreed upon the division of the Turkish Petroleum. Company's shares and the basis of financial participation in exploiting the concesson when obtained."

        1969
        But they were never obtained and nothing ever came of the arrangement, because the consideration which was to he paid to the Turkish Government as a matter of fact, was never paid. Then says the article:
        "The great fight made by Lord Curzon"—
        Note, "The great fight made by Lord Curzon—
        "to secure the oil concessions was beset with difficulties which have not been overcome. With the death of Abdul Hamid in 1915 the rights of his property, including the free concession of the oil of Mosul and Bagdad passed to his heirs. Early in 1922 the rights to Abdul Hamid's properties and concession were acquired by an American company, and it appears that the control of this company is being acquired by British interests."
        Nothing could be more specific and more definite than this statement of fact or alleged statement of facts, made in a financial paper published in the City of London, a paper of high standing and an article never disputed, never denied, so far as I know, by any Member of this House. If any hon. Member opposite is prepared to deny that Lord Curzon spent a considerable portion of his time at Lausanne lighting on behalf of oil interests, alleged to be British national oil interests, now is the time for him to get up and deny it.
        Mr. MILNE: We do not believe it.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: Very well, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not believe it, that he should forthwith write to the "Financial Times" denying this statement and giving reasons for his denial.
        Mr. HARNEY: Lord Curzon has never repudiated it!
        Mr. JOHNSTON: Hon. Gentlemen who wave their hands in objection to what I am saying apparently know nothing about it. What I am saying on behalf of some hon. Members of this House is that when we come to Debates of this kind, when we are asked to vote public money foe which the people of this country are paying taxes, we are entitled to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have no quarrel with the Noble Lord opposite as to what political officers have done in Mesopotamia. I believe probably that what he said was perfectly true, that we have done a considerable
        1970
        amount of good to the Arab people, but I do not want to be fobbed off with stuff of that kind. I want to know on whose behalf we are spending or have spent £100,000,000. I do not believe we went into Iraq and spent £100,000,000 for our health or to do good to the Arabs. I do not believe it.
        Earl WINTERTON: This is a matter which ought to be put right. I am a great admirer of the sincerity of the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston), and I ask him to accept what I say with a like sincerity. I do not believe for one moment that we spent £100,000,000 in the interests of British oil-producing companies. I hope he will accept that statement with the same frankness and in the same sincerity for which we give hon. Members opposite credit. Equally, I certainly resent the suggestion that the British Government spent this money for that purpose.
        Mr. JOHNSTON: What I suggest ought to be done then is that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are interested in financial affairs in the City of London and who run financial papers in London—papers which do not circulate frequently among Members on this side of the House, but circulate, presumably, among the classes represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by hon. Members below the Gangway, should take action accordingly. These financial papers make specific charges of this kind. In this article they give what purports to be actual quotations from Government documents, from documents sent by Lord Curzon to the American Ambassador in London. If these things are not true, why are they not denied in the columns of the paper which makes them? Why remain for a month or six weeks after they are made, and then have them denied in airy fashion by hon. Members opposite and by the noble Lord on the Front Bench who seeks to controvert those charges by suggesting that I have attacked a, British Government as being personally interested. I do not blame these men. I never did. I am sure nobody ever did, but what I say is that the money spent in Iraq was not spent in order to make the desert blossom like the rose. It was not spent to benefit the Arab population. It was spent there in the interests of financial groups. I suggest that before this Debate finishes hon. Gentlemen who can speak with

        1971
        authority on the subject should get up and give us a specific answer to these charges in the "Financial Times."
        Mr. GREENE: I have listened to some hon. Members of this House who are in favour of withdrawing from Iraq. So far I have not heard a single cogent reason for such withdrawal. I prefer reasons which are cogent. One reason is that we are spending the taxpayers' money there. Another reason, so far as I can see, is that this country may possibly benefit from our occupation of that country. Personally, I have no objection to this country benefiting at all, providing it does not do it at the expense of other people. I like to see my country benefiting if it does it in such a manner that the people of the mandated countries benefit also.
        In a few words, I propose, having considerable knowledge of so called "dry-farming" and sheep-raising, and having been three years in Iraq, to show how this country may benefit directly and indirectly, and how the Arabs themselves may benefit directly by our remaining in the country sufficiently long to enable a stable Government to be set on its feet, to be able to protect itself, and look after the other interests that may be there. That country, as is well known, was at one time the granary of the world. It was at that time the most prosperous country in the world. I see absolutely no reason why it should not become so again. I think it can become so under a stable Government of Arabs themselves, and I also feel certain it never will become so if it is given back to the Turks. To begin with, in that country there is no limit to the possibilities of the growing of cereals, cotton, mutton, and wool, and this at extremely cheap rates, which would bring wealth to the country, and which would benefit the people of this country, because it would reduce the prices of those commodities.
        Furthermore, it would give employment in that country and also in this country by the demand for the material and machinery necessary for the purposes of irrigation. Hon. Members opposite might feel rather shy of this course considering the cost and that British financiers might place money there and make a profit. I should like to see them do it, because such income would he drawn to this country, and spent in this
        1972
        country, would benefit also the Exchequer, and give employment in this country. If we leave that country at the present time as some hon. Members would have us do, it will still remain a desert, will simply lie waste, whereas if we stay there, and with our help that country is enabled to settle down, and perhaps a certain amount of our capital placed there, cereal growing can be made a very great industry and at extraordinarily little cost.
        It may not be known to many hon. Members opposite that there is no such thing as the Valley of the Tigris. The Tigris itself is actually higher than the surrounding country as the river overflows every year and deposits silt and mud on the area close to the. river, so naturally the ground on either side of the river is higher than it is further away. The result is that irrigation can be carried out very cheaply. You have only to raise the water to the top of the bank and gravitation takes it to the required spot. There is another matter which makes farming very cheap. You only need to plough one and a half inches deep and plough up the silt deposit. This soil is extremely rich and full of nitrogen, and you have only to "tickle the surface and it smiles a crop." Another important matter is the extraordinary cheapness of transport in that country. If you have land some distance up the Tigris, or the tributaries of the Tigris, you can grow timber there, and, when you want to send your produce down the river, you make rafts and convey the produce at practically en cost except that of the man on the raft, and even the raft can be sold when it arrives at its destination at a high price.
        The farming of cereals is not the only thing. There is some wonderful land in the surrounding country near Mosul. It is a most perfect grass country, and, from my knowledge of land in Australia and the growing of merinos, I should say this land would he a perfect merino country. If one could be certain that the Government in Iraq was going to be made a suitable Government it would be worth while to import merino rams. In six years' time you could very much improve the flocks, and a new industry could be started, not only for the benefit of the people of Iraq, but also for the benefit of the people of this country. Of

        1973
        course, that can never be brought about while there is all this talk about leaving the country to fend for itself when it is not in a position to govern itself.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have only four more years.
        Mr. GREENE: Well, that is better than nothing, and if we stay on we shall be. able to give a guarantee of some kind in that country. I have often spoken to hon. Members privately oh this subject, and I have heard their objections. I have heard them say that we shall have to have aeroplanes to defend the country against the Kurds, who will come along and drive off the sheep. May I point out that sheep travel about six miles a day, and consequently you can imagine they would not get very far away before their whereabouts would be discovered and the raiders would have to go off without their sheep. I hope the Committee will not think I have wandered from the point, but I feel most strongly that unless we stand by the Government of Iraq and protect it and put it on its feet, Iraq will go back to a condition even worse than it is in at the present time, and we shall lose the benefits in this country that we ought to have, and the people in Iraq will lose the benefits they ought to have. If the Turks come back, there will be the same misgovernment. as in past years. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Milne) said that the Turkish population in Mosul represented about 60 per cent., but I am astonished to hear that statement, because I was under the impression that it was only between 5 and 10 per cent. At any rate, I know that there is a very large non-Turkish population there, consisting of Christians, Armenians, Chaldeans, Jews, Assyrians and Kurds, and I know from personal contact with them that not one of them would like to see the Turks back again. There are certain people who have been on good terms with the Turks who, upon religious grounds, might want to see them back again, but the moment they got them back they would wish they had never come there. In conclusion, I merely want to say that Turkish rule means destruction, and that for every acre given back to the Turk there will be one acre taken from progress, and one acre given to chaos.
        Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I do not think I can add anything to the very interesting account of the possibilities of
        1974
        Iraq which has been given to the Committee by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I listened with great surprise to the speech delivered by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. Johnston), and I quite fail to see the point of his speech. It is not a fact that we went into Iraq and spent £100,000,000 in order to protect the oil interests there. As a matter of fact, no oil has been found there yet, and we do not know whether any will be found or not. I only hope that the British companies will find oil there. and he able to make something out of it. The whole question of Iraq is a very difficult one, and there is not the slightest doubt that if we go out of that country the Turks will come in, and our interest is to support the Arab Government and try to prevent the Turks coming in. Whether the present Government in Iraq will stand or not we cannot say. I do not think that there is a single tribe out there or Arab chief who would admit the over-lordship of any other tribe or chief, and all the chiefs and tribes of Iraq are equally averse to the over-lordship of any outside chief or tribe. To give our support to the Arab Government, is the only hope that it will succeed.
        With regard to Mosul, I think we ought to support the Assyrians and the Chaldeans who, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said, were the backbone of the country. They supported us all through the War and stood by us, and they form the best part of the Iraq levies at the present time. Therefore, I hope Mosul will be held and protected, and that the people there will not come under the Turkish rule again in any possible way. The question of Transjordania, was raised by an hon. Member opposite (Colonel T. Williams). I quite agree with what has been said about the inhabitants of Palestine and Transjordania, but I cannot agree that it is practical to have in such a small country one rule on one side of the River Jordan and another rule on the other side—the whole country should be under one rule. I quite agree that the Russians under the name of the Zionists are a danger to the country. I hope they time will come when we shall see both Transjordania. and Palestine Under one rule.
        Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. T. John

        1975
        ston) has made a very serious indictment in regard to our policy in Iraq on the ground that it has been dictated by financial interests. I am not concerned at all about the oil interests, but the point I am interested in is in regard to what is to become of the 200,000 Christians in Mosul. Honestly, my interest is mainly concentrated on that point. These Christians have fled to Mosul. They have stood by us in the War, and have suffered butchery at the hands of one of our enemies in the War. It seems to me that now two things are inevitable. One is that we shall retain possession of Mosul and give the protection of the British Government to these Christians. The other is that if the necessity should compel it, we may have to abandon Mosul, and in that case I hope the Government will pledge themselves to take the necessary remedies to get these people away from the bayonets of the Turks. That is all I want to ask, and if the Prime Minister will reply to these questions I shall be satisfied.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: want to make my last protest on this question in the presence of the Prime Minister. It is not quite fair to the Committee to tell us that this is our only opportunity of approving the ratification of this Treaty with the Kingdom of Iraq. This is a Supply Vote asked for by members of the Opposition, and we were not told that this was going to be our only opportunity for discussing this subject. I do not think any Member on these benches was aware that this would be our last and only opportunity, and that after this a mandate would be given to the Colonial Secretary to ratify this Treaty. The Colonial Secretary has not been able to tell us that our commitments will be limited even to four years. All the speeches from the other side talking about this infant Arab State and the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), who spoke of the wonderful sheep rearing and corn growing possibilities of Iraq. show that. we shall have to keep propping up this Kingdom in Mesopotamia.
        7.0 P. M.
        The matter is highly unsatisfactory, not only from the point of view of the Arabs, but from the point of view of that much harassed person, the British taxpayer, who is asked to vote over £5,000,000 this year
        1976
        partly as the result of the mistakes made by previous Governments. The Labour Government which came in, pledged to wind up those commitments and to drop those policies, is continuing the self-same policy, and the Colonial Secretary is unable even to put a four years' limit upon it. We are hard put to it for money in every direction. Social reform is held up, widows' pensions and housing are being held up by money stringency in this country, and yet we are cheerfully committing ourselves, and that is all the right hon. Gentleman can hold out to us. It is highly unsatisfactory, and I move the reduction as a protest. I make this protest now. I know it is no good dividing the Committee, because there is an unholy alliance between the Conservative benches and the Labour party.
        I must say one word with regard to the remarks of my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. O'Connor). I agree with him about the position of the Christians, but, at the same time, we ourselves referred this question to the League of Nations. If they decide against us, what is going to happen to these 200,000 people? In the event of the case being against us, I do not see how we can help them in a matter that has been already dealt with by the League of Nations. Unless we are going to abide by the decision, it would be fatal to us. We had an opportunity of getting out of that country by rejecting the Treaty, but the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decreed otherwise. We lost. the opportunity of getting honourably out of the country. We have the position now that one member of the Sheriffian family can rule over one Arab State, but another member of the same family, not certainly inferior in ability, is not to be allowed to manage his own house and rule over another State. I do not make this protest against Arab nationalism. We owe much to the Arab, and there is a great future for the Arab race, which lies in its own hand. It is batter to let them work out their own salvation by putting responsibilities upon them, and I object strongly to the policy of continuing the tutelage, the mandate, call it what you will, over Iraq at this. heavy expense, which we certainly cannot afford in the state of our finances, in view of the danger of future hostilities, whereby we might be involved in the case of war.
        Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,918,900, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
        Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS II.

      COLONIAL OFFICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £113,031, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."—[Note: £60,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. AMERY: The particular subject to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee is that of the representation of the Dominions in the foreign policy of the British Empire. I do not propose to revert again to the particular ease of the representation of the Dominions at Lausanne. It was very fully discussed the other day. But I should like to take, as my starting point, the very important statement of policy which the Prime Minister made on that occasion. He said, on that occasion, that he stood by the Resolution of the last Imperial Conference with regard to the negotiation and ratification of Treaties, and added that that Resolution
      "so far as I am concerned, must be put into operation."
      The leading sentence of that resolution is as follows:
      "Before negotiations are opened with the intention of concluding a treaty, steps should be taken to ensure to any of the other Governments of the Empire likely to be interested are informed, so that, if any such Government considers that its interests would be affected, it may have an opportunity of expressing its views, or, when its interests are intimately involved of participating in the negotiations."
      The Prime Minister very rightly added that that Resolution by no means covers the whole ground and requires to be supplemented and interpreted, and he added that, in his opinion,
      "the time has come when we have to consider, in view of the present circumstances, what machinery is required to be created."
      He went on to say that he thought that, without much delay, if they were going to enter into any further negotiations that would commit either the honour or
      1978
      the resources of the. Empire, these Resolutions
      "should be made the subject of a very careful inquiry by constitutional representatives of the Dominions as well as ourselves—representatives of the Dominions, constitutional authorities, men who have had experience of government and experience of constitutional working, sitting with us a sort of specialised sub-committee or committees of the Imperial Conference that will explore with the authorities here—with all our experience of the difficulties of conducting foreign affairs—to see if we cannot make some of these provisions a little more definite than they are, so as to remove all misunderstanding's."
      He finally added:
      "Before anything is done of a definite character I shall communicate these ideas to the Home in a more definite form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June. 1924; col. 1650, Vol. 174.]
      A little later, on 10th July, the Colonial Secretary was asked how far the negotiations in this matter had gone and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that communications were proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments as to the possibility of improving the present system of consultation on matters of foreign policy and general Imperial interest. He added that
      "the correspondence, however, has not reached a stage where any detailed statement could usefully he made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1924; col. 2492, Vol. 175.]
      My primary object in rising is to inquire from the right hon. Gentleman whether it is now possible to add anything to that reply either as to the arrangements for the special meetings or as to the line of policy which His Majesty's Government will adopt at these meetings, because the House will shortly adjourn, and it may be that those meetings will take place before the House meets again. It is, therefore, not in any mood of criticism, but rather of question that I have risen to bring this matter before the Committee. If I add anything at all it will be more in the way of suggestion and elucidation of the general principles, which, I believe, in the opinion of every section of the House, ought to guide us than to attempt to lay down anything approaching a clear-cut policy on this question. The Resolution to which the Prime Minister referred did not, of course, contain anything new. It was in substance the same as the Resolution, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon

      1979
      Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will remember, at the 1917 Conference, which laid down "the right of the Dominions as autonomous nations of the Imperial Commonwealth to have an adequate voice in foreign policy" and went on to indicate "the need for effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern." That Resolution, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will agree, represents a clear constitutional policy, both Sir Robert. Borden and General Smuts played an important part in framing. It is the view that has been consistently taken by the Dominions ever since. I have this afternoon been refreshing my memory of the recent debates in the Dominion Parliaments. I noticed in a recent debate, I think on 6th June, that the-Prime Minister of Canada described the nececssity which he saw for "consultation and co-operation between the Dominions and the Mother Country as equal units within the Empire.' The leader of the Opposition, Mr. Meighen, said very much the same thing. I may quote a sentence from him. He said he believed it made for world peace that they should exert their united force towards such world policies as made for the peace of all. They could not hold the future on the basis of autonomy alone. I quote one sentence from Mr. Bruce, Prime Minister of Australia, who, referring to the fact that the Dominions were plunged into a great war without consultation, said they were "determined not to remain in a position in which they might be involved in another war without full knowledge of the circumstances that brought it on." He added that the Empire was "one and indivisible," and, in the event of hostilities arising, as the result of misguided British foreign policy, the Dominions could not, in fact, stand aside. It was clear from his speech that there is only one possible solution, and it is that the Dominions while maintaining their full equality of status with the Mother Country should work in complete unity with us as regards the conduct of foreign policy.
      May I suggest, difficult though it be to fulfil those conditions, that it is not impossible. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will agree that there have been periods
      1980
      during which those conditions were absolutely fulfilled. During the Imperial Conferences and War Cabinets in 1917 and 1918, the foreign policy that was carried out by the Foreign Secretary was not the foreign policy of British Government alone but of all the Governments of the Empire, meeting on terms of absolute equality, and arriving at unanimous conclusions. That was of immense importance in shaping the general policy with which we went to Paris. The same thing, of course, took place again at subsequent Imperial Conferences. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that one of the most important landmarks in the policy of the British Empire were those discussions which took place at the Imperial Conference in 1921 with regard to our relations both with Japan and the United States. It was those discussions which formed the whole basis on which the Washington Conference afterwards proceeded. I think my right hon. Friend behind me will agree that the same was true of the Imperial Conference last autumn. While it was in session there was a united foreign policy for the Empire, and in so far as a foreign policy could be laid down during a few weeks for subsequent months and years, we were able to lay down the outlines of a united Empire policy. If that has been achieved between ourselves at Imperial meetings, it has also been achieved with regard to the outside world. When the Dominions went to Paris we succeeded in achieving the fulfilment of these conditions. The status of the Dominions was recognised, not only among ourselves, but by the outside world, as being Equal to that of other independent nations—a very important concession from the point of view of national pride. They were admitted to the Conference or the same terms as all the other smaller nations represented. They were admitted to the League of Nations as separate independent members.
      That was a very important matter, but I suggest to the Committee that, in fact, it was far less important than that real equality which they secured as members of the British Empire delegation which at Paris took the place of the Imperial War Cabinet. While the smaller nations with which they met equally were hanging round the outskirts the Conference, picking up such information as they could, and having their interests considered from time to time, the British Dominions

      1981
      were essentially a part of one of the great deciding Powers. No decision was taken of any importance by the Big Five, or the Big Three, which was not fully discussed with the British Empire Delegation beforehand, and which did not represent the decision of all the nations of the Empire. The same general course was pursued with most satisfactory results at the Washington Conference. The same course has also been pursued at the meetings of the League of Nations. The essential thing, in one way or another, consistent with the effective carrying out of our foreign policy, is that the principle underlying these precedents should be carried right through in the whole action of the Foreign Office.
      It may be that, looking back upon what occurred at Lausanne, either the Dominions or ourselves should have taken a more definite line in regard to essential principles at the moment these negotiations were opened. I will not go over this ground again. I should, however, like to say a word about the Conference sitting at this moment. It was a little unfortunate that, in connection with his Conference, it was only at the last moment that a kind of make-shift arrangement was arrived at. I say make-shift arrangement advisedly, for my right hon. Friend in answering a question the other day practically admitted that it was a make-shift arrangement and expressed the hope that it would not be quoted as a precedent. That arrangement is unsatisfactory for the reason that it is an arrangement under which the Dominions sitting on a panel have full representation in rotation and on other occasions are only present as spectators. I am not going to object to the principle of the panel as such. There may be occasions when it will be convenient for the British Empire to be represented on the panel system, but in adopting the panel system for the Dominions only you are violating the principle of equality of status between the nations of the Empire. If one nation, the United Kingdom, is represented there continuously and of right and the Dominions only have partial representation through the panel the principle of equality of status is violated, but if all are represented on the panel system then the essential principle is preserved. By whatever means this problem is to be solved, whether on the basis of the full
      1982
      separate representation of all the Dominions or on other occasions by Empire representatives nominated by and acting for a British Empire delegation, it is essential that foreign Powers should fully recognise the position. In these matters I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that we are not more tender in regard to the susceptibilities of foreign Powers than with regard to the susceptibilities of the Powers which make up the British Empire. Take the case of a Power like Belgium. The great Dominions took their part in the War no less than Belgium did. They suffered casualties equally with Belgium, they made their sacrifices, and they are no less entitled, if they wish it, to be represented than Belgium. We, at any rate, ought to make it clear to the rest of the world that it must take the British Empire as it finds it and that we cannot diminish the status of our own Dominions in order merely to meet the convenience of other Powers.
      2.0 A.M.
      Whatever the position with regard to conferences, I should like to say that it is not conferences that matter so much as the period in between them. The Prime Minister said the other day, with regard to Lausanne, that it was only the sixth or seventh chapter of a long history. That is equally true of the present Conference. The question of reparations, has been discussed practically without intermission ever since the Treaty of Versailles. It is equally true of all other problems of foreign policy, that you cannot give effective representation to the Dominions at Imperial or foreign Conferences unless they can secure some effective say continuously during the intervals between those great landmarks at which are registered the decisions of the Powers. There are one or two general principles that occur to me as calculated at least, in the long run, to lead to a real solution of the problem. That solution can best be found, I suggest, in somehow or other enabling the principle of the British Empire delegation, which has worked so well at so many Conferences, to be made permanent in order to secure for the Dominions a continuous say in foreign policy. Short of that, I believe it would be a great help if each of them had its own special agent, or a special representative to find out what the situation is and to convey it to their own Governments under their direct instruction. I

      1983
      have seen, from the point of view of the Colonial Office, how inevitably colourless are the general circulars in which facts are conveyed to the Dominions how belated they often are, and how sensitive the Dominions are of criticising these despatches. If the Dominions had their own men they could rebuke them for sending inadequate messages, or for sending them too late; they could tell them to go to the Foreign Office again and again in order to get information, and in that way each Dominion would be able to have a much more effective say. There is another suggestion which has been made, I see, in the Australian Parliament, and which Mr. Bruce has spoken of with great favour. It is the suggestion of substituting for the present secretariat between conferences some sort of inter-Dominion secretariat, not dependent on any British department, but like the Imperial War Graves Commission responsible to all the Governments.
      The really important thing, however, is that the Foreign Office should itself take the initiative in transforming the habits and usages dating from the time when it had the sole direction of foreign policy and adapting them to the new conditions. It may be extremely inconvenient, no doubt, at times but it is well worth trying if we thereby secure a united Empire policy. I do not think I can put that better than did Lord Parmoor when, speaking in another place, he said it was "unthinkable that the Government of this country should pledge itself to any measure to which the Dominions were opposed. As long as we all worked together as one great people for the good of mankind and the peace of the world, it would be impossible for us to think of adopting any policy of which our Dominions did not approve." That is an admirable principle which should guide the foreign policy of the Empire. We believe that the Empire is an indivisible entity; it consists of nations separate yet equal and of Governments completely independent of each other. But they are all Governments of one Imperial Crown, and the nations which go to make up the Empire, the men and women of the nations, are all subjects of the King, and as such are fellow-citizens. They must be equal citizens. There cannot be different degrees of citizenship within the Empire.
      1984
      if we all admit this—and surely we do—then it cannot be tolerated that we should continue, for a moment longer than can be helped, a state of affairs under which citizens of one part of the Empire, speaking through the Parliament and the Foreign Office of that particular part of the Empire, should exercise an almost exclusive control over matters which effect the vital interests, and it may be even the existence, of other parts of the Empire. I hope I have not trespassed too long on the patience of the Committee in raising this very important subject, which is one wholly outside party controversy, and I hope we may succeed in eliciting a clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman, both as to what he has been able to achieve and as to the line which he hopes to take.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has raised this very important question, and I am glad that the Committee are in a position to examine it without their judgment being prejudiced or complicated by association with any criticism upon either the Government of the day or the late Government. I was under the unfortunate necessity of raising it once before in conjunction with what appeared to be a criticism of the late Government, but the fact that this has nothing whatever to do with criticising anyone does not alter my opinion in the least. I am still of the same opinion. I am very glad that the question has been raised, because I think it is a question of the most vital moment to the unity, the strength, and the continued existence of the Empire. I do not want to put it too high, but anyone who has taken the trouble to acquaint himself with some of the disintegrating elements which may exist in parts of the Empire knows perfectly well that this is a matter of such moment that any mishandling of it may produce very disastrous results upon the Empire's unity.
      As my right hon. Friend has said, the War of 1914 has made a very great difference. Up to that date the Dominions had only, I think, on one occasion given any substantial assistance to the Empire in any of its great complications. That was during the South African War. But the sacrifices they made between 1914 and 1918 were greater—the sacrifices made by two of the Dominions were greater

      1985
      than the sacrifices made by this country in any war since the Napoleonic Wars. If you take the cost in human life, in casualties, and even in expenditure, you will find that the sacrifices made by Canada and by Australia were greater than the sacrifices we made either in the Boer War or in the Russian War in 1854. That, therefore, alters the whole situation. When you get the Dominions putting a million men into the field, when you realise that those million men were probably the decisive factor in what happened, when you put the question to yourself, "What would have happened if they had not been there?" and the answer fills you with dread, then you say to yourself that it is quite impossible that you should not comply, not merely with the letter but with the spirit of the demand of the Dominions that henceforth they should be consulted as to the foreign policy which commits them to these enormous sacrifices.
      What was done in 1917, 1918 and 1919, when they were called practically into the Cabinet, into the Council of the Empire, when they sat on equal terms, when they were just like Members of the British Cabinet, when they sat on its Committees, when they presided over some of its Committees—that was a very great constitutional change. It was a greater constitutional change than we quite apprehended, so much so that it has been difficult to get the Departments quite to accept the full meaning of that change, and they are always going—not deliberately; I am not criticising them—they are instinctively, from tradition, from the habit of generations, constantly falling back upon the old attitude of this country. They have not quite realised that a new chapter in the British Constitution was written by the War of 1914–18, and certainly a new chapter in the Constitution of the British Empire. It has been put on a totally different footing. The Dominions were consulted, not by despatches, but by the gathering of their leaders to the Central Council Chamber of Empire.
      I do not want to go back to Lausanne, because, as far as I am concerned, I have had my say on the subject, and I would rather not criticise what has recently happened. I think it is a little unfortunate, but the time has not come for discussing that. I do think, however, that it is very important, when one considers some of the
      1986
      difficulties that our well-wishers in the Dominions have in always carrying the whole of their public opinion along with them on Imperial issues, that we should be exceedingly careful not to give the slightest offence, that we should be exceedingly cautious not to give any handle to those who are ready to make mischief in different parts of the Empire. It is difficult to discuss these matters without saying something that might have a mischievous effect, but the Committee will realise that the kith-and-kin argument does not cover millions of very loyal subjects of the King, even in the Dominions. They have been loyal, and I have no doubt at all that they would stand by the Flag and the Empire whenever it was in peril, but there are people who may make appeals to them in a hostile sense, and it is important that we should avoid any occasion that will give strength to hostile appeals to sentiment which is fermenting sometimes in different parts of the Empire. Therefore, we ought to do everything in our power to get all classes, all races, all languages, all religions inside the Empire and federate them, and make them feel that it is just as much their Empire as if is our Empire.
      That is of the most vital importance, and one can see the importance of it when one reads between the lines of some of the discussions which have taken place in the Canadian Parliament in the course of the present year. Some of the incidents have been unpleasant, and I am certainly not criticising the Prime Minister of Canada. He has very great difficulties, and he has had to hear that sentiment in mind. My right hon. Friend suggests some kind of machinery, but I am not sure that it is a question of machinery. He referred to a very important discussion that took place in the Imperial Conference in 1921. I am not quite sure whether it has been published or not, but I think I am right in saying that, although in 1917 there was rather a desire for a machine, for an organisation, for almost a, written Constitution that would make consultation possible, by 1921 the Dominions had unanimously gone back upon that, and I think rightly. Our very best friends were those who opposed it. They felt that it was out of keeping with the spirit of the British Constitution, which has grown from precedent to precedent, which has been built up out of ex-

      1987
      perience, and they were opposed to anything in the nature of a machine for consultation.
      I think that is right. The methods ought to be adapted to the conditions of the time. You may, for instance, have a sudden crisis, and it is quite clear that no machine could be brought into operation then. The one great difficulty, of course, is distance, and until you are able by scientific means to shorten the distance and minimise that difficulty, it will always remain. You may have a crisis, as in 1914. There was no time for an Imperial Conference in August, 1914. You have, therefore, to consider the method and adapt it to the conditions of the moment. All that you could have done then was to send cablegrams across, but that is not always possible. It may lead to misunderstanding, because it is very difficult, when you send a cablegram of that kind across, to prevent something from leaking out which may imperil the whole situation here in Europe. That is the difficulty, but the Dominions understand that, and I am sure that what they want to feel is that, when we come to settle the general direction of the policy of the Empire, they shall be called in.
      My right hon. Friend referred to the prolonged discussions that we had in 1921 before we decided upon our attitude towards the Japanese Alliance. That, naturally, was a matter of vital interest to certainly three of the Dominions—to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It was discussed at very great length, and the decision we came to was arrived at after very prolonged examination of the whole problem. But, more than that, that was a discussion which took place before the Disarmament Conference in Washington, and the policy of the Empire with regard to naval disarmament was a policy which was decided upon after discussion with the Dominions. That makes a very great difference. Take our attitude towards France. The question of security was discussed; the question of a pact was discussed; all these issues have been discussed. But when you get a question like the Dawes Report, it is very difficult, I realise, to decide upon the best method of discussing a question of that kind; but it is vital that they should be consulted. They have even a pecuniary interest in
      1988
      the decision; but, apart from that, they have the interest that they made great sacrifices to establish that Treaty. They are signatories to the Treaty. The Treaty was arrived at after they had been taken into full consultation. Therefore, they ought to be consulted.
      There are many ways in which they could be consulted, and now is not the time for discussing the question of consultation before this Conference. The Conference is sitting. I agree, however, with my right hon. Friend that there were rather unfortunate incidents, and what is vital is that they should feel that whatever policy we decide upon is a policy in regard to which we are taking them into our councils in so far as geographical conditions will permit, that they should feel that we are not deciding for them, that the old tradition by which the British Government and the British Foreign Office—or, as they put it, Downing Street—that the old policy of Downing Street deciding for the whole of the Dominions, and committing them to a policy which loyalty demands-that they should support when it is challenged by anyone, is gone, and is gone for ever. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not believe that there is a more important fact for civilisation at the present moment than the British Empire. It is essentially an Empire of liberty, it is an Empire of right, it is an Empire of peace. Those are the three appeals which will rally the Dominions, and that that Empire should be strong, that it should grow in strength, in unity, in power and in might is essential in the highest interests of humanity.
      Mr. THOMAS: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that too much importance cannot be attached to this question. I will mention two incidents. When we came into office, we immediately found ourselves at cross purposes with one of our Dominions with regard to the Treaty of Lausanne. The late Government had decided on a certain policy. There we found ourselves immediately with one of our Dominions, not only in private correspondence but openly in Parliament, denouncing what the right hon. Gentleman calls Downing Street methods. We were disturbed at that, and we said at once if possible we must avoid it, not because we are anxious to close anything up which has been done, but the very

      1989
      fact that in the Canadian Parliament the Prime Minister can actually discuss three alternatives, one of them being separation, is certainly disturbing. But it ought to convince all Members in all parties in this House at least that it is a subject which must be tackled not only seriously, but entirely free from party of any sort or kind.
      Does not this discussion prove that on the Empire question all parties not only can unite, but are equally devoted, and it is a good thing. Therefore, I come right away to the difficulties. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the Dominions gained this particular status during the War. You discussed it in 1917 fully and frankly, because the Dominions said, rightly. "when we are called upon, as we are called upon to-day"—in that case they did it voluntarily—"to come to the aid of the Mother Country, with all the risks, all the sacrifices of blood and treasure that we poured out, we at least not only are entitled to be consulted, but you have no right to commit us unless we are consulted in advance." That surely was the meaning of the 1917 decision. It was followed by the right hon. Gentleman's effort at Versailles to establish, for the first time in international affairs, a definite place and status for our Dominions. Lausanne followed. Then we came in, and found this difficulty. As evidence of our anxiety I cannot do better than quote from a message I sent to the Dominions by the Prime Minister on 23rd June of this year, because I think it not only expresses the Government view, but the view of the House of Commons as a whole.
      "You will probably have seen from Pres, reports of recent speeches of Secretary of State for the Colonies and myself in Parliament that we are concerned as to adequacy of present system of consultation with other self-governing parts of the Empire on matters of foreign policy and general Imperial interest. We fully accept principle of necessity for effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine. We also realise the action to be taken as result of consultation, whether at or between Imperial conferences, must be subject to constitutional requirements of each country. But we feel as result of our experience since taking office that system in practice has two main deficiencies. First, it renders immediate action extremely difficult, more especially between conferences, on occasions when such
      1990
      action is imperatively needed, particularly in the sphere of foreign policy. Secondly, when matters under discussion are subjects of political controversy, economic or otherwise, conclusions reached at and between Imperial Conferences are likely to be reversed through changes of Government. Such a state of affairs leads inevitably to ineffectiveness. It also causes disappointment and doubts are thrown on utility of whole Imperial conference system."
      He winds up by saying:
      "We should like your views on these suggestions and if you should be able to make any others, they would be welcome We ourselves are quite of an open mind and are merely exploring the situation with a view to finding a solution."
      There never was a more frank statement from the British Government to the Dominions, because with open hands we say, "Come in and help us find a solution."
      Mr. AMERY: The right hon. Gentleman has given the Committee part of that document. I suppose the whole of it will be published.
      Mr. THOMAS: Yes. The whole of the correspondence will be published. I quoted it to show that immediately we were brought up against this problem we took the only steps open to us. In the interval we are faced with the conclusions of the Dawes Report. As the right hon. Gentleman said, here you have the real difficulty when you get such a situation as faced us in that Report. To bring the Dominions, to give them the same representation as we determined on at Versailles, meant that they themselves were to have six representatives. Anyone with any knowledge of the European difficulty arising out of the Dawes Report would admit that we could not turn that Conference into a mass meeting. If you were going to be businesslike, you had to make it as small as possible, and the difficulty of that was not only our own difficulty but the difficulty of the other Powers represented. We immediately applied ourselves to the difficulty. We cabled to the Dominions, and said to them: "Here is our difficulty. We want you to have the same representation as at Versailles, but there is a difficulty for this Conference. Will you help us?" During the whole of these negotiations we made it perfectly clear to them that on no consideration would they be committed in any way by any representatives of the British Government without full discussion and agreement. They all accepted

      1991
      it readily with the exception of Canada and the Irish Free State. We may as well be perfectly frank in this matter. The strength of the British Empire is that we can be frank with each other without unpleasantness. Mr. Mackenzie King, speaking for his Government, was frank. He said, "No. I believe that accepting anything less than the principle agreed at Versailles is lowering, our status."
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I suggest that it would have been possible to carry out the Versailles precedent without in the least interfering with the business of the Conference. I can quite understand that when you come to discuss details you cannot hare a large body, but, then, whenever there was a plenary session where Rumania, Czechslovakia, and Greece were represented, the Dominions were put on the same basis as those countries and were always present, and at the plenary sessions the Dominions might have been represented without interfering in the least with the smaller Commissions that discussed the details of business.
      Mr. THOMAS: May I recall to the right hon. Gentleman that agreement had been reached as to the number of these various representatives. What we have done is this: Each Dominion sends its representative. When you talk about continuous consultation, no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that it does not always follow that the Dominions themselves agree to their particular representative in London being their representative. That is another difficulty. So do not let us think there is no difficulty. One assumes that the High Commissioners speak for them, whereas, as a matter of fact, in this Conference Canada is represented by a member of her own Senate. What takes place is, that practically every day the whole of the representatives of the Dominions meet the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself at Downing Street. We not only tell each other everything that is going on in all our Commissions, but discuss the whole situation, not as British delegates versus Dominions, but as one united delegation having a common interest, in addition to which, at all the plenary sessions the whole of the representatives of the
      1992
      Dominions are present—at every plenary session from the date it opened.
      Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Are they full members?
      Mr. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me. I do not want something to be said abroad in the Dominions which is not absolutely in accordance with exactly what takes place. At every plenary session every representative is present, but at a plenary session there are only four representatives of the Empire, that is two members of the British Government and one representing the Dominions. The others are all present. It is only fair also to say we promised the Dominions, and the Prime Minister read to the conference a clear and definite statement, that this was not to be taken as a precedent or quoted as a precedent for the future, because we desired to make it perfectly clear, not only to the Dominions themselves, but to all foreign Powers, that this system of representation for our Dominions is not satisfactory.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let me follow what the arrangement is. I understand that each of the Dominions is not represented at the Conference. There are three representatives, and only one is a full delegate of the Dominions.
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. THOMAS: Yes, only one is a full delegate. As my right hon. Friend says, just as in Paris every day, before committing the Dominions to anything there were consultations, so every day here in this Conference there is consultation taking place, and everyone knows as much about the case as the other. That, I repeat, in itself is not satisfactory. That, in itself, is not a solution. That, in itself, is something which must be altered, and we are determined to alter it. That is why we are inviting the Dominions to a Conference, which, we hope, will take place in October of this year. The reason why I cannot lay the Papers at this moment is because the replies are not in. Otherwise, all the evidence tends to show that it will be welcomed, that the Conference will take place, and, so far as the Government are concerned, we want the Conference to take place, so as to explore the whole situation and avoid, if possible, the diffi-

      1993
      culties with which, unfortunately, we have had to deal up to now. I can only say if this discussion helps towards that end, we all welcome it, because this is not censuring anybody, it is not blaming anybody; it is recognising two facts, one of which my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Not only do they deserve well of us, not only are they entitled to this, not only have they made sacrifices, but it is absolutely imperative that their interests must be recognised and looked after.
      Secondly, we want, I may say, outsiders to understand that these domestic difference are not going to weaken us. They are inclined to take advantage of these difficulties. They are inclined to gloat over the kind of discussions that took place a few weeks ago over this Conference. We want them all plainly to understand that they are not going to take advantage of these difficulties, because we are going to remedy them in the future. I am quite sure I express the sentiment of the whole Committee when I say we all welcome the discussion, and the frank way in which the question has been approached, and, so far as the Government are concerned, we believe in sending that message to them, and, in meeting them in the Conference, if it takes place, we will not only be representing ourselves, but all sections of this House in a genuine attempt for Imperial unity on a sound basis.
      Sir J. MARRIOTT: I think I may so far venture to express the opinion of a good many Members on this side of the House if I say we have heard the statement which has just been made by my right hon. Friend with very great satisfaction. At any rate, I would like to say this, that I can imagine nothing better than the whole temper and tone in which the right hon. Gentleman's speech was couched. I think there may be differences of opinion as to how far the precise necessities of this question have been met by the expedient explained to us by the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will probably feel there will be such differences of opinion; in fact, I was going to say he would feel those differences of opinion himself. But if I pass from the details of the arrangement he has laid before the House, to the tone and temper of his speech to-night, I can assure him that I, at any rate, have nothing but the utmost satisfaction. I
      1994
      believe if that temper and tone could be reflected in the reports in the Press to-morrow, his words would be very warmly welcomed, not only throughout the country, but throughout the whole Empire. I think I may say this also. I cannot believe that there could be brought before this House of Commons any subject of greater moment, not merely to the future of this country, but to the future of the world, than the question which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) this evening, and it is a happy circumstance that the question should have been illuminated by the genius, as well as by the unique experience, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
      I think it must be obvious to every Member of this House who has given the least consideration to this problem of Empire partnership, that we have reached in the evolution of the British Commonwealth a stage which is difficult, which is delicate, and which, unless it be handled with the greatest possible tact, may even become critical. May I just remind the Committee, very briefly, how we have reached this stage in what I have called the evolution of the British Commonwealth? In the middle of the last century both parties in this country—there were only two then—had only one object in view in their Colonial policy, and that object was this. The whole of our arrangements were made with a view of preparing the Colonies for immediate self-government and for eventual independence. That was the admitted goal of the Manchester School, as it was called, and it was the admitted goal not only of that school, but of all parties in the State. You have only to look at any of the representative works of that period. Look, for example—I am sure the Colonial Secretary has been immersed in the study of the work—at Sir George Cornewall Lewis's "Essay on the Government of Dependencies," published, I think, in 1841. Look at Mr. Arthur Mills's "Colonial Constitutions," hardly a less representative work than that of Sir George Cornewall Lewis. That was published in 1851. Or look at the Memoirs of Sir Frederick Rogers, afterwards Lord Blachford, who for 10 or more years was Permanent Secretary at the Colonial Office. Look at any of those

      1995
      works, and you will find that they all represent as the goal of our Colonial policy in the middle years of the last century, the idea that we must train the Colonies for immediate self-government and for eventual independence.
      We need not go so far back. I remember that as late as the year 1872, the "Times," in one of its leading articles advised the Canadians—I am quoting from memory, but I think accurately—to take up their freedom, as the days of their apprenticeship were over. I am happy to think that almost from the date of the publication of that article in the "Times" in 1872, there was a very rapid reaction of opinion. I am not going to explore the causes of that reaction, but I would just say that you do not get a great, broad river of sentiment, such as that which flowed in the last. 15 years of the last century, without a very large number of contributory streams. I should weary the Committee if I were to trace those streams to their sources. I am not going to do it, although I would venture very respectfully to advise hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should make that exploration for themselves. It is enough to say that there was in quite the last years of the last century a very strong centripetal movement, which was typified by the operations of the old Imperial Federation League, founded by men like Mr. W. E. Forster, Lord Rosebery and Lord Bryce. That league operated even more powerfully in the Colonies than it did in this country, and the real object of what I have termed that centripetal movement was to amend the state of affairs in regard to the external policy of the Empire. A very large part of the movement towards the greater unity of the Empire, closer relations between the Mother Country and the Dominions, arose from the profound dissatisfaction of the Dominions in regard to the whole conduct of foreign policy.
      I very well remember that at the very first Imperial Conference, that of 1887, this question of the foreign policy of the Empire was brought before the Conference by the then Prime Minister of Victoria, the late Sir James Service. The Committee will remember that was the time when our Australian Colonies were beginning to feel very grave apprehensions in regard to the incursion of other European nations into the Pacific,
      1996
      and Sir James Service came to this country in 1887 very largely to protest against the view that the foreign policy of the Empire was to be directed completely and exclusively from Downing Street. The Australian Colonies were at that time very gravely apprehensive of the consequences likely to arise to them from the neglect of the advice which they tendered through Lord Derby, who was then at the Colonial Office, with regard to the acquisition of various islands in the Pacific ocean. What was the burden of the argument which Sir James Service put before that Imperial Conference in 1887? The whole burden of his argument was this: You, the Mother Country, have given to the Dominions absolute and complete autonomy as regards their domestic affairs, but, in reference to external matters, which vitally concern their future—and I remember the words of Sir James Surface, although I am afraid I have not verified them—"we, the Colonies, are still in the position of outside petitioners to the Colonial Office." That was felt to be an intolerable situation. [HON. MEMBERS "Divide!"] I have not finished, and I intend to finish, all being well, because I think the points I desire to make are of very great moment, and I wish to make them in the way I think desirable. I say that was felt to be an intolerable situation, and it was the realisation of that situation which led to the periodic consultation with the Dominions in a series of very important Imperial Conferences. I have always looked back to the Imperial Conference of 1911 as the turning point in the history of the foreign relations of the Empire.
      It being Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lieut. - Colonel RUDKIN: In the interests of the public, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the fact that these Amendments have only by your courtesy been printed and have only reached my hands to-day—I am not sure whether they have yet reached the hands of those hon. Members who are supporting me—I wish to ask whether you will allow this Debate to be adjourned until reasonable time has been given to enable me and those who are supporting me to read through the very intricate Amendments which are put before us at the last moment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Quarter-past eight has been appointed by the Chairman of Ways and Means for the taking of this business. The House, by its own Resolution, dispensed with the printing of Amendments about 10 days ago, as is usually done at this time of the Session. But out of courtesy to the hon. and gallant Member, I understand that the promoters printed the Amendments, and that they were available early yesterday.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I understand that, in the circumstances, you will not permit the consideration of these Amendments to be adjourned. The fact that the Amendments have not been printed at the usual time, and have been circulated only when I asked that they might be supplied to us, seems to convey the suggestion that the company did not want these Amendments to be generally known.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have just explained to the hon. and gallant Member that it was by order of the House that the printing of Amendments was suspended, as is usual at this period of the Session. They have been printed by the promoters, at the request of the hon. and gallant Member.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I did not hear what you said before. Now I quite understand. These Amendments have been put before the House at the last minute, and the great number of speakers who will follow me to-night do not realise what this Bill means. The Bill was rushed through the House some time ago, and passed its Third Reading. I objected to the Third Reading but, apparently, I did not object loudly enough. Now I am objecting to the Lords Amendments to the Bill. Before I come to the Amendment, I wish to say that, in view of the fact that the management of this railway has
  1998
  become a subject of amusement to the whole countryside and to the whole world, and in view of the fact that not only are the trains never punctual, that they are not clean, and that the time tables are not adhered to—
  Mr. COOPER RAWSON: Is a discussion of the train services in order on this Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: On consideration of the Lords Amendments, we can deal only with the actual Amendments sent from the other House.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I bow to your ruling. I was merely introducing the question of the Amendments. The first Amendment is to insert Clause 19A, which is inserted for the protection of the Southampton Corporation. There is a further Clause for the protection of the Metropolitan Water Board, another for the protection of John Edward Arthur Willis Fleming. These Amendments would seem to show that these bodies, or individuals, require a great deal of protecting from this company, when the Lords consider it necessary to insert these Clauses into the Bill. The Clause for the protection of the Southampton Corporation provides that
  "The corporation may and at the request of the company shall grant and convey to the company without the company making joy payment therefor the lands containing twenty-seven decimal three acres or thereabouts coloured pink and the lands containing fourteen decimal two acres or thereabouts hatched pink on the signed plan fm all the estate and interest of the corporation in those lands."
  In the short time allowed for consideration of these very intricate Amendments, I should like to know, not only in the interests of my constituency—
  Mr. G. SPENCER: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to go through the whole of the Amendments now, without coming to any specific Amendment which the House may discuss?
  Mr. SPEAKER: At the present stage, the hon. Member can deal only with the question as to why the Lords Amendments should not now be considered. Later on, when we come to the question of the particular Amendments to which he is now referring, he can deal with them.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I thought I was dealing with the Amendments before

  1999
  the House. I should like to consider on the Amendment to which I have referred, and I should like the House to consider very seriously, where is the consideration if there be no payment? If the House has not time to consider this question, as is the case at present, I submit that a very grave wrong may be done to the public by giving this company the power which it will get if these Amendments be passed. It is obvious that the Lords are not satisfied with the Bill, from the very copious Amendments which they have added. Had they been satisfied, it would not have been necessary to insert these seven pages of Amendments. In these circumstances alone, I think I am right in looking very particularly at the Amendments, and in asking the House to consider the Amendments with great particularity and care. The Clause in question goes on:
  "The corporation shall grant and convey the said lands subject to such rights (if any) over the same as may be held or enjoyed by the Pirelli General Cable Works Limited or other the lessee or assignee for the time being under an indenture."
  Mr. SPEAKER: These questions must be considered when they arise on the particular Amendments, and not on this Motion, which is simply "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." The House must first decide whether or not it will consider the Lords Amendments.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I did not understand. Does this mean that I cannot deal with these various Clauses?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It means that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot do that on the present Motion, but if this Motion be passed, then he will be entitled to say what he has to say on the particular Amendments which have come from the other House.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I ask the House, in view of what I have said, and the fact that the House of Lords have considered it necessary to add so many Amendments to a Bill with which obviously they were not satisfied, and that this House has had so little time to consider these Amendments; and, further, that I myself have had this
  2000
  document thrust into my hands only at one o'clock to-day, and have not had time even to read it through, to defer the considerations of these Amendments to this day three months.
  Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the Amendments which have come from the House of Lords are of a very serious nature. They affect many places, and deal with many points. There are 14 pages of Amendments, all of which are important. Some of them are not Amendments in the strict sense of the word, but are entirely new matter. They come up here as new Clauses, dealing with important questions of detail. In view of the gravity of those Clauses, I submit that the matter should he considered by the Committee which considered the Bill before it came up here. The usual Amendments made by the Lords are small in their nature, but this is a big matter. We cannot properly consider these questions now. Like my hon. Friend, I was only able to get a copy of the Bill late this afternoon. I understand that it was at the Vote Office yesterday, but I had no knowledge of that. I made inquiries in order to get the Amendments, but I was unable to do so, and it has been impossible to digest the important matters contained in these Amendments. One cannot possibly go into the Bill in such a short time with one's ordinary duties to discharge. For instance, a Clause to which there is particular objection is Clause 94, on page 76, which gives the police power to search and arrest. Why these special powers should be given to the police in connection with the railway, and the ordinary powers should be superseded, I do not know.
  Mr. HANNON: Is not this new matter arising out of the Bill, and not the question which is before the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, on this particular matter the hon. and learned Member has misread the Lords Amendment. The Clause referred to was in the Bill when it went to the other House. The other House made only a slight Amendment.
  Sir T. BRAMSDON: Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I was referring to the Clause on page 76 which, as far as I understand, comes up as a new Clause. If I am wrong in that, I am sorry, but

  2001
  that is only another reason why one should be given time to consider these things. The Bill is an omnibus Bill, dealing with many subjects affecting the whole district served by the Southern Railway, and these Amendments are brought forward in a Bill which was thought to be non-controversial, and to which we now find many objections.
  Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: May I ask is it customary to issue Amendments of this sort only 24 hours before they are brought up in this House, when hon. Members have not had an opportunity of looking through them at all?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had been in the House 10 minutes ago—
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: I was.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I explained then that the House, by its awn order, had dispensed with the customary printing of Lords Amendments for the remainder of this part of the Session, and these have been printed at the request of the hon. and gallant Member through me. They are quite in the usual form in the way in which they are printed.
  Mr. GWYNNE: We who represent constituencies in the areas served by the Southern Railway are placed in a very difficult position to-night, because, while we do not want to obstruct this Bill, which is going, possibly, to improve the railway system, or find work for the unemployed, yet we feel that to let this Bill go through at the present stage would be a mistake, unless we could get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that certain grievances from which we are suffering at present would be looked into and favourably considered. There is no question but that since the Bill passed its Third Reading in this House, great changes have been made on the whole system, and rights and privileges enjoyed for the last 30 or 40 years have been taken away. The promoters of this Bill must know that if we had had any idea that these drastic changes would be made, many of us would have opposed to the utmost of our power the Third Reading of this Bill. To take the opportunity now of obstructing the Bill on the Lords Amendments is a very unsatisfactory course to the House as also to those who are interested in the welfare of the railways, and I
  2002
  would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil) might perhaps save the time of the House, and place us all in a much more happy position if he could give us now, with the leave of the House, a definite assurance that those of us who considered that we have a real grievance, and the public whom we represent, may have those grievances considered, and that the Board would meet certain members representing the districts affected, and go into the matter thoroughly and promise us favourable consideration. I think that would meet my case, and probably the case of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
  Lieut. - Colonel RUDKIN indicated assent.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Otherwise we shall be compelled to obstruct the Amendments to the best of our ability. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to give us this assurance, and I invite him to do so.
  Sir EVELYN CECIL: On the invitation of my hon. Friend, I am glad to be able to address the House on this matter. I represent the railway, inasmuch as I am not only now on the Board, but, as a member of the old London and South Western Board, I was familiar with that section of the system. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has suggested postponement of his Amendment has put me in a difficult position, because I could not but think from his speech, and the way in which he began it, that what he really wants to do is to complain of the train service. But that is out of Order, and I cannot go into the matter at this stage.
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I not only suggest that there are very reasonable grounds indeed for complaint with regard to the train service. But in view of the unsatisfactory way in which this company, and the companies which comprise it, have been managed in the past, and in view of the fact that since 14th July they have entirely changed their time-table to the detriment of everybody concerned, I object to these Amendments of the Bill, on the ground that, as the company has managed its business so badly in the past, it would probably manage its business worse if it got the power.
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: My objection is not so much to the bad train service, because

  2003
  in the bulk of my constituency, there is practically no train service at all—
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be quite irregular now to go into details of this sort. On the Second Reading of a Bill it is permissible to ask how a company has used its existing powers, but it is not permissible to do so on the consideration of Lords' Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman can make a general statement on the matter.
  Sir E. CECIL: The only general statement that I can make is that in all such problems as those brought before the House, it is often a question of speeding up a train service to serve the big towns, and this necessarily causes some curtailment in the services to smaller towns. The Board are most anxious to meet the interests of all classes of their clients and of the populations along the line. But, of course, there are sometimes very conflicting interests, and in these conditions they are giving consideration to all parties, and trying to effect a satisfactory service all round. That certainly has been the general policy of the old South Western Board, and so far as I can do anything on the new Southern Board, I shall certainly do my best. I am sure that the general manager will most willingly see my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member with regard to any difficulty in his constituency, and will endeavour to meet the interests of the constituencies in consonance with all the interests that we have to consider. We are anxious in every possible way to meet all the districts which we have to serve, and it is not from any spirit of disinclination that we cannot satisfy all.
  I must say a word or two on the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Colonel Rudkin) about the Lords' Amendments. It is well known that Amendments of this character are often circulated, after discussion between counsel on one side and the other, and after careful consideration by the Committee concerned. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member is quite right in suggesting that the Lords are not satisfied with the whole Bill, because these happen to be unusually long Amendments. The reason why they are long Amendments is that the big interests—especially those of the Southampton Cor-
  2004
  poration and the Metropolitan Water Board—called for a very careful Clause, as a protection not only of their interests, but of the interests of the company in dealing with them. These Clauses have now been agreed by both sides. They passed through the Committee as agreed Clauses. That is why they were added. They were added with the approval of these large corporations, which goes a long way to smooth the passage of the Bill, and to show that there has been consideration of the public interests in these localities. It is following the ordinary procedure of this House to accept the Clauses, to allow them to be put into the Bill, and to allow the Bill to pass. There is no special case in the matter of this Bill compared with any other Bill. If I can give any further explanation to any hon. Member, I shall be happy to do so.
  Mr. COMPTON: This Bill is going to be of service not only to the railway company, but to a great mass of unemployed. As an old trade union official, who has had many meetings and conferences with the Southern Railway Company and the old companies that constitute it, I can say that we have always been received very well by the company, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will take that assurance from me, he would be well advised not to press his Amendment, but to allow the Bill to go through on the promise given.
  Sir E. CECIL: This Bill includes the extension of Southampton Docks, which will mean the spending of from £8,000,000 to £10,000,000.
  Mr. GWYNNE: In view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, as far as I and many of my friends are concerned, we are willing to withdraw our objection, on the distinct understanding that our grievances will be very favourably considered. I hope that the Mover of the Amendment will take the same course. We do not want to obstruct the Bill, but to safeguard the interests of our constituents.
  Mr. LAVERACK: I wish to support the Amendment. I agree that the Southern Railway Company in all probability will try to meet any possible objection. I also agree that the gentlemen who have been concerned in the negotiations have done their best in all

  2005
  probability. I still further agree that these different Amendments, so copious, have been agreed by both sides. But it is one thing for my Lords to agree to Amendments and a very different thing for the Members of this House to agree to Amendments. After all, the House of Commons safeguards the rights of the whole of the people, not merely of one particular railway company. As far as I have been able to study the Amendments, my objections are manifold. I certainly hope that something very special will be given in the nature of an assurance or guarantee, before these Amendments are definitely passed, that these objections will be met. This company in the estimation of some people is a very good company, but in the estimation of other people, including certain hon. Members of this House, it hag been rather a back number. There have been many objections, letters have been written to the Press and to hon. Members of this House—objections to the company have been conveyed to me—and I observe that in connection with those Amendments the Borough of Lambeth is mentioned. I happen to have the honour of being a Member for one of the Lambeth divisions, and I should like to mention two or three special objections which I have noticed on reading through these Amendments. On the first page I notice the following words—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have ruled already that objections of that kind must be taken on the particular Amendment to which it relates when the House has decided to consider the Amendments, and not on the Motion now before the House, which is merely that the Lords Amendments be considered.
  Mr. LAVERACK: I am sorry I was not in attendance when that ruling was given, but there are a number of matters on which I think the House should have further particulars, and the public as a whole should understand exactly what are their rights. There are such matters, for example, as the formation of new roads, the building of new bridges and new viaducts, and so forth. Nowadays the most up-to-date scientific method of road making—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise at all on the question "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentle-man opposite, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which I put before the House, and I should like to say that, had we previously received this assurance in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has put it to us now, this matter need never have gone so far. All we desire is to ensure that the public will not be the sufferers by the granting of powers to a great corporation of this description.
  Sir T. BRAMSDON: As one who is deeply interested in this question, may I ask to be associated in any conferences which are to take place?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: May I ask whether I should be in order in addressing myself to the remarks which were made earlier by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil).
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. A general discussion of the railway's powers, and the use of those powers, is not in order on this occasion.
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: The Debate has very largely centred round the question of the railway service mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston. He indicated that the general manager would be glad to see any Members who were interested in the railway service in their constituencies, and I want to point out that I have twice written to the general manager, and have only received an acknowledgment of my letters. Therefore I feel rather hopeless about it. It is not that I want to have a better railway service in my constituency; I want to have some railway service. That is all I ask for, but I have never been able to achieve it yet. If the right hon. Gentleman can offer me an assurance that he will give some attention to my constituency, I will withdraw all opposition.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given a Parliamentary undertaking.
  Mr. RAWSON: The question of railway service has been referred to by three or four hon. Members, and I should like to point out that there is another side

  2007
  to that question. There are constituencies such as mine which, in spite of the fact that there has been no competition, enjoy very excellent services, and those services have been very much improved during the present month.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir J. Davidson) must not be allowed to lead to a general debate.
  Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (LAMBETH BRIDGE) BILL [Lords].
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "the Bill be re-committed so far as Clause 6 is concerned, and that the Committee take into further consideration the question of increasing the headway of the arch on each side of the central arch to 19 feet."
  One feels in a somewhat invidious position in opposing this Bill at the present stage, but I think, in view of the safety of the navigation of the River Thames, it is important that this matter should be raised and that, if possible, the whole question of the height of these bridges over the river should be reconsidered. The existing structure has an arch span of 267 feet with 19 feet S inches headway above the Trinity high-water mark and there is an absence of masonry which affords a clear view—a most important matter for those responsible for the navigation of the river. The new bridge is to be a five-arch bridge instead of the existing suspension bridge and it is to be constructed of masonry and steelwork. The central arch will have a span of 152 feet against the existing 267 feet. This centre span will have 21 feet clearance in the centre and the two arches adjacent to the centre
  2008
  arch are to have 146 feet span and only 16 feet 8 inches clearance above the Trinity highwater mark. It is these two side arches which give considerable concern to those responsible for navigation on the river, especially considering the fact that there are large ocean-going steamers using the river, whose officers have to be responsible for navigating them through these bridges. In this proposed new bridge there is only one centre opening left for these steamers to go through, and I feel that there ought to be at least three, so that in the case of an accident to the centre there would be other openings for the steamers to use. The expert opinion of Captain Shankland, the Harbour Master of the Port of London Authority, in his evidence given before the Select Committee, was that 16 feet 8 inches clearance was totally inadequate, and when you have evidence of that kind, I think, after all, the safety of the navigation of the river is more important than the necessity for having a bridge. I admit the necessity for having a bridge, and I want them to have it, but I also want them to take care that it will leave the river free for navigation by these steamers.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir JOHN BRUNNER: I have the honour of having been Chairman of the Committee which considered the proposed Lambeth Bridge. The opposition to the Bill arose from the Wandsworth Gas Company, which has four large vessels that trade between Wandsworth and the Tyne. This bridge if built as the plan shows will certainly not give passage at all tides through the side arches to these boats. The side aches are designed to have a headway of 16 feet 8 inches above Trinity high water mark. There is no trouble about the size of the centre arch, which will be 21 feet above Trinity high water mark and which will be higher than Westminster Bridge, which is 19 feet 6 inches, but the Committee were of opinion that at most stages of the tide the side arches would be sufficient, and I strongly deny that there will be any obstruction to navigation. We considered that, as the great public advantage of having an extra bridge was one which we were bound to take into account, we could not throw the Bill out on account of these

  2009
  four large vessels. The other navigation on the river is amply satisfied with the side arches of 16 feet 8 inches.
  9.0 P.M.
  I contend that if you wish to navigate the river you must build your boats to suit the bridges, and if you build your ships too large you will only run the risk of running into a bridge and knocking it down, because these bridges cannot be built so securely that, if one of these great vessels touched the top of the arch, it would stand the shock. They might very soon find, if they came into contact with the bridge, that serious damage would be done. I admit quite freely that this proposed Lambeth Bridge is not ideal, but under the circumstances the Committee thought that, seeing that it is a great public improvement, the Bill ought to be passed, because the obstruction to the navigation would not warrant us in throwing the Bill out. With regard to the Amendment to re-commit the Bill, I am afraid that no sufficient evidence has been offered here for such a proceeding, and it does not seem possible, if the Bill were re-committeed, that the Committee could come to any fresh decision.
  Mr. B. SMITH: The question of London traffic is a very serious matter, and I was astounded to hear the statement of the hon. Member for Southport (Sir J. Brunner) that traffic has to be built to fit the bridges, and not the bridges to fit the traffic. That seems to me to be the most restrictive formula which one can possibly put on London, impeding development of all kinds on the river, and holding up the whole question of larger tonnage coming up the river. On top of that, I think it will be in the memory of the House that the particular company which has been mentioned once had a very serious accident with Waterloo Bridge—and it may have had the effect of breaking down that bridge—when the s.s. "Wandle," sonic years ago ran into a buttress at Waterloo Bridge. Here is an old bridge, and here is the traffic of the Thames that could be developed to a great extent, and yet it is to be restricted for the sake of putting 2 feet on two side arches. The whole thing is ridiculous on the face of it, and I hope the House will carry the Amendment.
  Mr. BURMAN: As one of those who had the honour of sitting on the Select
  2010
  Committee which considered this Bill, I hope there will be no further opposition to the passing of the Bill. Undoubtedly, as the horn Member who presided oven the Committee said, there was some difficulty with regard to the side arches, but it only referred to four vessels belonging to the Wandsworth Gas Company, and only on very rare occasions would they be affected. To raise this bridge to the height desired by the Wandsworth Gas Company would involve a very serious additional expense, and at the same time it would have seriously jeopardised the approaches to Lambeth Palace, and on that ground it was opposed by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. When the opposition of the Port of London Authority was withdrawn to the Bill, the Committee thought they had no option but to pass the Bill. In another place the Port of London Authority offered very serious opposition, and as that is the authority responsible for the navigation of the Thames, the withdrawal of their opposition had its effect upon the point of view previously taken by the Committee. However large our bridges are vessels will be made accordingly. The Wandsworth Gas Company have increased the size of their vessels. Bearing in mind the bridges of the river, I think the decision at which we are asked to arrive is a desirable one.
  Mr. HANNON: This, really, is a much more serious question than would appear from the speech we have heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee and other hon. Members. This is really imposing a serious disability upon the navigation of the river. I suggest that before the Committee endorses this scheme it ought to give serious consideration to the extent to which this very important company, whose operations are carried on above this bridge, are interfered with. It is one of the most important public utility companies in London, with a very large branch of its great business being carried on in the Wandsworth region. In order efficiently to carry out its work, it has to employ on the River Thames large steamers. My hon. Friend on the other side, whose special interest in questions of this sort everybody acknowledges, has laid down the extraordinary proposition that you are to base the whole system of navigation upon the size of the bridges. If the principles he has laid down were

  2011
  once accepted in local legislation of this character, you would at once be interfering in private enterprise—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!
  Mr. HANNON: And impose serious disabilities upon the important public utility corporations of this country. I certainly suggest that it is exceedingly high-handed on the part of the promoters of this Bill to insist upon this design of the bridge, and so affect the efficiency of navigation on the Thames. My hon. Friends opposite, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who himself is the embodiment of modern progress, desire to have a voice in this matter. Are we to look forward to the time when the development of water transport on the upper reaches of the river is to be handicapped by this bridge at Lambeth? I submit that it is really an abuse of the forms and privileges of this House, in promoting a Bill of this kind, to ask the House to agree to this condition. I am exceedingly sorry the House has not had an opportunity of earlier coming in contact with the real object of this Bill. In spite, however, of the influential advocacy of my hon. Friend opposite, I certainly think that in face of the facts the House should hesitate a long time before agreeing to this.
  Major BURNIE: I agree that this is a most serious matter, but I view it from a different standpoint to that expressed by some previous speakers—from the point of view of my hon. Friend who spoke about the navigation of the river. The hon. Gentleman for Southport (Sir J. Brunner) laid down the proposition that traffic should be made to fit the bridges of the river, that those steamers which carry these loads should conform to this. But these vessels go to sea in all weathers, and all who have to do business in the North Sea agree that it is a most difficult place to sail in. In heavy weathers the navigator has to nose along the coast, and I think it would be disastrous if this House came to a decision which would impede the navigation of the river in such a way as to cause ships to be built which would be dangerous at sea to the navigator. I do not like to go contrary to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the select Committee, but I think the argu-
  2012
  ment of the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the Archbishop of Canterbury being inconvenienced is not an argument which would weigh with me for one moment against the lives of the men engaged on the vessel.
  Mr. BURMAN: On a point of Order May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that that is not quite a correct interpretation of the Archbishop's attitude. He expressed his willingness to do all he could to help the scheme, but pointed ant that some of this enlargement would affect certain of the gates at Lambeth Palace.
  Major BURNIE: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend, but I am within the recollection of the House as to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I do not think my hon. Friend used the word "opposed," but I understood him to put it that it would inconvenience the Archbishop. However, I withdraw if I am wrong, but such opposition would not weigh with me for one moment as against the interests of the navigators who sail in the North Sea with vessels of so small a freeboard. I sincerely trust that this very difficult question will be taken into due consideration.
  Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Whenever anything comes from the County Council to this House, we get a lot of opposition from certain quarters, but we do not expect it from other quarters. Some hon. Members probably recognise that the County Council has probably carefully considered what kind of bridge should he erected. Again, if there be any authority that knows anything about the matter, it is the Port of London Authority. They are satisfied with the new bridge. I am informed by an ex-chairman of the County Council, who is at present in the House, that the Port of London Authority are satisfied with the project It is desirable that Wandsworth Gas Company's ships should be able to sail at all states of the tide. I want the House to discuss this as a business proposition. This is something more than a ramp—something to make a joke about.
  Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is my hon. Friend entitled to describe a clear, honest and deliberate scheme as a "ramp"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have often wondered what was the meaning of the term "ramp"
  Sir W. MITCHELL: My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) finds himself in curious company to-night in those whom he is supporting. What says the proverb about "adversity making strange bedfellows"? This bridge has been held up for a long time. The arches are 19 feet all through, with centre arches big enough to take these steamers at all states of the tide. If attention were directed to the other bridge further down that is to be rebuilt, namely, Waterloo Bridge, there might be something to say against it, and I am in favour of having a wider bridge there. I hope, however, that the House will not be deflected in this way from supporting the proposition which is put forward in this Bill by the London County Council, and I hope the House will consent to the Third Reading.
  Mr. GILBERT: Reference has been made in this discussion to the Port of London Authority, and I would like to put their views before the House. That authority is the navigation authority for the Thames, and in matters relating to the rebuilding of bridges their view should be taken into serious consideration. In the first place, the Port of London Authority opposed this Bill very strenuously. They objected to the original height of the arches, and after seven or eight days hearing evidence, concessions were made which they accepted from a navigation point of view. They not only considered the question in view of the large amount of traffic up to the gasworks, but also from every point of view. At last they were satisfied with the concessions, and did not oppose the Bill before the Committee. The fact that the navigation authority for the river is quite satisfied with the new bridge ought to be sufficient, and I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): I am informed that in 25 days out of the month the two side arches are quite sufficient for all the traffic. I would also like to point out that the centre arch has been considerably heightened in comparison with Westminster Bridge. As this matter has
  2014
  been seriously gone into by the Committee responsible, I hope the House will agree to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25.
      CLASS II.

        COLONIAL OFFICE.
        Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £113,031, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the, sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
        Question again proposed.
        Sir J. MARRIOTT: I was attempting, when the proceedings were interrupted, to argue in Committee of Supply that the movement towards Imperial unity and closer association between the Dominions, the Colonies, and the Mother Country have been immensely stimulated, if not actually initiated, by the difficulties which had arisen in regard to the external relations of the Empire and its several parts. I remember that one of the great Australian Colonies—in fact, several of them—found themselves impelled to complain that at the time of the arrangement made about the Pacific Islands they actually occupied the humiliating and intolerable position of merely being outside petitioners to the Colonial Office. I think there were ninny people in this country who also regarded that position as intolerable, and it was that which led to the remarkable series of conferences between the Colonies and the Mother Country which, beginning in 1887, went down to the very eve of the Great War. In regard to those conferences, I cannot refrain myself from referring to

        2015
        the views—most important from the point of view of the question raised to-night—expressed at the conference of 1911, when Sir Edward Grey laid before the representatives of the Dominions in the fullest and frankest manner the whole diplomatic situation in Europe.
        Now I come to the War itself. I invite the Committee to consider for one moment what happened. At midnight on the 4th August, 1914, every part of the British Empire and every Dependency was ipso facto at war with Germany. There was no question, from the constitutional point of view, of any Dominion being in a position so to speak to contract out of it. That was legally and constitutionally impossible. It is true that their actual participation was absolutely voluntary and spontaneous, but from the constitutional point of view they found themselves, whether they liked it or not, in a great war, in the making of which they had no part. That was the position. I do not think anybody can be surprised that the Dominions said, "Never again will we consent to be involved in a great war or to be involved in diplomatic negotiations in which we have had no part." They said in effect, "Call us to your councils." I have always thought that the experiment which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) initiated in December, 1916, in bringing into being an Imperial War Cabinet, was one of the most important innovations in our whole constitutional history. Many Members of the House will remember an afternoon in May, 1917, when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs informed the House that it was the unanimous resolution of the Members of the Imperial War Cabinet, that an Imperial Cabinet in war or peace was henceforth to form a part of our permanent constitution. The War ended. The Empire Delegation went to Paris, and at the Paris Conference the Dominions claimed and were inevitably accorded separate and several representations at the Conference. They put their several and separate signatures to the Treaty of Versailles, and they found separate and several representation on the League of Nations. That is a very important new departure. I do not want to criticise for one moment the action the
        2016
        Dominions then took, but when the history of this time comes to be written, that will be marked as a new departure of the greatest possible significance.
        I have said that in 1917 the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs informed this House that an Imperial Cabinet in war and peace had become a permanent part of our constitution. An Imperial Peace Cabinet was in fact again summoned to meet in 1921. What happened? The Dominions had no sooner conic into this country when they declined—for reasons which I have no doubt were well understood in the Dominions and perfectly sufficient—to accept the designation "Cabinet." Perhaps a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, but at any rate, I have always held that this disinclination of the Dominions to accept the description of "Cabinet" in 1921 was an act of very considerable significance.
        I want to come next to the events in this connection of last year. The House will remember that a little more than a year ago a difficult situation arose with regard to the conclusion of what was known as the Halibut Treaty. On 2nd March, there was signed at Washington a Treaty which was designed to protect the Halibut Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean. I would like very respectfully to put one or two questions to the Secretary of State. Who were the contracting parties to that Treaty? Were they the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America? If not, who were the contracting parties? Is it a fact that the Treaty was signed only as far as the Empire is concerned by the Canadian Minister, Mt. Lapointe? It is a point of real constitutional significance to ascertain on whose behalf Mr. Lapointe affixed his signature to that Treaty. Another question I would like to be enlightened upon is on what conditions was that Fisheries Treaty ratified by the Senate of the United States of America? Am I right in believing that the American Senate refused to ratify the Treaty as between Canada and the United States of America? This is a point which will ultimately become, I think, a point of very great significance. Is it a fact that the Senate declined to ratify the Treaty if it was to be regarded as only a Treaty between the Dominion of Canada and the

        2017
        United States, and that it would be ratified only if regarded as a Treaty between the British Empire and the United States of America? There is one other question I want to put and that is whether as a fact Papers have been laid in regard to the Halibut Treaty of last year.
        I do not want, for reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, to discuss the question which has more recently arisen with regard to the Treaty of Lausanne. The only point with which I desire, with all the earnestness I can command, to impress upon the Committee is this, that, in my judgment, we have reached, in regard to the constitutional position of the Commonwealth, a stage which is both delicate and which, if not properly handled, might become dangerous.
        We have granted to the great Dominions—to use a current phrase—autonomy within the Empire. What is the meaning to be attached to the words "within the Empire." I submit that phrase should imply an entirely equal share in determining the foreign policy of the Empire. If that be assented to, then I want to know how are the Overseas Dominions going to be permitted to take that share. It is not only a question of mutual good will. I am confident that as long as my right hon. Friend is at the Colonial Office we may be assured of that good will. But it is also a question of machinery. Have the Government any suggestion to make in regard to the machinery for co-operation which they are prepared to indicate to the House of Commons? If they have not, and if any representative of the Government gets up and tells us that it is the deliberate opinion of the Government that the discussion of machinery would at the present time be inimical to the interests of Imperial co-operation I for one shall immediately acquiesce and not press the discussion of that point. This is a question in which I have been profoundly interested for many years, and that is my excuse for imposing myself on the Committee to-day. As a student of Colonial affairs I cannot conceal my opinion of the gravity of the situation at which we have arrived, or my fears that if that situation is unduly prolonged the consequences may be such as I for one refuse to contemplate. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has done some-
        2018
        thing to-night to reassure the Committee and the country, and I hope that before the Debate ends we may have an answer to the specific questions which I have ventured to put.
        Mr. SHORT: I am sure the Committee has listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), which shows that he has been at some pains to gather together a measure of historical knowledge and events which must interest all of us. This discussion has arisen because our Dominions and the Colonies have protested against being committed to enterprises particularly arising out of foreign policy which engender losses probably of treasure and of blood, and they desire naturally to be represented, so that they may be parties to the formulation of these various policies. I have observed for some considerable time a growing independence on the part of the Colonies and Dominions. I think it is a welcome attitude, and one which, in the interests of this country, and indeed of the Empire, might reasonably be encouraged. We have seen them demanding increased powers in connection with the making of Treaties by the United Kingdom, and they have already succeeded in establishing their claim, especially in reference to the Versailles Treaty. It seems to me essential that the House should give considerable attention to this growing demand and legitimate desire of our brethren across the seas, and I particularly welcome the speech of the Colonial Secretary and the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made. I take it that any body that might be set up of the character contemplated will have very wide powers indeed, and I conceive the members of it will discuss some things which possibly go beyond treaty-making powers and foreign policy.
        We all know that when bodies of this character are set up, there must inevitably be a demand made to bring to them for decision questions outside those contemplated by the originators of the scheme. I say this in order to indicate to those interested the fact that the possibilities are greater than they contemplate. If that view be accepted, then we should have to have some different machinery to that which has been suggested. In supporting the plea

        2019
        which was put forward by the present Colonial Secretary on the occasion of a previous Debate, I do not want to cast any reflection on those who so admirably represent the respective Governments which we have in mind. I observe in connection with these Imperial Conferences that there is difficulty in securing anything in the nature of continuity of policy. It may be that a Minister representing the Government of this country, or one of the Dominions, or one of the Colonies, speaking with authority and weight for the moment, may possibly within a few weeks of returning to his own country be thrown from power and influence and succeeded by a member of a different political party who may be in a totally different frame of mind on the questions he has been speaking upon. Therefore if we are going to face this problem satisfactorily we must get some form of machinery which will be more representative of the views of the country, as distinct from the views of the Government of the day, so that we may aim at continuity of policy. I am not unmindful of the difficulties that will arise from pursuing a policy of this kind, but there is such general agreement here in favour of the development of our Imperial standard and the growth of unity within the Empire that it ought not to be impossible to secure something in the nature of the machinery I am now supporting. I believe we might get some bigger form of representation at these Conferences—representing the United Kingdom on the one hand and the Colonies and Dominions on the other. Success lies in that direction, and I trust that, in future negotiations, that aspect of the matter will not be overlooked, but that the statesmen of the day will concentrate their minds upon that issue, so that we may secure a more representative gathering or conference than we otherwise should.
        Mr. HANNON: I desire to put to the Secretary of State a few questions upon a matter which seems to me to be of considerable importance, namely, the operation of our oversea, settlement scheme at the present time. I am sure it is the desire of every Member of the Committee, as it is the desire of every thoughtful citizen of this country outside
        2020
        the House, that we should have in operation a really carefully considered scheme of oversea settlement. My right hon. Friend presented to this House in April last a Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee. No doubt that Report had been prepared a considerable time before it was presented to the House, because it brought the conditions affecting over-sea settlement up to the close of last year. In that Report, the first important feature of oversea settlement to which attention is directed is that which is known as the nomination scheme. I am not at all certain that this scheme, which on the whole has worked satisfactorily, was not originally the conception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery). At all events, he certainly gave it substantial encouragement while he was dealing with oversea settlement schemes.
        The nomination scheme, which simply puts into the hands of an immigrant in one of our Dominions the power of getting another immigrant to come out to settle with him, has very great potentialities. I should like to ask the Secretary of State what progress is being made in New Zealand and in the Commonwealth of Australia, where this nomination scheme has been in operation for a considerable time, and what prospect there is of making it a success in Canada, where it has only quite recently been introduced. I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend what steps his Department are taking to make known the possibilities of this process of emigration to local authorities throughout the country. In connection with the whole scheme of oversea settlement, there must be persistent and carefully considered educational work. Unless you can bring in the sympathy of local education authorities, unless you can get the sympathy of the great teaching profession in all its branches in this country—in public schools as well as secondary and elementary schools—you cannot make a really comprehensive scheme of oversea settlement a success. Having regard to the pronouncements Which my right hon. Friend has from time to time made outside this House, we look to him to see that the necessary spade-work, in making known through every channel that offers itself, the possibilities of oversea settlement, is not lost sight of in the administration of his Department.

        2021
        I should like to ask him, further, whether he is taking care that, in the case of these nomination emigrants, there is no danger that their family affiliation and relationship may take precedence over real efficiency in the quality of the emigrants that may go out. Naturally, if au emigrant settles, either on the land or in suitable surroundings in an industrial community, in one of our Dominions, his tendency will be to bring out one of his own relatives. Of course, as my right hon. Friend knows, in some of the Dominions land settlement only is permitted, as is the case in Canada. In others, an emigrant who goes to an industrial centre may use his privilege of nomination to bring out one of his friends. Is my right hon. Friend's Department guarding against the danger that an immigrant, in the exercise of his privilege in that direction might bring out a friend or relative who might not be as efficient as another emigrant might possibly be?
        Mr. THOMAS: You might prevent an Irishman from bringing along a friend?
        Mr. HANNON: Or you might prevent a Welshman from bringing along a friend. I do not care from what part of the Kingdom they come if they are efficient. What I am afraid of is the quality of the particular Celt who goes abroad. As my right hon. Friend, in doing me the honour of interrupting me, introduced the Celtic fringe, may I say that Irishmen all over the Dominions have given an extraordinarily good account of themselves as settlers, and that, whatever may be their defects in their own little island at home, they certainly have shown a great faculty of being useful as settlers abroad? In my continuous journeyings round the Empire, while I have found that Scotsmen are pretty prominent, and on the whole efficient, I have not found many of my right hon. Friend's countrymen coming up on the top and making a demonstration of their capacity as settlers. I am sorry for having said that, but my right hon. Friend brought it upon himself by interrupting me without rhyme or reason in the course of my speech.
        I should like to put this also to my right hon. Friend. It is the case that assistance is given towards the passages of emigrants to our Dominions, but a great deal of restriction is imposed in connection with the issue of those
        2022
        passages. I put it to my right hon. Friend, with his generous temperament, to consider whether some modification might not be made in the case of specially and exceptionally qualified emigrants, in order to make it easier for them to get passages to our Oversea Dominions. While I am quite sure that in the Dominions themselves every conceivable effort is being made to provide for the reception of emigrants who go to those Dominions, there have been complaints from time to time that the machinery was not, on the whole, entirely satisfactory. I think it would be very useful indeed if my right hon. Friend, through the Colonial Office, would have a statement prepared giving details of the various agencies which are now operating in our Dominions and Dependencies for the reception of emigrants, and of the means adopted by those various agencies to place emigrants in suitable surroundings or their arrival at their destination. In making this suggestion, I cast no reflection at all on the desire of our Dominions, and of the administrations in our Dependencies, to do their best for these people, but I would suggest that it would be distinctly encouraging to people in this country who desire to undertake the great adventure of going abroad and founding their fortunes in another part of our Imperial heritage, if they were assured that every step possible was taken to make their reception as congenial as possible, and to encourage them to establish themselves safely when they are there. Now I come to the question of child migration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook from time to time gave expression to his great desire that in cases of child migration—
        The CHAIRMAN: I have for some time been doubtful whether the hon. Member was speaking on the proper Vote. I find that in Vote 3 of Class V there is a special Vote dealing with child migration. Child migration does not come under this Vote.
        Mr. HANNON: I apologise, Sir, but I was taking the Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee, which, I understood, would be covered by the provision in Sub-head A, to which I venture with great respect to refer you. I suggest to you that the whole question of Oversea Settlement is covered by the Votes

        2023
        embodied in Sub-head A, and, therefore, I submit with respect that I am entitled to call attention to the various matters in the Report, which has been issued by my right hon. Friend's Department, dealing with these questions.
        The CHAIRMAN: It has already been ruled in the. House that when there is a special Vote dealing with any subject, the subject should be discussed on that particular Vote, and the question of child migration undoubtedly comes under Vote 3 of Class 5.
        Mr. HANNON: In that case I apologise for having pursued the topic so far, but I am quite certain the hon. Gentleman will adopt the policy laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook of making his schemes of overseas settlement as complete and as attractive as possible to the people of this country, and I suggest to him that not the least interesting means by which he could encourage that excellent object would be through our public elementary and secondary schools. I have the greatest possible respect for the teaching profession, but they are not always utilised as a great instrument of education in the making from a practical point of view, and I think the schools could be encouraged to provide textbooks for the children in which the potentialities of the Empire would be set forth and in which in an encouraging and sympathetic way the mind would be drawn to the possibilities that await them under favourable circumstances abroad, and that without any flavour of politics at all. I offer my sincere congratulations to the Secretary of State on the encouragement he has given to school children who have been brought up to the Wembley Exhibition in order that they might see something of the possibilities of our Imperial development and expansions, and I hope that great scheme of encouraging local education authorities to send numbers of school children to be taken, under the direction of experts, to the various branches of our Imperial Dominions will have very valuable results in dealing with overseas settlement. I am sure no subject ought to receive more consideration from the Department responsible than developing, kindly, carefully, and intelligently, overseas settlement, and while I think the
        2024
        groundwork of a great scheme has been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrooke, who has taken such an interest in the question for many years, it has been well pursued and maintained by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
        10.0 P.M.
        Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: I do not intend to dwell at too great length upon recent unfortunate events, but I think no one has paid tribute to the action of the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Grigg) in again and again bringing to the notice of the House the fact that proceedings in connection with Lausanne definitely differed from the conditions laid down in the Imperial Conference Resolution, and I should like to pay that tribute now. The truth is that the Secretary of State, when he finds himself faced with a crisis, is apt to take refuge in an attitude a little mysterious and esoteric. So esoteric was his attitude on this occasion, that I am reminded of the definition of the schoolboy of the kangaroo—
        "This animal has a punch into which lie retires in moments of what he conceives to he great peril."
        Like other speakers, I think one can hardly commend the marsupial makeshift of the panel system. It has been called a panel with one Dominion representative alternately appearing. In my judgment—it is merely a matter of phraseology—it seems a little more like a mad hatter's tea party with a changing dormouse. It seems to me—the problem is not a new one—that it has been met, as King Arthur met the similar problem of equality among the community, by having recourse to the mechanical device of the Round Table. Directly one speaks of a genuine equality between the Mother Country and the Dominions, one must be brought face to face with many disquieting features, and when that supposition is taken in connection with the doctrine of Parliamentary control over foreign affairs—a doctrine which we have had urged on many occasions, for which there is obviously much to be said, but a doctrine which wants very carefully studying before it can be fully accepted—you are led to a very awkward and difficult situation, because every Dominion Parliament will claim what this Parliament is claiming, and it must lead to a terrible dissipation of the treaty-making power.

        2025
        Look at the great international settlements with which we have been familiar recently. Take the negotiations for the Anglo-French and Anglo-Russian ententes, which were so important at the end of last century and the beginning of this. If one reads the illuminating words of one now lost to us and always to be regretted, the late Lord Percy, one realises in making this agreement what a delicate balance had to be struck and in how many fields, a balance affecting places as distant as Morocco, Newfoundland, Afghanistan and Persia. I wish I could think that Parliamentary discussion in all the Dominions and in the Indian Legislature of questions like those complicated questions which were dealt with by Lord Lansdowne in Afghanistan, was going to lead to a really effective control of foreign policy or any very great constructive usefulness. Again, take what must face every Colonial or Foreign Minister, the necessity of making an apparent sacrifice of a position for a larger and ultimate end. Take, for example, Lord Salisbury's attitude in the nineties over those obscure negotiations in Madagascar, when that great philosophic mind of Lord Salisbury made certain strategic concessions, which it was only easy to recommend in a larger view of the situation. Remember that in future those would have to be defended, not before one Parliament by one Minister, but, before seven Parliaments by seven Ministers.
        There are other considerations. I think a very wise emphasis has been laid on the fact that you have not done enough when you have concentrated the discussion upon the negotiation of treaties. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual perception, laid stress upon that. You can no more separate the actual making of a treaty from the rest of diplomacy than you can separate batting from cricket, and say to your Dominion representatives: "Yes, come in; we do not mind your batting for us, but as regards the bowling and the fielding, we can look after that." A treaty is but one stage or one moment in a prolonged international contact, and how long can a Dominion be content with admission only at a late stage? These are just admissions to show that I am not labouring under any misconception as to the real disadvantages that must come when we acknowledge
        2026
        that Dominion sovereignty which is now an established fact. Some people complain of the League of Nations for giving public recognition to the fact. Long before the League of Nations, it was a fact in reality, as anyone who was in Canada in 1916, 1917 or 1918 well knows. Indeed, it seems to me that one can hardly expect to find any simple solution, all sufficient in its recommendations, for this large question of Dominion control over foreign policy. Of course, we can avoid the blunder of trying to pretend that things are not what they are, and we may, perhaps, have to leave the ultimate solution to future generations. But it does occur to me at times, in looking over this, that more important than large and sweeping pronouncements at the moment are the few practical steps which can be taken, and that they may be more helpful.
        To many people the idea of Dominion representation with foreign powers is an alarming idea, and it can be alarming in one aspect. But is it only the question of the actual Dominion representatives which is the important part? Has it been asked what will be the nature of the staffs which accompany the Dominion representatives? Are there, in other words, to be in future seven diplomatic services That is an aspect of the question which, I think, has never been raised or met, and yet it seems to me there are all kinds of possible confusions and misconceptions, not between the head men in these things, but in the staffs, the permanent civil servants who accompany them. Are we to have seven diplomatic services? If so, we are put in a far worse position even than the Holy Roman Empire, which, at least, had an Imperial service, and we may find that these definitely drift apart. And is it not worth asking, in this connection, whether we recruit our service with an eye to getting the maximum infiltration of other than European elements? It is not my intention on this occasion, as it would be ruled out of order, to discuss the recruiting of the diplomatic service, but it seems to me the difficulty in regard to the recruitment of candidates from the Dominions is a question which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will look into. I confess, having given some attention to it in

        2027
        former days, I am not very hopeful of the solution along those lines. It does seem to me that the diplomatic services are bound to develop separately, to a very large extent, although anything to break down that separateness—and something can be done—is something worth doing. I wonder whether it is not best to let things develop, in other words, to hope that Canada, for instance, may produce in the future men with the wisdom, foresight, intelligence and knowledge of Sir Joseph Pope and build its diplomatic service out of these.
        Is it possible—and I throw this out merely as a speculation, which, I think, cannot be mischievous as coming from a back bench Member—that a solution is to be found in a logical recognition of the separateness of the Dominions to such an extent that we are diplomatically represented with them and they with us? What I mean is this. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the difficulty in recognising who is the actual representative when a negotiation of this sort arises with the various Dominions. It may not be the High Commissioner. It may be that a solution may possibly be found on the lines of a Dominion diplomatic representative, an expert of experience and out of politics, whom the Dominion would accredit. Is there not something to be said for accrediting the Diplomatic Service to the various Dominions? Of course one realises that it would mean great constitutional difficulties as things are at present. But, so far from separating the various parts of the Empire, it does seem to me it would bring into our foreign and diplomatic service elements familiar with Dominion conditions, and surely to have diplomatic representatives who have been in the Dominions, seen something of Dominion politics, and known the atmosphere that exists there, would be all a gain.
        Mr. THOMAS: Does my hon. Friend mean that each Dominion should have a sort of Foreign Office in this country, or does he mean that the Dominions should have certain representatives in our own Foreign Office, or whether we as a Foreign Office should avail ourselves of the services of the Dominion Civil Services?
        Sir G. BUTLER: What I meant was that each Dominion should have, no doubt a small, but its definite permanent
        2028
        foreign diplomatic service, from which it would accredit, besides the High Commissioner, who has many trading and other duties, representatives of special technical experience to deal with diplomatic affairs.
        Mr. THOMAS: As any contribution will be welcome, I wanted to know exactly what my hon. Friend meant. Surely he cannot conceive of a Dominion delegating that power to what, after all, would be a civil servant taking the responsibility?
        Sir G. BUTLER: That is perfectly true. It is true now that when an Ambassador signs a Treaty, special letters patent are sent out to him. It would not be a different position in that respect.
        Mr. AMERY: May I remind my right hon. Friend opposite that on 23rd May, Mr. Bruce, in the Australian Parliament, speaking on the question of a High Commissioner, or of a Minister representing the views of the Dominion, suggested that the time might come when Australia would prefer to have the representative of their views on foreign policy more of the character of an Ambassador than a High Commissioner or a Minister. To that extent, the view rd my hon. Friend behind me is supported by what the Prime Minister of Australia said only a few weeks ago.
        Mr. THOMAS: May I remind my right hon. Friend of what some other Prime Ministers said about that same speech?
        Mr. AMERY: I admit that.
        Sir G. BUTLER: My suggestion is that, quite apart from the actual negotiation of Treaties in the interests of intercommunication between the Empire, familiarity with our foreign policy, carried through a long period, could undoubtedly be helped by such a person, even if he were not in the highly-responsible position which the right hon. Gentleman indicated. It seems to me that from our point of view it would be an advantage if we could have that touch within our service. It is true that the actual amount of diplomatic work to be done in a capital in the Dominions might not be very great, but there would be more opportunities for observation. Sir Robert Morier used to say that the period during which he learned the most was the period during which he was posted at Stuttgart and Munich. I always re-

        2029
        member the advice that my old master, Sir Cecil Spring Rice, gave to me when I first went to Washington. He said that no English official should stay in the United States longer than three months without going to Canada. When I asked him why, he replied—he always used his wit in order to instruct young men—"Well, my boy, I always like to look at red pillar boxes," leaving me to think out the implication of that remark. I do believe that to have our diplomatic service in touch with the Dominions in that way would be worth paying a price for, even if it did not solve everything. The right hon. Gentleman put his finger upon a weak spot at once. For one thing, it would give us more thorough diplomatic touch with the Pacific. Instead of looking at Pacific problems in a European way, we should have Pacific problems looked at in the way that Australia and New Zealand look at Pacific problems, which is considerably different from our own way of looking at Pacific problems, fully incorporated into that office. I offer these remarks as a small practical suggestion relating to the greatest Imperial problem we have at the present time, to which, under the instruct-
        2030
        tion of great masters, I have tried to devote some little thought.
        Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS V.

      COLONIAL SERVICES.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £863 413, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for sundry Colonial Services, including Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State and certain Granto-in-Aid."—[Note: £400,000 has been voted on account.]
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.
      The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Ten o'clock.