Commons Sitting of 3 March 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Yorkshire Mines Drainage Bill (by Order),
Order for Second Reading read, and diaoharged:—Bill withdrawn.
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Thames Conservancy Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Whitehills Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,
Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL,
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bradford, Coventry, Isle of Thanet Joint Hospital Board, Stafford, Swansea and Whitstable," presented by Mr. WHEATLEY; read the- First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
  PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
  Copy ordered, "of Treasury Minute, dated the 22nd day of February, 1924, on the subject of commuting the pension of two thousand pounds per annum payable to Lord Rodney from the Consolidated Fund under the Acts 23 Geo. III., c. 86, and 33 Geo. III., c. 77."—[Mr. William Graham.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    SALT DUTY.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Under-Secretary of State, for India what amount accrued to the revenues of India from the salt duty for the financial year previously to the imposition of the recent enhancement of duty, and what amount has been received from the enhanced duty; and what quantities of salt, in the same periods respectively, have been removed from Government go-downs and warehouses?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): The answer to the first part of the question is Rs. 682 lakhs and Rs. 870 lakhs, respectively; to the second part of the question 544 and 380 lakhs of maunds, respectively. The second figure represents in each case the latest estimate for the current financial year expiring 31st March next.

    "BOMBAY CHRONICLE" (MR. B. G. HORNIMAN).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the reasons for the continued refusal to allow Mr. B. G. Horniman, editor of the "Bombay Chronicle," to return to India?
    Mr. RICHARDS: The Governments of India and Bombay, in consideration of Mr. Horniman's history while he was in India, and of his published writings since his deportation, have repeatedly decided against allowing him to return. Only a few days ago the Government of India, in the Legislative Assembly, resisted a Motion for permitting him to return, and it would be difficult for my Noble Friend to insist, in the present condition of Indian affairs, that they should withdraw their objections.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it right that a man should be deprived of his livelihood without any chance of making a defence or any sort of public inquiry?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Do we understand that it is the hon. Gentleman's idea that this order should be rescinded? The last part of his answer gives that impression.

    RETIRED BRITISH OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether retired officers of the British Service residing in India are compelled to pay both British and Indian Income Tax on their retired pay; and, if so, for what reason?
    Mr. RICHARDS: Pension provided out of public revenues of the United Kingdom for a retired officer residing in British India, and received by him in that country, would be liable both to British and Indian Income Tax, but the British and Indian Acts relating to Income Tax provide machinery whereby relief may be obtained from double taxation.

    POLICE FORCES.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the annual police report of the provinces of Behar and Orissa and Bombay and Sind, published in the Indian Press of 18th January and 1st February, respectively, reporting the large increase of riots in Bihar, engendered by the non-co-operation movement and the reductions in the Sind district police to about 60 per cent. of its former total, and what steps are being taken to restore these police forces to their former state and to put a stop to the non-co-operation agitation that is causing all the trouble?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I have seen the reports referred to which relate to the year 1922. In Bihar and Orissa the conditions were largely due to the fact that the non-co-operation movement was at its zenith during several months. At the close of the year the strength of the police was only 16 less than the strength at the end of the preceding year. As regards Sind, the figure quoted in the question relates to one district only in Sind, the Upper Sind Frontier, and only to the police in the rural portion of that district. At its headquarters the force was increased by 25 per cent., and the reduction over the whole district was 12 per cent. only. Even after the reductions made in Sind, the proportion of police to population was considerably higher than in the rest of the Bombay Presidency. As regards present day conditions, I would refer to the last sentence in the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 18th instant.
    Sir C. YATE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the non-co-operation movement is less now than it was then?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I suggest that it has changed its aspect very considerably during the last 12 months.
    Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Has the reduction of the police in Sind been followed by an increase of criminal activity or not?
    Mr. RICHARDS: There is no evidence to that effect.

    CROWN COLONIES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Crown Colonies Committee to be appointed by the Government of India and referred to in the Viceroy's speech on 31st January has in fact been appointed; and, if so, who are the members of that Committee and when and where it will meet?
    Mr. RICHARDS: I hope to be able to announce the names of the Committee very shortly. It is hoped that it wilt be ready to meet about the end of March. Its meetings will be held in London.

    POLITICAL DEPARTMENT (PAY).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will take steps to see that all officers of the Indian Political Department receive equal pay for equal service: whether he is aware that officers taken from the Indian Army in the Indian Political Department receive lower pay than those taken from the Indian Civil Service, although they do exactly the same work; and whether, seeing that in the course of 23 years' service the difference amounts to Rs.36,600, he will do away with this anomaly?
    Mr. RICHARDS: This matter is at present under consideration in India, and I understand that the Royal Commission on the Superior Civil Services in India proposed to include it in the scope of their inquiry. The Secretary of State is communicating with the Government of India on the subject.

    CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there is at present any censorship of native or

    949
    British newspapers in India; what are the powers which are exercised under such censorship; and whether the officials employed for the purpose are native or British?
    Mr. RICHARDS: There is no Press censorship in British India.

    COTTON OUTPUT.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the total output of cotton in India during the last three seasons; the amount retained for home consumption and the amount exported, with, in the latter case, its allocation according to the purchasing

    Area and yield of Cotton in India.

    —

    1920–21.

    1921–22.

    1922–23.

    Area

    (acres)

    …

    …

    21,340,000

    18,454,000

    21,077,000

    Yield

    (bales)

    …

    …

    3,601,000

    4,479,000

    5,181,000

    (tons)

    …

    …

    643,000

    800,000

    925,000

    Exports of Raw Cotton from India by Sea.

    To

    United Kingdom

    …

    tons

    17,144

    6,390

    34,220

    To

    Germany

    …

    tons

    35,959

    41,918

    46,891

    To

    Netherlands

    …

    tons

    2,110

    958

    1,717

    To

    Belgium

    …

    tons

    43,378

    35,411

    45,011

    To

    France

    …

    tons

    6,867

    10,122

    22,557

    To

    Spain

    …

    tons

    13,675

    5,387

    11,726

    To

    Italy

    …

    tons

    38,016

    27,570

    43,094

    To

    Austria

    …

    tons

    6,098

    5,978

    7,595

    To

    Hungary

    —

    —

    To

    Ceylon

    …

    tons

    685

    484

    926

    To

    Indo-China

    …

    tons

    1,620

    5,275

    3,553

    To

    China

    …

    tons

    34,247

    77,758

    88,803

    To

    Japan

    …

    tons

    167,681

    314,333

    289,465

    To

    United States of America

    …

    tons

    1,675

    1,689

    3,898

    To

    Other Countries

    …

    tons

    1,430

    579

    941

    Total

    tons

    370,585

    533,802

    600,397

    bales

    2,073,856

    2,981,361

    3,362,601

    The new area that will be brought under cotton in consequence of the Sakkur barrage project is estimated at not less than 400,000 acres. Experts are at work on cotton in all the provinces where it is grown. Their efforts, as also those of the Government of India, are mainly directed towards improving the quality of the cotton, but success in this direction must ordinarily entail some increase in the amount of cotton grown.

    CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India
    countries; and the measures now in progress or under consideration to stimulate cultivation in India?
    Mr. RICHARDS: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing information which I think will meet his views.
    Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Gentleman also say what steps can be taken to improve the quality of the cotton produced in India?
    Mr. RICHARDS: That does not arise.
    The following is the statement:
    what steps the present Government propose to take in view of the fact that the newly-elected India Legislative Assembly, on the motion of Pandit Motilal Nehru, has, by a large majority, passed a Resolution in support of the setting up immediately of a Home Rule Constitution for India and the supersession of the Indian Government Act of 1919?
    Mr. RICHARDS: My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be misinformed as to the terms of the motion of Pandit Motilal Nehru adopted by the newly-elected Indian Legislative Assembly. The Resolution

    951
    referred to is, no doubt, that which was passed in favour of setting up a round-table conference to frame the scheme of a constitution. My Noble Friend has not yet received any recommendations from the Government of India in favour of taking action on this Resolution. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text as received by telegram of certain passages in two speeches delivered in the course of the debate on the Resolution in the Assembly by Sir Malcolm Hailey, speaking on behalf of the Government of India and after consultation with His Majesty's Government.
    Sir F. HALL: Can we rely on the Government taking any necessary steps to see that the Regulations of the 1919 Act are carried out?
    Mr. RICHARDS: Certainly.
    Following is the information promised:
    "EXTRACTS from speech by Sir M. HAILEY in the Legislative Assembly on 8th February, 1924.
    "Sir M. Hailey explained why it was impossible to entertain any demand for immediate steps in the direction required by the Resolution, referring more particularly to the problems as presented by the Indian States, protection of minorities, communal differences, the Army, and condition of the electorate. After defining the position of the Government in this respect, he proceeded to state the action which the latter proposed to take in regard to the demand for advance in reforms generally. 'That is,' he said, 'the definition of our position: now for the action we propose to take. We do not limit ourselves to demanding that the system should be further tested. We propose to make a serious attempt to investigate justifiable complaints against the working of the scheme in practice, to assess the causes, and to; examine the remedies necessary. We claim that this must precede any general inquiry into policy and scheme of the Act or general advance within the Act itself. In investigating these difficulties and defects in the actual working of the present system, we 6hall consult the Local Governments on the subject, and we shall not close our ears to representations from outside. It may be that the remedy for these difficulties will be found by using rules making the power within the Act: I refer to the utilisation of those sections, to which reference is so often made, 19A, 45A, and 96B. It may even be—I can say nothing as to this—that the inquiry may show that some changes are required in the structure of the Act in order to rectify the definite and ascertained defects experienced
    952
    in the actual working. When we have our results, and those results are ready for presentation to Parliament, then, before they are finally presented to Parliament, we shall ask the Secretary of State to give every opportunity for discussion in this country, both in Legislature and elsewhere. That is as far as we can go at present, but I believe this undertaking gives a guarantee that we are determined genuinely to discharge our duty to reforms scheme and to prepare the way for the next stage of advance.'
    Later, in correction of another speaker, the Home Member repeated his position as follows: 'Government of India are prepared to examine, in consultation with Local Governments, into the existence of any defects in the working of the Act, as revealed by experience, with a view to their remedy. That was the statement that I made this morning. I did not say that we were prepared to set on foot any wide investigation as to the complete revision of the Act such as Mr. Dumasia seems to suggest.'"
    "EXTRACTS from speech by Sir M. HAILEY in the Legislative Assembly on 18th February, 1924.
    "We have again considered the position very carefully, and I am anxious to emphasise that in what I say I speak with the full authority of His Majesty's Government. We still hold to the general position I took up on behalf of the Government. Before His Majesty's Government are able to consider the question of amending the constitution, as distinct from such amendment of the Act as may be required to rectify any administrative imperfections, there must be full investigation of any defects or difficulties which may have arisen in the working of the transitional constitution now in force. Neither they nor we would be justified in considering changes in that constitution unless they were in possession of full information which our investigations will place in their hands. In 1919, Parliament, after the fullest consideration, laid down a scheme transitional in its nature but, nevertheless, carefully devised, with a view to effecting steps necessary for progressive realisation of ideals embodied in the preamble of the Act. It is not to be supposed that the British people would be lightly inclined to consider a change in that constitution, and it is bound to concentrate attention for the present on such imperfections in working as may have been disclosed by the experience of the last three years. I said that we have carefully reconsidered the general position, and we hold to the precise attitude which I then took up save in one respect. If our inquiries into the defects in the working of Act show the feasibility and possibility of any advance within the Act, that is to say, by use of the rule-making power already provided by Parliament under the Statute, we are willing to make recommendations to this effect; but if our inquiries show that no advance is possible without amending the constitution, then the question of advance must be left as an entirely open and separate issue on which the Government

    953
    is in no way committed. To that extent, the scope of our inquiries goes somewhat beyond that originally assigned to it, but I must again emphasise the fact that it does not extend beyond that scope to the amendment of the constitution itself.
    "We are warned, on the other hand, that our inquiries will not be good enough and do not dispel mistrust. In spite of all we have done, mistrust still seems to be Government of India's fate. We are clear in our conscience; we must look to history for a justice which our contemporaries deny to us, and have no doubt that history will endorse our own conviction of consistent honesty of our purpose and reality of our efforts. But it offends even more against my sense of justice that this charge should be brought against the English people, who have initiated and Fostered literal institutions throughout the world. That mistrust apparently extends to the present Government. For myself, I do not believe that, where Indian policy is concerned, change of helmsman can mean a change in the course of the ship's statesmanship. But again I speak with full authority when I say they have noted with great concern the distrust shown by the advocates of constitutional reform regarding the good faith of His Majesty's Government in their attitude towards constitutional progress. His Majesty's Government are sincerely convinced that the only hope for a satisfactory solution of the problem of the Government of India lies in pursuance of the policy adopted in the Government of India Act and set forth in its preamble. They associate themselves with the Indian party of constitutional progress in the effort towards the institution of responsible Government, but they believe that this aim can only be realised if that party will co-operate with the Government of India in enabling the Act of 1919 to be administered as efficiently as possible in the interest of good government."

  AUSTRALIAN WOOL.
  Mr. BLACKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much profit has been made by the Government on the transactions of the British Australian Wool Realisation Association up to date; how much wool remains to be disposed of; and when the operations of the British Australian Wool Realisation Association will cease?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TRFASURY (Mr. W. Graham): I have been asked to answer this question. The British Australian Wool Realisation Association, Ltd., was formed to realise to the best advantage the wool remaining on the hands of the Government on 31st December, 1920, which belonged partly to the Australian Wool Growers and partly
  954
  to the British Government. The British Australian Wool Realisation Association, Ltd., was merely a realisation company and was not formed for profit making, but to date it has paid over to the British Government £27,831,144 as the nett proceeds of the wool realised on their account. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southwark Central on 18th February last.

  JUBALAND.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the approximate area and population of the Jubaland territory which it is proposed to hand over to Italy; and whether the native population has been consulted, or will be consulted, as to whether it has any wishes in the matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The area of that part of Jubaland which it is proposed to cede to Italy is about 33,000 square miles; the population may be estimated, with great reserve, at 12,000. No condition as to the consent of the inhabitants was made in the Treaty of London, and I do not see how the fulfilment of the Treaty can be made subject to such consent.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Surely this is a departure from the principle of self-determination.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman takes up a great deal of time by trying to make a little speech on each of his questions.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Majesty's Government promised the Government of Italy in 1916 that, in the event of His Majesty's Government getting certain German colonies, they would take steps to cede to Italy certain territories described as Jubaland; whether this promise was definite or conditional; and what steps they propose to take to carry out this promise?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): No, Sir, the undertaking entered into under Article 13

  955
  of the Treaty of London was that in the event of Great Britain increasing her Colonial territory in Africa at the expense of Germany, His Majesty's Government would agree in principle that Italy might claim some equitable compensation, particularly as regards the settlement in her favour of the questions relative to the frontiers of the Italian Colonies of Eritrea, Somaliland and Libya. The Italian Government eventually demanded, as part of this frontier rectification, the cession of a territory three times the size of Belgium. When His Majesty's Government consented to this enlarged transaction they attached the condition that the cession could only become effective as part of the general settlement of all the issues raised, at the Peace Conference. This condition, accepted by the Italian Government at the time, is now said by them to be no longer applicable to present circumstances. Were Italy merely demanding the execution of the undertaking given in the Treaty of London, my predecessors would, I feel sure, have regarded it as an obligation of honour immediately to liquidate that promise; it was merely because Italy asked for something far more extensive than the ratification foreshadowed in the Treaty of London that the transaction was regarded as part of a general settlement. The above explanation is, I think, necessary in order to remove the misapprehensions which have arisen on this question and to indicate the aspect, from which my predecessors in office have approached the matter. I hope that certain conversations that have taken place since I last answered a question on this subject may lead to a re-opening of the whole matter.

  FIJI (EXECUTIVE COUNCIL).
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether two directors of one Suva firm have been appointed to the two unofficial seats on the Executive Council of Fiji; whether he has ratified these appointments; and whether any rules for the guidance of Colonial Governors in advising such appointments are issued from his Department?
  Mr. THOMAS: I am informed that the two elected members of the Legislative
  956
  Council of Fiji, whose appointment to the Executive Council was announced in the "London Gazette" of 4th December, are directors of firms which have been amalgamated. As there are only seven elected members, such arrangements, though generally undesirable, are sometimes unavoidable. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS (PUBLICATION).
  Mr. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange for the publication of all hitherto unpublished treaties or agreements with other countries?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All the treaties and other agreements with foreign countries by which His Majesty's Government are at the present time bound have been laid before Parliament in the Treaty Series or published in "British and Foreign State Papers," with the exception of a few arrangements made necessary by war-time conditions which may now be considered to have lapsed. I am having a report for my own information on these. His Majesty's Government now communicate all treaty engagements, on conclusion, to the League of Nations, which publishes them in its own Treaty Series. There are copies of this in the Library of the House.

  HUNGABY (LOAN).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any conditions are attached to the granting of the loan to Hungary, under the auspices of the League of Nations, with regard to the carrying out of the Clauses of the Treaty of Trianon affecting racial and religious minorities?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In accepting Protocol 1 of the League of Nations scheme, the Hungarian Government under takes, in accordance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Trianon, strictly and loyally to fulfil the obligations contained in the said treaty.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Before the next question is asked, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you said, when you made your statement the other day, that we were to be rationed to two questions? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I said that I would take the sense of the House by the means available to me. I have not yet completed my inquiries.

  R.M.S. "ADRIATIC" (SEIZURE OF LIQUOR).
  Captain Viscount CURZON:
  17. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the seizure on Friday last of 186 barrels and cases of liquor on board of the s.s. "Adriatic" by agents of the Treasury in the United States of America; whether this seizure is in accordance with the Treaty recently signed; whether he is aware that British ships have observed the American law in the letter and spirit, and that ships of other nationalities, such as France and Italy, have not been molested in spite of the fact that the customary alcoholic beverages are supplied as required; and whether he will make representations with regard to this apparent discrimination against a British ship?
  Viscount CURZON: I have been asked to postpone this question. May I inquire whether the Government will press on with the ratification of the Treaty with America?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is being pressed on.

  SUDAN GOVERNMENT (PENSIONERS' ALLOWANCES).
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Sudan Government is now withdrawing temporary allowances made to its pensioners calculated to meet the increased cost of living; and whether, in view of the fact that the index figure in this country, so
  958
  far from diminishing, has increased, he will make representations on the subject to the Sudan Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information on this subject, but will cause inquiries to be made.

  VISAS (GREAT BRITAIN AND CZECHSLOVAKIA).
  Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now prepared to arrange for the abolition of visas between this country and Czechslovakia?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have not considered that the time has arrived for the conclusion of the arrangement suggested.
  Sir M. CONWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that firms having business interests in Czech-slovakia are very severely handicapped by this?

  PEACE TREATIES.

    TREATY OF LAUSANNE.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire when it is proposed to ratify the Treaty of Lausanne and to bring forward the necessary legislation?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the discussion on the Lausanne Treaty; and whether the treaty will be ratified by His Majesty's Government in the course of not more than a month from the present date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The necessary legislation to enable His Majesty's Government to carry out the obligations of the Peace Settlement with Turkey has already been introduced in another place, and will be introduced in this House as soon as possible. An opportunity for discussing the Settlement will occur when the Bill comes before this House. The ratification of the Treaty and of the other instruments of the Settlement by His Majesty will take place as soon as this legislation has been passed and the

    959
    Governments of the self-governing Dominions and India have expressed their concurrence in the ratification of the Settlement on their behalf. Although every effort is being made to expedite a settlement of this matter, I fear I cannot, at present, indicate any definite date by which ratification will have taken place.

    TREATY OF VERSAILLES.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any fresh representations on the subject of the announcement of the Home Secretary respecting a revision of the Peace Treaty from the German Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not received any representation.

    GERMANY (DISARMAMENT).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether he can make an announcement to the House as to the recent proposals made by the Government to the Allies in connection with the disarmament of Germany?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The British proposals are actually under discussion by the Ambassadors' Conference, and it would not be proper for me at this stage to make a statement on what is essentially an inter-Allied question, which might prejudice the settlement desired by all parties.
    Sir S. HOARE: While I appreciate fully the Prime Minister's answer, may I ask him whether he will make an announcement at the earliest opportunity?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

    ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).
    Mr. HUDSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to take immediate steps to call an international conference of representatives from the British, French, Italian, German, and Japanese Governments to consider a programme to limit naval and military armaments, with special reference to the limitations of cruisers, submarines, aircraft, and the use of poisonous gas; to secure mutual reduction of existing military establishments consistent with national safety, and to regulate through international
    960
    agreement the production and sale of arms and munitions; and whether he will ascertain if the United States of America are prepared to co-operate in such a proposal?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Broadly speaking, the whole of the programme suggested by my hon. Friend is already under discussion by the League of Nations, and I do not think the present moment would be suitable for an independent step of the comprehensive kind described. I must wait developments.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government to come to an understanding with European Governments with a view to the limitation of air power; and whether any proposals have been made to this end?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I announced to the House three weeks ago, it is the policy of the Government to pursue policies which it hopes may lead to a general limitation of armaments. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, these things are not done by throwing schemes at the heads of other Governments, but by careful preparation of conditions which make such proposals reasonable.

    SAAR VALLEY.
    Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the number of French troops at present stationed in the Saar Valley; what is the present strength of the local gendarmerie; what steps are being taken to develop this body; and whether the British representative on the League of Nations Council will be instructed to press for the complete withdrawal of French troops from the territory?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The latest information in the possession of His Majesty's Government is that there are 233 French officers and 5,409 other ranks at present in the Saar. The strength of the local gendarmerie is given as 355, and a programme for their progressive annual increase will come before the Council of the League at their meeting which opens on 10th March. As regards the last part of the question, I cannot be more specific than this at the present moment, that His Majesty's Government are most

    961
    anxious that the terms of the Treaty should be strictly carried out as soon as possible, but there are alleged to be certain financial difficulties in the immediate organisation of an adequate gendarmerie force.
    Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representative on the Council of the League of Nations will endeavour to secure that the Saarois member of the Governing Commission of the Saar, appointed by the League of Nations Council, is a person enjoying the confidence of the population; and whether the popularly-elected Advisory Council in the Saar will be invited to submit suitable names?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The British representative will make every endeavour to secure the appointment of a suitable Saar member of the Governing Commission and one who is acceptable to the local population; indeed, the representative of His Majesty's late Government has already put this point of view clearly on record in a memorandum circulated to the other members of the Council prior to the Council meeting in December last. It is not the practice of the Council to invite the Advisory Council in the Saar to submit suitable names, and there are objections to departing from the present practice at the coming election.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Council meeting of the League of Nations, which is to be held in March, and the discussion which will take place at that meeting on the question of the Saar, he will state whether the Government will advocate and support measures for giving a more definitely international character to the Government of the Saar; and if he will instruct the British representative to urge the desirability of an early reduction in the French military garrison?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies I have made to-day to the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams). The principle of maintaining the international character of the Government of the Saar will, of course, be borne in mind by the British representative on the Council of the League.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: Is the Prime Minister aware that the administrative Government of the Saar consists of 40 people, appointed by the League of Nations, 32 of whom are French?

  RUSSIA (OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS).
  Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, at the approaching conference with plenipotentiaries of the Russian Soviet Government, the various firms representing different trades and interests whose properties have been confiscated by Soviet legislation will be represented?
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to take advantage of the knowledge and skill possessed by British companies and firms formerly operating in various capacities in Russia by inviting their advice upon the different trades and industry formerly operated by them; and, if so, how is this advice to be tendered?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Coventry on the 27th February. Private bodies which are interested in or have experience of Russia should communicate to the Foreign Office any expression of their views which they may wish to put forward.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it will not only help this country but also Russia if commercial confidence is re-established?
  Sir P. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in the negotiations for the settlement of British claims with the plenipotentiaries of the Russian Soviet Government, he will give instructions to British representatives to insist upon the restitution of industrial properties to their rightful owners wherever the possibility of restitution exists or, in the event of full restitution not being possible, if he will see that adequate and effective compensation is secured in respect of nationalized or confiscated properties?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have already announced repeatedly that one of

  963
  the subjects for negotiation is the claims of British nationals, and these will be examined in detail as the general principle has already been admitted.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the negotiations, he proposes to insist upon the principle followed by successive Governments, that where property has been confiscated there should either be restitution of or effective compensation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not going to commit myself on any point. The whole question is to be discussed, and I have, I think, said enough to show by what we are going to stand, as far as possible, in order to get agreement on the position indicated in the question.

  ESPIONAGE IN UNITED STATES (DEPORTATIONS).
  Mr. G. OLIVERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that seven British-born subjects who were sentenced to five years' imprisonment in the United States of America for violation of the Espionage Act are now to be deported on completion of their sentences; and whether, in view of the fact that the law under which these men are to be deported was passed subsequent to their trial and conviction and that they have already suffered punishment for their offence, he can make any representations as to the withdrawal of the deportation order?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is that reports to this effect have been received concerning five British subjects. As regards the second part of the question, I have no information as to whether the law, under which the deportation of these men has been ordered, was passed subsequently to their trial and conviction or not. But the matter is not one in which His Majesty's Government can properly intervene.

  PARLIAMENTARY BILLS (DRAFTING).
  Mr. BAKERasked the Prime Minister whether he will reverse the
  964
  policy of previous Governments by drafting any new legislation in language which will be intelligible to the ordinary citizen?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Any want of intelligibility in language in Bills in the past has been due to the complexity and intractibility of the subject dealt with more than to any policy on the part of Governments. I should be glad if intelligibility to the ordinary citizen were more consonant with legal intricacies.

  PEACEFUL PICKETING.
  Mr. ERSKINEasked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to bring in an amending Bill to the Trade Disputes Act to regulate peaceful picketing in cases where either mails or perishable food is being held up to the prejudice of the people?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave on Thursday last to questions on this subject by the hon. and gallant Members for Dulwich and Bromley.

  POSTCARDS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  Mr. ERSKINEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Members of Parliament are subjected to what is now known as the postcard nuisance, and that many of these missives peremptorily demand answers to support their point of view, and contain veiled threats if the recipient ignores them or takes a contrary view; and if he proposes taking any action to put a stop to this practice, which causes expense, annoyance, and undue pressure to be brought to bear on Members?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The postcard nuisance is an infliction of long standing. Ex hypothesi, a Member of Parliament is a man with backbone who can stand much pressure without yielding.
  Mr. ERSKINE: Would the Prime Minister like to see samples of a few of these postcards?

  LAND VALUES (BETTERMENT).
  Mr. COMYNS-CARRasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations as to betterment contained in Section 3 of the Second Report of the Acquisition and Valuation of Land Committee, so that the cost of public improvements may be reduced by securing to those who carry them out a sufficient proportion of the resulting increase in the value of land to prevent loss on the cost of construction?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. I will have the matter considered, but it is impossible at present to promise the introduction of legislation.

  GRAVESEND-TILBURY TUNNEL.
  Mr. MILLSasked the Prime Minister what steps, if any, have yet been taken towards the construction of a rail way traffic and goods tunnel from Gravesend to Tilbury; and whether his advisers have considered its utility in relation to the present congested state of London traffic?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to reply. As I explained on the 28th February, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for the Hertford Division, instructions have been given to an eminent engineer for the preparation of plans and reports upon the suggested road tunnel between Gravesend and Tilbury, for the consideration of my Department. The construction of a railway tunnel is a matter primarily for the consideration of the railway companies concerned, and I am inquiring into the matter.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1923.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Prime Minister whether, inasmuch as provisions of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923, expire on 1st April next, he proposes to introduce any further legislation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Greenwood): I have been asked to reply. A Bill to extend the duration of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1923, was introduced last Friday.
  Sir K. WOOD: Do the Government at any stage of the Bill propose to bring forward any suggestions whereby the funds contributed by the boards of guardians to feed and maintain inmates shall be further and more adequately secured?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The Bill has been printed.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question must be put down.

  SURCHARGES (COLLATERAL SECURITY).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation making provision for some collateral security which would protect ratepayers against illegal payments by boards of guardians in addition to the ordinary power of surcharge?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to reply. The Government will welcome any suggestions on this subject, but as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in the course of the Debate last Tuesday, probably the most effective security would be found in a reform of the present Poor Law system which, as the hon. Member knows, the Government propose to take in hand.
  Sir K. WOOD: Have the Government devised any proposals to meet this point?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I did not say that, but we should welcome assistance from the hon. Member.
  Mr. LANSBURY: When considering this matter, will the Government consider getting collateral security against other public bodies, such as the London County Council, who have on two occasions been taken into court and surcharged and who have had the surcharges remitted?

  ESTIMATES AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEES.
  Mr. LEIF JONESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure of 1918 when setting up the Estimates Committee this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have again looked into this matter, but I see no grounds for modifying the view expressed

  967
  in my answer to the hon. Member for York on the 20th February. The terms of reference proposed are those agreed after a conference attended by Mr. Speaker and representatives of all parties in 1921, and the Government see no reason for altering them.
  Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to carry out the recommendation that some member of the Public Accounts Committee should sit on the Estimates Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend must put down a specific question.

  EX-RANKER OFFICERS (APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE).
  Mr. JOHN HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to set up a Select Committee to deal with the position and grievances of the ex-ranker officers; and, if so, when he hopes to be in a position to announce the names of the members of this Select Committee and the terms of reference?
  Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister whether he has now come to a conclusion in respect of the claims of ex-Army ranker officers in regard to their assessment for pensions on the basis of non-commissioned rank?
  Captain BULLOCKasked the Prime Minister if he can state the composition of the Committee which proposes to inquire into the case of the ex-Army ranker officers; and whether he can state the scope and procedure of the inquiry?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have gone through the papers of this case, and, after consultation with the Secretary of State for War, am of opinion that they might be sent to a Select Committee. The terms of reference I propose will be
  "to consider the claims that have been made by ex-ranker officers, and to report."
  If agreement is signified through the usual channels, immediate steps will be taken to constitute the Committee.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that an Amendment on this subject is down for Debate on the
  968
  Army Estimates, and in view of the fact that he has pledged himself and his party to remedy this grievance in the immediate future, will he take that appropriate opportunity to leave this matter to a free vote of this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: What I propose to do I have explained in the answer to the question. It is apparent that the question is not clear as to what the grievances were. I have gone through all the papers. But I should like the House to take upon itself the responsibility of settling this matter. We are not in a majority here, and, therefore, we think it appropriate for the whole House to take the responsibility of settling the question. In those conditions no Whips will be put on.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it a fact that in the Debate on the Army Estimates the House will have an opportunity of deciding for itself?
  Mr. HOGGE: What is the use of a Select Committee, when the majority of Members of this House are already pledged?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should hope that the report would be available before the Army Estimates are discussed.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Before a fortnight?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Surely. There is very little to be settled. The Committee can do its work at once. It is perfectly simple.
  Mr. HARRIS: Suppose that agreement be not secured through the usual channels, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

  LUNACY LAWS (INQUIRY).

    HARNETT v. BOND AND ADAM.
    Mr. COSTELLOasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the evidence given before Mr. Justice Lush and the verdict of the jury and the observations of the learned Judge in the case in which a Mr. Harnett was awarded damages amounting to £25,000 against two medical men for causing his confinement as a

    969
    lunatic, he will, without delay, appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the present lunacy laws and their administration, and the conditions under which persons, alleged to be insane, can, under existing Regulations, be deprived of their personal liberty and confined in asylums or otherwise placed under detention?
    Mr. COMYNS-CARRasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the verdict of the jury and observations of Mr. Justice Lush in the recent case of Harnett v. Bond and Adam in the King's Bench Division; and whether a Royal Commission will be appointed forthwith to inquire into the best means of preventing the state of affairs which it appears prevail with regard to the law and administration relating to lunacy?
    Mr. TURNER-SAMUELSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Harnett v. Bond and another in which, on Wedesday, a jury found that the defendant's doctors were guilty of wrongly detaining the plaintiff as an inmate of various asylums from 14th December, 1912, to 15th October, 1921, a period of nine years, that the evidence showed that the plaintiff was not of unsound mind on 14th December, 1912, and that during the whole time from then he was fit to be at large; and whether he will immediately have a Royal Commission or other form of inquiry set up to inquire into the administration of the Lunacy Acts in this particular, and especially in regard to the sufficiency of the steps that are taken by the Commissioners in Lunacy and other responsible persons, and the means that are available to an inmate to prevent persons from being detained in lunatic asylums when they ought not to be so detained?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The proceedings in this case closed as lately as Friday last, and the shorthand notes have only just been received. The Government have not yet had time to give proper consideration to the difficult and complex issues raised. But prima facie it would appear that there is a case for full inquiry, and the Government are fully prepared to consider the setting up of an appropriate body to undertake such an inquiry. I may add that I understand the question of an appeal is under consideration.
    Viscountess ASTOR: In the setting up of that body will the right hon. Gentleman include a capable woman?
    Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: I am not at the moment dissatisfied with the answer of the Prime Minister, but, in view of the public importance of this matter, I propose to refer to it on the Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the importance of having some form of body which can take evidence upon oath and in security?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is why I cannot commit myself to the form of the inquiry. It will be a serious inquiry, and a most effective inquiry.
    Mr. JONES: In appointing this body, will powers be given to it to inquire, not merely into the issue arising out of this particular case, but into the whole working of the lunacy laws?
    Mr. J. JONES: If a committee of inquiry is to be established, should not people who have some experience of mental deficiency be appointed?
    Mr. COMYNS-CARR: May I ask that the setting up of a committee to inquire generally will not be delayed pending the decision of appeals? It may take some months before this particular case is finally disposed of.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    SECURITY OF TENURE (CIVIL SERVICE).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the success of the King's Roll; and whether, in order to give a suitable lead to private firms, he will make immediate arrangements that security of tenure shall be given to all competent disabled ex-service men at present employed in the Civil Service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am advised that, in spite of the great difficulties necessarily arising from the depression in the general state of employment, the King's Roll is making good progress towards, success, and in this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the Interim Report, issued last July, by the King's Roll National Council (Cmd. 1919). I would remind the hon. Member

    971
    that, as shown in the return presented monthly to Parliament, disabled ex-service men form 14·45 per cent. of the total permanent and temporary staff of the Civil Service. It is understood that the percentage qualifying an employer for inclusion on the King's Poll is 5 per cent., subject to a lower percentage in special cases. As regards the suggestion that security of tenure should be given to all competent disabled ex-service men employed in the Civil Service, I must await, the Report of the Southborough Committee.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of ex-service men who have been, and still are, in the occupation of holdings under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, on the Ministry colonies and under county councils, respectively?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): 16,625 ex-service men are still in occupation of holdings provided by county councils and councils of county boroughs, and 345 are at present in occupation of holdings on the Ministry's farm settlements established under the Small Holding Colonies Acts and the Sailors' and Soldiers' (Gifts for Land Settlement) Act. In addition, 101 ex-service men are working as wage earners on the Ministry's profit-sharing farms.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of commissioners, sub-commissioners, and head-quarter's staff who are now engaged on the administration of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, and the cost of the same, for the year 1923?
    Mr. BUXTON: With the exception of approximately 15 clerks, none of the officers of the Ministry, indoor or outdoor, are engaged exclusively upon work arising in connection with the settlement of ex-service men on the land, and it is not possible, therefore, to state the expenditure of the Ministry in administering the land settlement scheme. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the Civil Service Estimates for 1923–24, from which it will be seen that the salaries and travelling expenses of officers of the Land Settlement Division were estimated to amount to £45,390 and £10,100 respectively
    972
    during the year, to which must be added the salaries and travelling expenses of similar officers of the Welsh Department, approximately £3,500, and an allowance estimated at £10,000 for the services of officers in other parts of the Ministry (e.g., Legal Branch, Finance Division, etc.), making a total of approximately £70,000.

  FIGHTING SERVICES' PAY (ANDERSON COMMITTEE).
  Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the Report of the Anderson Committee with reference to the pay of the three fighting services; and whether he can now announce the decision of the Government upon the subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is under consideration; I am unable to state when a decision is likely to be taken.
  Viscount CURZON: May we hope that the decision will not be too long delayed, as the future of a great many men is entirely dependent on it?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing any changes that are proposed by the Cabinet as a result of the Anderson Committee Report?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The changes, if any, will appear in the ordinary Votes, and in relation to that the question will be submitted.

  COMMERCIAL AIRSHIP COMPANY.
  Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the negotiations between the Government and the Commercial Airship Company were almost completed when he took office; and whether, in view of the delays that have already taken place, he can give an assurance that a decision will be given upon this matter without further delay?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I am aware that the negotiations referred to had reached an advanced stage when the present Government took office. The stage reached, however, was not so far advanced that His Majesty's Government would be justified in presenting the

  973
  scheme to Parliament unless they were satisfied regarding its provisions. For that purpose, the scheme is now being examined.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether he has set up, or is proposing to set up, a special Committee to deal with League of Nations work; what is the composition of this Committee; what are its exact duties; and whether the staff dealing with League of Nations work is wholly drawn from and located in the Foreign Office?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. There is no occasion for setting up a special committee. The work is effectively done in, or co-ordinated by, the Foreign Office under my personal direction, with the assistance of the Lord President of the Council, who represents His Majesty's Government in the League. The members of the staff with one exception belong to the Foreign Office.

  GENOA CONFERENCE (INTERNATIONAL TRADE).
  Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGANasked the Prime Minister whether the Government still adhere, as being necessary for the full resumption of international trade, to the six fundamental conditions stated in the first resolution adopted by the Supreme Council at Cannes in January, 1922, as the basis of the Genoa Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Substantially that is so.

  NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the labours of the Select Committee on the Nationality of Married Women and of the amount of valuable evidence taken, he can allow an opportunity either for the introduction of legislation or for the setting up of a further Committee to consider the matter during this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the fact that the Committee referred to
  974
  failed to arrive at a conclusion, and that the Imperial Conference of last autumn, who had the Committee's Report before them, came to the conclusion that no case was made out for any general change of the law on this subject, there seems to be no advantage in initiating further enquiry at the moment, and no posibility of legislation other than that recommended by the Conference for the purpose of dealing with certain hard cases.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Is the Prime Minister aware that all the Members of the House of Commons who were on this Committee were unanimous that legislation was important?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If I were convinced that anything could be done, I would be perfectly willing to try to do it. I look at this question not from the point of view of what I would like to do, but from the point of view of what I might find myself limited in doing.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to creating more employment in this country, he will issue an Order to municipal and other public bodies authorised to place contracts, requiring that the lowest suitable British fender shall in all cases be accepted in preference to the lowest suitable foreign tender, provided that such British tender is not more than 10 per cent. higher than the foreign; and that, in cases where the British tender exceeds 10 per cent., the foreign tender shall not be accepted until after reconsideration by the British contractor of the possibility of reducing his tender to 10 per cent. over the foreign?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Ministry of Health issued a Circular on the 15th May last requiring that, in the case of schemes assisted by grants given expressly because of unemployment, all contracts for, or incidental to, the works should be placed in this country, and urged local authorities to adopt the same principle in other cases. I do not think it practicable to take further steps in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

    INSURANCE CO-ORDINATION.
    Captain TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the demand for maintenance in connection with specified trades, he will consider the desirability of introducing a comprehensive system of insurance against unemployment which will make such partial measures unnecessary and which will co-ordinate the whole problem of unemployment on national lines?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has stated that he hopes to introduce a Bill dealing with Unemployment Insurance at an early date. All relevant considerations will be taken into account in connection with that Bill.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY PASSES).
  Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an undertaking that no free railway pusses will be issued to Members of Parliament without first asking the sanction of the House for this new policy?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

  EMPIRE WIRELESS CHAIN.
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether, following the Report of the Wireless Committee, whatever decision may be come to by the Government he will give an assurance to the House that the Empire Wireless Chain may be put into operation with the shortest possible delay?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is precisely in order that the Empire Wireless Chain may be put into operation with the least possible delay that the Government have acted as they have done. An early opportunity will be taken of placing before the House the action which it is proposed to take on the Report of the Committee.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Following the commendably prompt Report of Mr. Donald's Committee, seeing that this subject has been under consideration for twelve years, can the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

  KINGSTON PENITENTIARY, JAMAICA.
  Mr. HAYESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of the subordinate staff of the Kingston Penitentiary, Jamaica, are without official quarters; and whether, in such cases, he can grant concessions similar to those granted to the police of Jamaica?
  Mr. THOMAS: As regards the first part of the question, it will be necessary to consult the Governor of Jamaica, who is being asked to supply the desired particulars; as regards the second part, the hon. Member will appreciate that the matter is one for the local Legislature, but the suggestion shall be put before the Governor.

  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  Sir BURTON CHADWICKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, in view of the anticipated shortage of accommodation for visitors in London during the time of the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley, the Government is taking any steps to prevent inconvenience to the public owing to lack of accommodation;
  (2) whether he will consider the desirability of the British Government arranging with the Dominion Governments for the provision of suitable passenger ships to be moored in the Thames in order to supplement available accommodation for visitors to the British Empire Exhibition?
  Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I will answer these two questions together. I have given very careful consideration, to the important subject referred to by the hon. Member, and have stated in reply to previous questions the steps which have been taken in the matter by the authorities of the British Empire Exhibition. I doubt if the Government can usefully take further action in the matter.

  CHINA (ATTACKS ON BRITISH SHIPS).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild to recent

  977
  piratical attacks on British ships trading in Chinese waters; whether he is aware that the lack of precautions against such attacks has aroused much adverse comment amongst British subjects engaged in trade in China; whether the circumstances of the latest case, that of the British registered vessel "Hydrangea," have been laid before him; if so, what, if any, steps are being taken in dealing with this serious menace to life and property; whether the British authorities at Hong Kong are moving in the matter; and whether the Colonial Office will ensure that such British registered vessels shall be provided with wireless apparatus which might at any time prove a valuable safeguard in cases of this kind when lives and property are in jeopardy?
  Mr. THOMAS: The Governor of Hong Kong drew the attention of my predecessor to the case of the "Hydrangea," on which I am asking for a detailed report with recommendations. A Commission appointed in 1922 reported that piracy can never be effectually prevented until public order is firmly established in the neighbouring Chinese territories. This Commission did not advise that wireless apparatus should be made compulsory by the Piracy Regulations, either upon river steamers or (with one dissentient) upon ocean steamers.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonics whether any of the Dominions who agreed at the recent Economic. Conference to form an economic committee to consider and advise upon matters of an economic and commercial character which these Governments may agree to refer to it have suggested to him the abandonment of the committtee; and, if not, why he proposes to abandon the formation of the committee?
  Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer the right hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) on 25th February. I do not think that I can at present usefully add anything to those answers.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In view of the fact that none of the Dominion Governments who consented to this proposal have since indicated that they are opposed to it, will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with those Governments before deciding what recommendation he will make to the House?
  Mr. THOMAS: As I have already intimated, an opportunity will be given to the House of discussing the whole question, and any arguments bearing upon the case can then be considered.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but this is a very important matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain from those Dominion Governments who agreed to this proposal, and one of whom actually made the proposal, a statement as to whether they wish to continue it before we discuss the matter in this House?
  Mr. THOMAS: The Government have given effect to the promise that all matters affecting the Dominions will be communicated to the Dominions before they are communicated to this House. It was done in this particular case, and obviously it would be for them to communicate with us.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (STATUS AND GOVERNMENT).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether after 1st April, 1924, Northern Rhodesia will have the status of a colony or of a protectorate; whether its constitution has yet been decided, and what will take the place of the present Advisory Council; and whether Northern Rhodesia will be part of the South African Customs Union?
  Mr. THOMAS: It is not proposed to annex the territory of Northern Rhodesia, at any rate for the present, and its status will, therefore, continue to be that of a Protectorate. Instruments providing for the government of the territory from the 1st April next will be published shortly. It is proposed to set up a legislative Council in which there will be an official majority and an unofficial elected element, but the details of the electoral machinery are reserved

  979
  for consideration after the change in administration has taken place, and will form the subject of local legislation. The unofficial element will, therefore, in the first instance be nominated. I have received no intimation that the Government of the Union of South Africa have given notice of withdrawal from the existing Customs agreement with Northern Rhodesia, which will continue to regulate the Customs relations between the Union and Northern Rhodesia, unless and until it is amended or superseded.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With reference to the publication of this new Order in Council or whatever it is, do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it will be circulated as a White Paper?
  Mr. THOMAS: Yes.

  IRISH FREE STATE.

    GUARANTEES.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Irish Free State Government has carried out the guarantees agreed upon with regard to the Irish Loyalists in connection with the Irish Peace Treaty or whether, as the result of post-Treaty legislation, those guarantees have been largely nullified; and if he will state what action is proposed to be taken to secure the fulfilment of the pledges given by the Free State?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether this question is in order, in view of the fact that it casts reflection on the Irish Free State by suggesting that they are not fulfilling their pledges? Is it in order for a Member of this House to cast reflections on a friendly State?
    Sir F. HALL: May I submit to you, Sir, that the question simply asks for information in view of the circumstance, which is perfectly well known, that the Treaty is not being carried out properly?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I gather that this question arises from some undertakings given to the House by the last Government.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I direct your attention, Sir, to the last part of the
    980
    question, which accuses the Irish Free State of non-fulfilment of their pledges? In view of past rulings on questions affecting outside Colonies and Dominions, that statements which cast reflections on other Governments should not be submitted in the form of questions, is this question not out of order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not myself read into the question the implication suggested by the hon. Member, but I see the point of his suggestion. Perhaps the question might have been better worded. I take the blame on myself for not having amended the words.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am not aware of any guarantees entered into by the Irish Free State Government which have not been implemented by them; but if the hon. and gallant Member has any specific cases in mind, and will ask a question regarding any such case or cases, I will endeavour to give him a specific reply.
    Sir F. HALL: I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

    MALICIOUS INJURIES (AWARDS).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Acts, interest at the rate of 5 per cent. is payable on all sums awarded as compensation for malicious damage as from the date of the County Court Judge's decree; whether the Wood-Renton Commission, in awarding compensation contrary to the provisions of the above-mentioned Acts, declines to award interest from the-statutory dates but from much later dates arbitrarily fixed by them; and whether, in view of the fact that claimants are without legal remedy by reason of Irish Free State legislation, which has declared that decrees are unenforceable at law, he will make representations to the Wood-Renton Commission as to the desirability of their awards following the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Acts as to the payment of interest on awards as from the date when the same are made?
    Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; in reply to the second part, the duty of

    981
    the Commission is to determine what compensation ought in reason and in fairness to be awarded in the cases which come before them, and I have no reason to suppose that in discharging that duty they fail to take into consideration the period of time which has elapsed between the injury and their award. I see no ground, therefore, for the action suggested in the third part of the question.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very hard that these unfortunate people, whose homes have been burned down, should not receive the interest on the compensation awarded from the date when the award was made?
    Mr. THOMAS: As the previous Government set up a Commission to consider this question, it would be unfair on my part to assume for a moment that they were not fairly dealing with the case.

  DOMINION HIGH COMMISSIONERS (PRECEDENCE).
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date were the Dominions informed that the question of the precedence of Dominion High Commissioner in Great Britain had been settled; and who was the Secretary of State who settled it?
  Mr. THOMAS: As indicated in Section XIII of the "Summary of Proceedings," the question of the precedence of the High Commissioners was amongst those discussed at the Imperial Conference last autumn. After the Conference ended, my predecessor took up the matter, and, just before leaving office, made to the Dominion Prime Ministers proposals which were designed to place it on a satisfactory footing. I am now waiting to learn whether these proposals are generally acceptable, and in the meantime am not in a position to make any definite statement.
  Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is going to carry out his pre decessor's proposals?
  Mr. THOMAS: Yes, certainly.

  AGRICULTURE.

    CATTLE DISEASE (SS. "HARTINGTON").
    Mr. LAMBasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department communicated with any other Department of the Government in the case of the ss. "Hartington," from which cargo was discharged last year in the port of London without any declaration being made that diseased animals and fittings and fodder had been jettisoned during the voyage from Buenos Ayres; and if he will state what action has been taken to prevent the recurrence of such cases?
    Mr. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Ministry has been in communication with the Board of Trade, the Foreign Office and the Board of Customs. The question of the action to be taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents as that referred to presents considerable practical difficulties, and the Ministry is at present in consultation with the shipping companies. In the meantime, steps have been taken to watch voyages of vessels carrying animals from infected countries which also have on board cargoes of feeding stuffs intended for Great Britain, in order that the Ministry may be in a position to take such measures as seem to them necessary to guard against the risks of the introduction of disease.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Is it not the fact that this ship arrived in England a year ago, and has it taken the Ministry a year to consider what steps should be taken?
    Mr. BUXTON: It has taken me six weeks, and my predecessor was responsible up to that time. I understand the ship made this voyage in May of last year and arrived in England via Antwerp. The movements of ships are now being closely watched.

    PRICES.
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTONasked the Minister of Agriculture how the prices received to-day by farmers for cattle, sheep, pigs, cheese and hay compare with the prices received a year ago?
    Mr. BUXTON: The index figures showing the percentage increase over February 1911–13, for the items in question in

    983
    February, 1923, and February, 1924, are as follow:—

    February

    February

    1923.

    1924.

    Fat Cattle

    …

    61

    …

    54

    Fat Sheep

    …

    97

    …

    75

    Fat Pigs

    …

    88

    …

    34

    Cheese

    …

    88

    …

    72

    Hay

    …

    42

    …

    -1*

    *Decrease.

    Mr. McENTEE: May we be informed as to whether the former figures indicate a very high rate of profit or whether the latter figures indicate a lose to the farmers?
    Sir H. BARNSTON: May I ask the Minister how the answer he has just given coincides with the statement made by him in this House on 14th February, that there had been a distinct hardening in prices and a marked improvement in most agricultural products?
    Mr. BUXTON: If I am not going outside legitimate bounds in answering this question, I would say that against the prices mentioned, there are other prices such as barley, wool, potatoes, vegetables and some other articles.

    HOPS.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Hop Controller has ever purchased any foreign grown hops; and, if so, whether he will state the amounts in each year of the Control purchased?
    Mr. BUXTON: In the year ended 30th June, 1920, at the request of the Government, the Hop Control purchased some 9,493 cwts. of Czechoslovakian hops, and in the same year, and at the request of the New Zealand Government, the Control purchased 703 cwts. of New Zealand hops.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state for what these hops are used?
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Hop Controller has ever received offers from abroad or from dealers on foreign account to purchase English-grown hops: and, if so, whether he will state the highest prices quoted for parcels of the respective crops?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am informed that the Hop Controller has never received offers from foreign dealers to purchase English-grown hops. I may add, however, that a suggestion was made to the Hop Controller by certain merchants at the time of hop picking last year that if the restriction on production could be withdrawn they were prepared to buy 25,000 cwts. at a price of £6 a cwt. On many grounds it was not possible for the Hop Controller to accept this offer.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Sir H. CAUTLEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the original outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Nottinghamshire, occurred on a farm at Farnsfield about a fortnight ago; that the farm is occupied by a cattle dealer; that the cattle attacked were Irish cattle which he had recently brought direct from Bristol docks after importation: and that this dealer was, on 23rd February, fined for moving to another farm in his occupation seven imported Irish heifers from Bristol docks without a licence, contrary to the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order; and whether, in the view of his Department, the cattle found with the disease at Farnsfield were infected in Ireland or, if not, has the origin of the infection been traced?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am satisfied that the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Nottinghamshire originated at Nottingham railway station, to which infection had been conveyed from a source at present unknown. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the fourth part of the question, these prosecutions are conducted by the local authority. The case in question has not yet been reported to me, but I am having inquiry made into the matter. There is no suspicion that infection was conveyed to this country from Ireland.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: Were not the cattle found infected at Nottingham Irish cattle that had recently come from Ireland through Bristol?
    Mr. BUXTON: Yes, but there is very strong evidence, on the other hand, that the infection did not originate in Ireland.
    Mr. LAMB: In view of the reply given, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the disinfection of railway trucks is more vigorously carried out?
    Mr. BUXTON: Yes.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (LENGTH OF SPEECHES).
  Mr. PERCY HARRISasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider putting a clock over Mr. Speaker's Chair on the Reporters' Gallery so that Members facing Mr. Speaker can tell for how long they are speaking?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): I regret that I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. MILLS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having introduced taxi-cabs into Hyde Park, he will have taximeters to regulate the length of speeches here?
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this proposal if the funds be raised by subscription?

  RICHMOND PARK (GOLF LINKS).
  Mr. BECKERasked the First Commissioner of Works if he can give any indication of the time which must elapse before he comes to a decision regarding a second golf course to be laid out in Richmond Park; is it proposed to lay out the golf links nearer to Richmond than the existing one; and will Richmond unemployed be engaged in the work?
  Mr. JOWETT: I am giving careful consideration to this question, and a decision will be reached as soon as possible.

  ROYAL PARKS (TENNIS COURTS).
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the success that has attended the opening of lawn tennis courts in the public parks, he will consider the opening of courts in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens?
  Mr. JOWETT: The policy of the Department has always been to preserve the Royal parks intact for the benefit of the public generally, and to allocate for special games, requiring practically the exclusive use of ground, such as tennis and golf, only such enclosures as have not previously been available for general use. There are no such areas in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In the general interest, I do not consider it desirable to take away any portion of the open parks for the special use of a limited number of people.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTKE A.
    Mr. Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Hutchison.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Right honourable Arthur Henderson, Borough of Burnley.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  REPORT [28th February.]
  Resolutions reported,

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

      CLASS II.
      1. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,958,010, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account and the Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia Account for Great Britain, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."
      2. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture far Scotland, including Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Services arising out of the War."

      REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
      3. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."
      First Resolution read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Major WHELER: I do not propose to say anything on the major question of foot-and-mouth disease, beyond asking my right hon. Friend whether, if he has any further information as to the disease, he will, when the opportunity arises, give us that information, because we see from day to day that the notified reports are not getting fewer. There is a case near London now, and the longer this goes on, the more anxious the whole agricultural community feels as regards this disease, and the extraordinary expenditure in
      1022
      addition to the serious loss of stock being caused, day by day, by its ravages. But I would like to come to the other Vote which, as far as these Supplementary Estimates are concerned, is only put down as a token Vote this year, and that is the Vote dealing with grants for co-operation, though that is a word which, as the Minister said the other day, we do not welcome very much, and the right hon. Gentleman talked about the word "combination" as being more suitable. Reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate the other day, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman said that this was only a token Vote for this year, and that as regards next year a sum possibly of £200,000 would be wanted for this purpose.
      I am going to say at once, if that is all the Minister can do under this head, I am exceedingly disappointed. I do think that we want to examine this question rather carefully, because while I do not want to say one word against the good work that is done by such societies as the Agricultural Organisation Society, and societies in other parts of England, and also the organisations which are set up in such fruitful and fertile districts as Wisbech, or the fruit-growing districts, or in Pershore, in Worcestershire, and so on, where, owing to the special qualities of the soil, you can have organisation and combination for special products, I want to know how this system is going to favour the rank and file of farmers. Take the case of a farmer who may be farming, say, 80 acres, two-thirds of which is arable, and he is farming on the ordinary four-course system, with a certain amount of stock—not very much, probably, in these days—and a considerable amount of arable. I have looked at a statement that came out in some of the newspapers on Saturday giving some of the particulars of this scheme which the Minister of Agriculture outlined in regard to agricultural societies, and the more I look it through, the more I am convinced that that scheme is not going to help the type of farmer we want to help most, because the situation in agriculture to-day is surely, that there are these very large tracts of two-thirds arable and one-third grass farms run by 40 per cent. of the farmers, who, at this time, at any rate, are exceedingly hard up for money. They have probably sold all their corn, they may have a few sheep, and may

      1023
      look, perhaps, in four months' time for an increased price for the wool they may have to sell, and they may have one or two bullocks they hope to realise, out of which to make a little money, but not much.
      That is the type of man for whom I cannot see any benefit coming from this scheme, but it is the type most in need of help. We talk about combinations of these people, but what benefit are they going to get from it? I want to get down to the bed-rock of this matter, and see if we cannot do something for what I may call the bottom dog, the farmer and his men. He may have a certain amount of poultry, but with the best possible system of combination for poultry, that is not going to carry him through a difficult time. Then there is milk. There are hundreds of farms which, from their situation, are not suitable for any great progressive scheme of developing milk, so you can wipe that out. Take pigs. The pig industry varies greatly, the price at any moment is subject to fluctuations, and we are competing with the outside world, such as Denmark. Moreover, if we are to make bacon factories pay, we shall have to standardise much more than we do to-day, and that will take time. But taking these three items on the farm, what hope is there for these 40 per cent. of the farmers of England to get any benefit under this scheme of co-operation, or whatever you like to call it? Yet that is all we are offered at the present time. Because I cannot see any hope for that kind of farmer, who wants more help than any other type of farmer in the country to-day, I say most frankly I am exceedingly disappointed with this scheme. One reads the proposals outlined in the papers, how the money is to be got, and the various Regulations. That does not appeal to the ordinary rank and file of farmers to-day. They want help, but they are not in the position to take advantage of it. They are not in the position to subscribe to that sort of thing. What they want is capital to help them along. That being so, where does the benefit come in, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this type of farmers, who are the large percentage.
      That is the main point for which I have risen, because I do think this is a vital question to the agricultural community.
      1024
      In a word, it is on corn—and corn alone—that these men are dependent. At the present time, I venture to say, on every one of these farms, under the best cultivation, probably four quarters of wheat a year in and out is the most for which the farmer can hope. In his own local market he can be quite depended upon to get the best price for his corn, and, therefore, this scheme of combination holds out nothing to him. The more we look at this situation, the more we realise the scarcity of capital there must be on that type of farm. Until his corn is thrashed, as some has to be in August, how is that type of man to get the necessary capital to carry on? In speaking of these farms, I have, of course, included farms where the farmer has two, three, or four men depending upon him. That is the type who are absolutely going to get no benefit from this scheme at all. It is not that I do not want a scheme of this sort. I know great benefit has been derived from this kind of thing in some parts of the country, but it does not touch the percentage of men who are struggling to-day, and who will continue to struggle unless they can get some sort of help—a little money, instead of being on the verge of bankruptcy. If nothing-be done to help that type of man, what will be the result? As fast as they can buy seeds, down will go their land to grass, and, therefore, we come to the fact that those arable districts will suffer, unless something better is done to help that type of farmer. It is because of that, and because I feel so very strongly that all these great ideas of co-operation—excellent in themselves—do not touch the fringe of the difficulty under which we are suffering, that I am disappointed the Minister of Agriculture cannot bring forward, or has not up till now brought forward, some sort of scheme which will meet the needs of this forty per cent. of agricultural farmers and their workers, and do something to help them carry on in the difficult times before them.
      4.0 P.M.
      Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether I should be in order in referring to an item which appears in the Supplementary Estimate. This is a Supplementary Estimate for the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1924, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and

      1025
      Fisheries and for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. There dos not appear to be any of this money definitely allocated to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and therefore I am not certain whether I should be in order in asking the Minister one or two questions on that subject.
      Mr. SPEAKER: No. That point can be raised on the main Estimates for the year. Discussion on this Report must be confined entirely to what is contained in this Supplementary Estimate. The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the heading, but the heading is a general heading taken from the main Vote. He must not look at that, but at the actual items for which money is asked.
      Mr. ACLAND: I do not like to intervene on the Report stage of a Vote which has been so well discussed in Committee as this was, but I was unable to be here last week, and I can undertake that what I say shall not be long or in any sense disputatious or argumentative. I have had rather a long experience in connection with agricultural co-operation. It dates from the time when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture suggested that I might join the executive committee, as it then was, of the Agricultural Organisation Society, of which he was a member. That was twenty years ago. As he reminded me the other day, the reason why he made that suggestion to me was because he thought it would be a good thing if there were one or two Liberals on that committee. It is no doubt that, because I have taken his advice so seriously, I have remained a Liberal since that time. Doing that work, one has had a good deal of experience of the joys and sorrows of agricultural co-operative organisation and of its encouragements and disappointments, and although the disappointments have been many and the work has been very hard, I am hoping that under the policy of my right hon. Friend we are beginning a new era which really may be very helpful to agriculture in this country. I am glad he proposes a scheme under which credit may be given to societies mainly engaged in the sale of produce. So far as I can realise the details of the scheme, I think they are a distinct improvement on the scheme under consideration by the late Government. Although the late Government had gone some way in a discussion of some of the ways leading towards a
      1026
      scheme of this kind, they were not under their scheme going to help societies needing more than £5,000 and there are many types of societies which need rather more than that if they are to be taken in hand successfully. I think even now there is a chance of certain rather good types of societies—bacon factories for instance—falling between two stools. It is not quite enough, so far as our experience goes, to say to those societies that they will be looked after under the Trade Facilities Act schemes. The Trade Facilities Act Committee does not take any living interest in anything involving less than an expenditure of £100,000, and these co-operative societies, even though they are of fair size, are therefore liable to fall between two stools, not being helped by the trade facilities scheme and finding themselves just outside even the extended limit of £10,000 which my right hon. Friend has proposed.
      Hon. Members who have joined in the discussion were right in indicating that co-operation ought not to be regarded as an agricultural panacea. But our system of marketing agricultural produce is extraordinarily chaotic, more so, I think, than that of any other produce in this country, and, though it be slowly, a very great deal can be done by careful planning to help both the consumer and the producer. I venture to lay stress on the consumers' end of the matter, and to say that agricultural co-operation ought to be regarded, not simply as a scheme to help the farmer, but as a thing to improve the general methods of trading in agricultural produce, so as to help the consumer also. Although it is too long a matter to go into to-day, I believe that under really scientific organisation we could considerably improve our methods in the manufacture and sale of bread. I believe it is really possible to sell bread at 1d. or 1½d. a loaf less than the present prices usually charged, and at the same time to use 75 per cent. or more of British wheat in the making of that bread. That would be a double advantage—to the consumer in the price and to the farmer by giving him a better market for his wheat. Those who have read the Final Report of the Linlithgow Committee, which very much repays reading, realise that to some extent the consumer is himself responsible for the prices he pays. As long as

      1027
      the consumer insists that tradesmen shall call for orders, that they shall deliver milk, bread and other things of that kind from house to house, and give long credit, they cannot grumble very much when these services are reflected in the prices they have to pay for the articles. The whole thing wants "looking at very big," not simply as a problem affecting the interests of the producers, but as affecting the whole of our society.
      This brings me to my first main point. We should be wrong if we assume that the mere provision of money is going to settle these questions. The provision of money on reasonable terms will often be the least part and the least important part in the problem. You require a very long, thorough and careful planning and exploration of all these different trades—bread, meat, milk, bacon and all the rest of them—before you can give your credit on lines which are likely to be most successful in the interests of the producer and the consumer. In this country we ought to have something in the nature of a central directing brain in this matter, a certain number of men working whole time at the subject, some of them, no doubt, paid I for the work they give, with statutory authority and power over this credit which they will administer; and on that body you would want the very best business brains as well as the best agricultural brains to be found in the country. I should like, for instance, to bring in one of the very best brains in the industrial co-operation movement to help in organisation. I do not feel that the real planning and consideration of these intricate commercial problems will be sufficiently done by the advisory committee which my right hon. Friend the Minister has foreshadowed, and which would, presumably, exist mainly, if not wholly, to consider particular applications for credit as and when they were brought forward. Recently I have had to do in detail with planning out a bacon factory scheme for Devon and Cornwall, and if I were a member of an advisory committee before whom an application for credit for such an organisation came, I should want to know a very great deal about it, and want to go into a great many fundamental matters before I agreed to grant money. One would want to have in one's mind how that factory was related geographically
      1028
      to others, so as to ensure no unnecessary overlapping. One would want to be certain what arrangements were going to be made for dealing with the bacon through some central trading agency, so that co-operation could be obtained between that factory and others. One would want to know that it was going to be properly equipped, because it is very important to avoid the wrong type of equipment; one would want to know how it was going to be managed; and what obligations members would be under to supply the right type of pig. Further, one would want to know, and this is almost the most important point, judging by such experience as I have had, whether the Society was going to put itself under periodic expert review by some body to see that it was really conducting its affairs on business-like lines.
      Personally I would not grant State money to any agricultural co-operative concern which would not, as a condition of receiving the money, put itself periodically under such review. It is so easy for a body of farmers to settle down, with the best intentions in the world, as the managing committee of a society olfactory and, not being themselves trained business men, allow things to drift on. They do not realise what departments of the work are losing money, and nothing but a real expert business review and inspection will show them where they are going wrong. If they do not get that, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir Leslie Scott) said last week, they appeal, in extremis, to some parent body to help them when it is almost too late to do so, and when, very likely, the help cannot be effective. It seems to me, therefore, that a body in charge of credit needs to be something more than an Advisory Committee. They want to work out what the policy ought to be in these different departments of trade, and they want to be certain that they have taken advantage of the lessons which have been learnt. In the last 20 years agricultural organisation societies in this country, in Scotland, in Ireland, and in Wales have been amassing experience. I do not wish to put it too high, but they have learned how not to do a great many things—of course, they have learned more than that—and their negative experience would be extraordinarily valuable and I should like to

      1029
      have, not merely an Advisory Committee which would consider applications but a whole-time directing brain on which the very business brains in the business world as well as in the agricultural world, could combine in order to direct policy.
      In connection with milk, I should like to follow up what my right hon. Friend said last week. There is no reason in the world why we in this country should not consume as much milk as they do in the United States of America, or more for that matter, because the distances to be covered here are much less than there. It would be an enormous advantage to our public health and lead to an enormous decrease in our infantile mortality. It can be done, and it ought to be done, but if you are to do it you will need a carefully combined and worked out campaign. It is not enough that farmers should be urged to produce better and cleaner milk, and it is not enough to have the best system of milk recording, though that is very good in its way. It is not enough to gain greater economy in the distribution of milk. I, for one, do not at all put out of consideration the making of the milk supply in some towns a municipal matter. It is very likely that might be quite a good thing to go into. It is not enough for doctors and medical officers of health to do what they are prepared, and anxious to do, that is to try and popularise the consumption of whole milk, particularly by women and children. That is not enough at all. The railway companies should be asked to do their share. You have got, too, to go into, at any rate, one other important matter, and that is the way toll at present is levied on the milk industry by the great wholesalers—that which is generally called the milk combine, the United Dairies.
      The Linlithgow Committee makes valuable suggestions in regard to that. They are very moderate in their character. They say quite clearly that that combine is now levying a great toll upon the consumers of milk. They make the perfectly definite recommendations that the reports, balance sheets, and accounts of these subsidiary industries, which that great concern have swallowed up, should be separately published, so that they can be open to the inspection of the public. When applications are made from co-operative societies who wish to buy their
      1030
      milk I should like there to be, as I say, a statutory body on the lines, it may be, of the existing Development Commission or the existing Forestry Commissioners, which will have some ruling authority, to look at the thing big; at a great public plan of popularising milk consumption; not simply isolated applications by isolated co-operative societies, or the isolated granting of certain credits, or something of that kind.
      There are other big things that ought to be looked at. The first is the law under which these co-operative societies work. My right hon. Friend suggested registration; but that is not an alternative plan to that of the industrial and provident societies. That is becoming rather old-fashioned now, and there are modifications of it which industrial societies themselves would desire. It is not enough to plan from the point of view only of the feeding necessities of these agricultural co-operative societies. There are many points which need careful consideration and review. I am not sure that we ought not to do to-day in this country what is being done with good effect in South Africa and other countries, which have special laws for societies and organisations of this sort, apart from all the laws which might be suitable for the industrial and provident societies generally. There, again, I want to have a central directing brain over the movement, and not simply an Advisory Committee. Another point, if I might make it—seeing that hon. Members on the Front Bench seem to be interested in the matter—is that there could surely be some better connection than there is now between the agricultural co-operative movement and the industrial co-operative movement. There is no reason at all why good work and good planning should not result in good results if the question were regarded big and in a statesmanlike way by both sides. The help of those people whom I have suggested might be asked to tackle questions of this sort.
      I pass to one other point. My right hon. Friend used a phrase which was the only phrase in his speech with which I did not quite agree. The Government now propose to help the societies in regard to loans but not in regard to propaganda, I venture to say that you need both propaganda and educational work, as well as loans. For instance, in the West of

      1031
      England one has worked in the inspection of sites, and the making of rather detailed and tedious arrangements with the railway company for sidings, etc., and the prospectus embodies the best results of experience one can collect in trying to arrange a system under which the farmers supply their pigs, and that sort of thing. If the farmers are to be expected, as they ought to be expected, themselves to produce a considerable amount of the capital that is required, there remains the necessity for a very considerable propaganda and educational campaign in every market town in the two countries. This is needed if there is to be success with many farmers. We all of us know very well what they are like. It is not enough to suggest and put before him a certain business proposition. They listen in absolute immobility; they act alone. They think a lot, and they do not say much. They never come to a decision at once They say they will think it over. That means that between one market and the market the following week they are trying to find out what Mr. So-and-So or Mr. Somebody-Else thinks of the matter, and is going to do, and whether or not he, or they, are going to put their money into it When they again come home they think it over again, as to whether they will or will not do the same, and if they invest their money, how much! Propaganda work is needed in a market town and there are 20 or 25 of them in each of the counties somewhat of the size of Devon and Cornwall. It needs three or four real educational meetings, and very often that has to be followed up by actual visits to the individual farms before you can get the individual cultivator to take a share, and see what is the use of a co-operative body. That is really educational work. It seems to me that a term of years is required to tackle and to educate the farmer into agricultural co-operation, and until it is more firmly established than now this sort of work will have to be continued.
      It is not an easy thing, after all. You need to be a successful co-operator. You need combination and, if I may so, what is expressed by faith. You need faith and discipline, and enthusiasm and regulation, and these are not the qualities which you easily find in combination.
      1032
      A man may be enthusiastic, but he may not be disciplined. A man may have the idea of rule, but he has not got faith and enthusism to make him take up and apply-any general idea. It is very difficult. I do not in the least blame the farmers, but it is very difficult to make the farmer realise that only by trading big can he trade well, and that in order to trade big he must be willing to forego the odd shilling per ton extra price on his fertilisers and the shilling per quarter extra price when he sells a quantity of grain, which the dealer is willing to offer him, simply in order to keep the co-operative societies weak and undermine his loyalty in it. Therefore, you need faith, but that is only got by continual and steady education. You need a standard of discipline, too. That is a thing which we learn from other countries, and which we learn from the United States, where the farmers have a very much greater care about the business side of their operations than is general in this country, and where they themselves control the business end of their organisation instead of handing it over to other people-as mostly happens here. They have to learn by experience that the only way to make co-operative organisation successful is to subject themselves voluntarily to very stiff rules and a system of discipline, in regard, for instance, to the proportion of the output they are allowed to sell to the society, and things of that sort. We shall have to come to the same thing in this country.
      There is a great deal of human nature about which has got to be overcome before you can make a good co-operator of anyone, and the farmer is not very different from other people. I remember in the very early days when we tried to give the farmers in Wensleydale, Yorkshire, an idea of the elementary proposition that they were very likely to do better in buying their fertilisers and get them cheaper if they would buy by the truck-load in combination, than individually and from different agents. The answer that I got from one of them was very characteristic. It was to this effect: "I know perfectly that if I try to combine with the man on the next farm that all the time he will be trying to Yorkshire me and I will be trying to Yorkshire him!" I do not know that I need explain that observation. It is fairly clear. But what the man meant

      1033
      was that if there was in the truck, say, a number of tons, that the first man would take a couple of tons, and the other would take his couple, and perhaps a third his couple, and whereas there ought to be left four tons for the next two men they would find subsequently that only a ton and a half had been left. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Every county does it in just the same way. In other words, right away from the top of society to the bottom, I am afraid we have not got—this is one of the greatest and strongest arguments against nationalisation—we have not got the same habits of honesty and the same power of trusting one another in combination, say, that would be expected if it was a question simply of man to man. That is one of the great difficulties in getting real loyalty to co-operative societies. For one thing, the worst of the man's stock is good enough for the society! He does not realise that in that way he is really swindling his brother farmer. Unless you get the proper habits of agricultural co-operation so as to meet this great difficulty, there will be needed not only educational work, but it will be justifiable for the Government to provide in some way or other—I do not here suggest what—for the continuance for a few years, at any rate, of propagandist work, as well as simply granting credit facilities.
      My last point is the part which it seems to me farmers themselves might be asked and expected to play in this matter. I have nothing but praise for the help that is given constantly by many of the leaders of farming in the county branches of the National Farmers' Union as to co-operative enterprises; whether bacon factories or wool societies, or whatever they may be. But in some cases the leaders are not very friendly, and one then generally finds that the leading man himself is a trader, or has relatives who are traders, and, therefore, has more interest in the success of the traders than in the success of the farmers. Generally there is very little to complain of in the attitude of the National Farmers' Union in the counties; yet at headquarters there has hitherto been, I am sorry to say, no great enthusiasm in tackling the commercial organisation of industry. A very able representative of the industry, Mr. Bobbins, was a member of the Linlithgow Committee, and agreed to their reports.
      1034
      These series of reports set out the sort of ways in which the commercial organisation could be tackled, preferably by the farmers themselves; but so far as I have seen hitherto very few of the leading farmers have really referred either to co-operation or to the recommendations of that Committee without almost a sneer, if they have not really taken up a different attitude.
      These indicate lines of work for many years to come; yet I think that they maybe very fruitful if individual farmers would look at the thing big and play their part. There seems, for instance, if they know, as they do, that in the ordinary small auction marts throughout the country—in almost every one—there are probably now butchers' rings making special profits at the expense of the farmer, and taking out of the hands of the farmers the real value of the stock they sell; yet I have not noticed a single leader of the National Farmers' Union indicating that they have any policy or any idea of working out a policy to tackle that real evil, and that real piece of dishonesty, as I think, at the farmers' expense. In so far as they do indicate an interest in co-operation they indicate at the present time that they would be prepared perhaps to take over the bacon factories which happen to be doing very well, but they make no sort of suggestion that they might be able to take over what is a much more difficult matter, and that is the organisation of the milk factories, or try to do something with the auction marts, the slaughter houses, and so on. I shall not believe in their willingness to do what they might do unless and until they attack some of the more difficult aspects of this matter.
      I am sorry for that, because in this question of agricultural co-operation it ought to be the farmers themselves who take the lead. A few of us have done the best work we can on the Agricultural Organisation Society to promote the interests of agriculture, but it will never be the real success which it could be made in this country so long as any considerable portion of the farmers are willing to sit back and say, "We are quite willing for other people to do the work, and if it is successful we shall give it our approval." I think they must take up the work themselves if it is to be a real success. I am the chairman of the

      1035
      Agricultural Organisation Society, and I think this is the moment when the Rational Farmers' Union, with more keenness, knowledge and enthusiasm, should come forward and take their proper place as the parties responsible for the organisation. If they would do this, my colleagues and I would be content at once to give place to those who ought to be the actual developers of this work. Up to the present they have not quite developed that spirit.
      In this country, in the long run the prosperity of agriculture depends very largely on the good will and sympathetic consideration of the urban population. As our marketing committees are organised now, every single one of them has a majority of members from the towns and not from the country. The Farmers' Union have done many things, and there are many other things they wish to be done for them by the Government, but in the long run these things will not be effectively done, and the appeal made by those engaged in agriculture will not be effectively listened to, unless the ordinary man in the street, the ordinary urban voter, is convinced that agriculture is doing the best it can to help itself, and that it only comes to this House when it has done what it can to help itself, and puts its own industry on a satisfactory basis without constantly appealing to the rest of the taxpayers for assistance. I thank the Minister of Agriculture most heartily for what he has done. I apologise for intervening so late in these Debates, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will receive in a friendly spirit such teachings of experience as I have been able to offer, based as they are on long years of work of which he was the original inspirer.
      The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene now at this stage to answer one or two points which have been debated. I would just like to point out that this Vote is not dealing with the whole of the Government's agricultural policy, but only with one item, and, indeed, only with part of the co-operative question and not even the whole of that. It is not claimed that this is a panacea, and therefore to go outside this particular proposal would not be relevant. The only question now is whether this Vote
      1036
      represents a desirable object. Lest me say here that I should like to inform the House how gratified I am that so much favour has been shown from all quarters of the House towards this Vote.
      I have been asked what will this proposal do for those things in which the farmer is interested. A large number of societies have been concerned with the purchase of farmers' requisites, and there is not a single member of those societies who has not received more benefit, financially than he would have done without the society. More help will be given in the direction of the formation of those societies. That is leaving out sale, mar keting and grading which were referred to in the Linlithgow Report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) has made an enormous contribution to this question, and since the days to which he has alluded, there has been progress made which is really astonishing in comparison with the very small part that was played by the society when he was good enough to accept my invitation to join the Committee. The progress has been very great and it shows that there is an opening to make it greater. I am extremely gratified that the right hon. Gentleman sees no more to criticise in these particular methods than those to which he has referred.
      In his very interesting speech there are suggestions which I shall study most carefully. He speaks of the Advisory Committee as not covering the ground completely. I would like to say that I feel that an Advisory Committee, on which those who have worked in co-operation with the farmers will accept a place, will certainly cover a larger area than that of merely giving advice as to whether a particular application for a loan should be agreed to or not, and the Committee will find itself interested and occupied with the whole question of co-operative policy for which he suggests there should be another body. I think we shall find the Ministry calling in volunteers because in that way we can meet the case. If not something further might be done, but this plan should be tried first of all.
      As for propaganda, the Committee will do a great deal in that direction because it will become known that there are skilled men who can offer advice, and their services will be applied for so that they will, to a great extent, fulfil the task which is

      1037
      called propaganda. I am seeking advice from all quarters. I have just had a long talk with Sir Horace Plunkett, and I am sure I have more to learn. I am a great believer in consultation upon certain kinds of business, and any advice we can get will be extremely welcome. I am glad that what has been proposed is regarded as an honest attempt to help the farmers.
      The spirit of general helpfulness is very welcome, and if we do not approach this question in a partisan spirit, I am sure the House will agree we can do some good and in many directions farmers will find we have put our finger on the right way to help them. Perhaps after the rather lengthy talk we have had on this question, I might now ask the House to allow this Vote to go through. I might add that if we are to keep in touch with agriculture, as we all want to do, we had better take care that we get an Easter holiday, and I am just a little afraid of our encroaching far too much on the few days which I, at all events, would like to get at Easter, and on these grounds I ask the House to allow this Vote to pass.
      Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no desire, as far as I know, in any quarter of the House to protract this Debate, and even if there had been, the Minister's appeal in regard to the prospect of an Easter holiday would have taken away any such desire. At the same time, I think he will recognise that, although this afternoon he has adopted rather a subdued note with regard to these particular proposals, there is some disposition amongst hon. Members to express their opinion shortly on a matter which is not without considerable interest to the whole agricultural community. As far as we are concerned on these Benches, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman there will be no attempt to continue this Debate beyond the necessary limit.
      I think the general sense of the House is the one which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) expressed, and the right hon. Gentleman can be quite sure that he need be under no obligation of offering any apology to the House for his intervention in the Debate. Indeed we all agreed with the Minister of Agriculture when he expressed the gratitude of the House to the right hon. Gentleman
      1038
      the Member for Tiverton for his extremely valuable and instructive intervention. I intervene for rather a different purpose. The unanimity with which these proposals have been received has been so comparatively complete that I noticed in some quarters after the Debate last week a certain tendency to get the matter with which the Debate dealt a little out of its real perspective, and it is with that object that I wish to offer a word of caution and warning. First of all, I will offer a word of caution, if I may, with far less experience than the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in the field of co-operation itself. It is quite true there is no magic in the words "combination" or "co-operation." Furthermore, any attempt to translate that word into practice will be likely to meet with very strong opposition from other interests, and therefore that path is not likely ever to be an easy one to tread.
      I would emphasise the need for greater circumspection in regard to the subject with which these societies will be invited to deal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton devoted some of his observations to bacon factories, which loomed rather largely in the discussion we have had. In the judgment of one right hon. Gentleman who spoke, in order to run a bacon factory properly he said you must have at least 500 pigs a week as a minimum. I have no claim to much experience on this question, but I have always heard the figure placed much higher than that. I have heard it placed at very much nearer double that figure. I have no doubt, therefore, that, if and when these proposals come to be considered, those whose duty it is to examine them, with a view to the lending of State money, will be right to have the fullest possible regard to the kind of consideration which the right hon. Gentleman emphasised, as to the radius over which they can draw, in order to keep down the charges for railway transport, and so on, so that they may, as far as possible, be set on the line towards prosperity.
      There is another vital difference, when a comparison is made between us and Denmark, and I have not yet heard any reference to it in this Debate. I believe is is true to say that the Danes established no bacon factories until—I speak generally—they had covered the country with a network of co-operative

      1039
      creameries. In other words, they deliberately, and, I suppose, from their point of view, wisely, followed the policy of organising their pig industry as a subsidiary industry to dairying. Of course, I know that the conditions here and in Denmark are quite different, but we, apparently, are starting on other lines. We are trying to organise our bacon factories as a first-principal product, and, when we have done that, we shall hope, with that first-principal product, to compete against the Danes in a line which is to them a by-product. I only mention that as an example of the extreme need for circumspection and caution in the broad organisation of the policy in these matters which ft is ultimately intended to pursue. I will only give the House one figure, which, in that connection, is not without interest. I believe that in Denmark, at the present time, there are 1,650 co-operative creameries. In this country, if my information is correct, there are 38—a most astonishing disparity. I only mention that because I so cordially agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, in the course of his remarks relating to milk, as to the low consumption per capita of the population, and, I am afraid, too often, its low grade of quality and cleanliness. I should, if it were possible to accomplish it, greatly like to see a large development in regard to milk in this co-operative field, and I believe that in that we should not only be contributing to social health, but should also be working on sound economic lines.
      May I, in a sentence, suggest the importance of two other directions that are both simple and encouraging? One is that of co-operative milling. At the present time the farmer has often to pay more for his offals than the miller pays him For his corn. If we had co-operative milling, he would have the advantage of getting his offals on reasonable terms. The same thing applies to co-operative slaughtering, under which he would get the advantage of the offal, which, at present, goes out of his hands. I am certain that if any of these developments are to be made a success, the plant of combination will only flourish in the soil of liberty. While it is very nice for the State to be willing and able to assist in the provision of the money, I am sure that, as the right hon.
      1040
      Gentleman the Member for Tiverton said, it may very often be the case that the provision of money will be the least important part. I welcome what the Minister said, in introducing this Vote, with regard to the measure of control that he proposes to exercise, through the Ministry, over these societies. It seemed to me that he had reduced that control to the minimum necessary to afford proper safeguards, and I have no ground for complaint on that score, but I would utter this word of warning. When we talk about co-operation, or combination, and are told that the grant from the Government is to be limited to £10,000 to each society, I occasionally ask myself, where is the rest of the money coming from? I suppose the answer would be that it is going to be put up by farmers who believe in co-operation and who want to push it. But the whole trouble, or one of the principal troubles, at the present moment, is that farmers have not got the money, and if, indeed, they had got the capital—
      Viscount WOLMER indicated dissent.
      Mr. WOOD: I am not sure whether my Noble Friend would agree that farmers have got a lot of money, but, if he does, he must be thinking about his own part of the country, where they grow hops. I am afraid that in the main it is true that farmers have lost much of their capital, and all their spare capital ought to be, if it is not already, employed in the land. I must confess to a certain measure of doubt as to the amount of spare money that' here is knocking about in the farmers' pockets for the immediate development of a co-operative movement. In any case, I am quite sure that combination or co-operation is no short cut to give every farmer a bulging bank balance. For the same reason, it really cannot be claimed—and I do not think the Minister would claim—that this is a contribution to the real root problem of agricultural economic conditions and employment. Indeed, that was expressed and felt in every quarter of the House during the previous Debate. The idea that, by lending £10,000 to a co-operative society which farmers have not yet formed, any benefit is going to be brought to the agricultural labourer, is an idea that is obviously repugnant both to the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) and to the

      1041
      right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), as well as to a good many of my friends on this side of the House. I am a little afraid of the public thinking, "Oh, here is substantial help given to the principle of co-operation," and that the public, who, as has already been said, are very ignorant on agricultural matters, may be in danger of drifting off, thinking that an agricultural policy has been introduced, and that the Government have done all that they can reasonably be asked to do by way of a solution of agricultural difficulties. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not hold that view, and, indeed, last week he said so, but I do venture to tell him that the agricultural community, while not anxious to press him unduly, is yet getting a little unquiet, as it sees one alternative after another ruled out by the Government, one possibility after another cast aside, and a considerable amount of attention given to what it knows cannot be even a partial solution of the underlying causes of the difficulty. Therefore, I hope it may not be very long before the right hon. Gentleman is able to lay more fundamental proposals before the House. It is certain that there is, at the present moment, a definite, steady and regular shrinkage in the area of cultivated land in England, and the next returns that this House has will show, unless I am very much mistaken, a further extension of that shrinkage. While, therefore, I welcome these proposals and this Estimate as far as they go, and associate myself with the wishes that have been expressed that the farmers' organisations throughout the country may lend all the help they can to this and any other similar effort, I cannot pretend to the House, or to any of those interested outside, that I have, or can hope to have, any confidence that these proposals, by themselves, will do anything to reverse, or even to retard, the great movement of economic forces by which agriculture is at present threatened.
      Sir ROBERT THOMAS: While one wishes God-speed to this proposal in regard to loans to agricultural co-operative societies, I would point out that this is not the main Vote which we are asked to pass to-day. We are asked to pass a vast sum of money, amounting to not less
      1042
      than £3,000,000, for expenditure in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. I maintain that a great deal of this expenditure has been unnecessary and grossly wasteful, in consequence of the importation of Irish cattle into this country. The Minister has no control over the importation of Irish cattle. These cattle are sent to places like Birkenhead and Mode Wheel, on the Manchester Ship Canal, where licences are granted for the animals to be sent to all parts of the country. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) asked a question to-day whether a case of infection which occurred at Farnsfield was attributable to animals shipped from I reland. I rise to protest against the continuance of that system, and against the Voting of money by this House for expenditure to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease, when the Ministry of Agriculture are taking no steps to prevent cattle coming into this country from foreign countries—because, to all intents and purposes, Ireland is a foreign country—without any control, and infecting the cattle here.
      Apart from that, I want to refer to the injustice that arises. There are to-day, in England and Wales, areas where there is no infection. I represent a small county through which Irish cattle pass. They are brought to Holyhead and landed there, and cattle men in Holyhead rub against them, the manure from the lairages at Holyhead is sold and put on the land in my county, where, up to the present, there is no foot-and-mouth disease at all, and the trucks that carry these animals to Birkenhead are brought back again to the county to be cleaned. I say that until this sort of thing is stopped there is not going to be any stoppage of expenditure in connection with foot-and-mouth disease in this country. Therefore I have a right to protest against the passing of this Vote so hurriedly as the Minister asks, without raising this very serious question. There has not been a single case of foot-and-mouth disease in Anglesey or Carnarvonshire for the last 40 years, but still we are not allowed licences to send cattle from either of those counties to what is called a pitching ground, that is to say a ground, say at Salford, which is the market for the cattle which we export from

      1043
      Anglesea and Carnarvonshire. He told me this morning when I had the honour of taking a deputation to him and of drawing his attention to this matter which is of the most vital importance to the farmers of my county that he has no remedy to offer. He knows that there is no infection in my county, but he will not give a licence for the animals from my county to go to a pitching-ground where butchers can come and examine them and buy them before they go into the slaughterhouse. These permits are given to the Irish farmers. Irish farmers have a pitching-ground at Birkenhead and at Mode Wheel, near Manchester. I hope my right hon. Friend will explain before the conclusion of this Debate why he is prepared to give those privileges to the Irish farmer and deny them to the British farmer. I do not think that is an unreasonable question. If Irish cattle, without inspection by the British Board of Agriculture, are allowed to come on to pitching-grounds in Lancashire, why is not the British farmer allowed a similar privilege, particularly in the case of my county where there has been no foot-and-mouth disease for 40 years? If my right hon. Friend will give a reply to that, I am sure he will give great satisfaction in all quarters of this House.
      5.0 P.M.
      Mr. WRIGHT: I rise to take part in this discussion for one or two reasons. In the first place, a long part of my life was spent in the co-operative movement. On the last occasion when I had an opportunity of speaking here, I came into unpleasant conflict with the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), and it gives me great pleasure to say now that I am largely in agreement with what he has said this afternoon. I have tried to do the particular kind of work which he suggests should be done. I have combined enthusiasm with the actual work of trying to convert a very large section of the retail co-operative societies in Scotland to the value and importance of combining agriculture with co-operative industrial organisations. If I may say so without seeming to make any boast, I have been instrumental in inducing certain retail societies in Scotland to add to their enterprise the farming side of the business. The society at Brechin, which was formerly two societies and at my suggestion combined
      1044
      into one, are already farming from 150 to 200 acres. They commenced a few years ago and they are highly pleased with what is going on. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) a night or two ago was somewhat doubtful of the success of agricultural co-operation. There are quite a number of societies in Scotland, and while some have failed a number have been successful. I would point to two instances in particular There is the Walkerburn Society, in the. Border district, and there is the society of Tranent, in East Lothian, who had Mr. John Cairns, one of the directors of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, as their manager, and who carried on very successfully for some years in farming. Therefore, I think, despite the scepticism and some of the drawbacks which have been experienced in Scotland, there is a great future so far as co-operative agriculture is concerned. It has been a matter of great regret to me how much agriculture has fallen into decay in modern times within our own land. I agree that this is not merely a question of money. We have to find, among other things, the type of key man who understands this question, and who is able to bring enthusiasm and practical knowledge to bear on the question.
      It has been suggested that certain lines of literature might be pursued. If I might make a suggestion to the Minister, with all due respect, I would ask him, and those who are interested in this question, to obtain a book, published a few years ago by Dr. J. W. Streeter, in the United States, called "The Fat of the Land." Dr. Streeter hit upon some novel ideas of working what is called a co-operative factory farm, and he met with extraordinary success. Any hon. Member of this House who is interested in co-operation in agriculture, and what to me is perhaps the more important point of developing the industry so that it will give the men employed on the land a wage upon which he can live, ought to obtain and read Dr. Streeter's book. He proves beyond the shadow of doubt that on land which was derelict when he took it over, it is possible to establish a new system and to pay to the people he employed on the land very much better wages than they had ever been paid before. He redeemed 350 acres of land and made it an eminent

      1045
      success. Only a few days ago I was speaking to a friend in Worcestershire who until a few years ago was working as a railway signalman and had been an agricultural labourer. He took over 18 acres of land, where he is now employing six people as a market gardener and paying them £2 a week winter and summer, wet or fine. The right hon. Member for Holland (Mr. Royce) said there were agricultural labourers working for 15?. a week in England.
      Mr. ROYCE: I would like to correct the statement that the general wage of agricultural labourers in England is 15s. a week. I said that there were casual labourers who were receiving, during the recent winter, wages that did not exceed 15s.
      Mr. WRIGHT: If there are men working as casual labourers for 15s. a week, it supports my argument. It has been said that the agricultural labourer's wage is not more than 24s. a week.
      Mr. ROYCE: That is right.
      Mr. WRIGHT: My hon. Friend agrees with that. I submit that it is impossible for any man to rear a family on 24s. a week. If the agricultural industry cannot give a better standard of living than that, to me it stands thereby condemned. If the Minister of Agriculture and the Government, or this House, cannot devise some better means whereby men would not be condemned to live under such horrible conditions as this, it is time we adopted a system of discovering some other part of the world where it can be done.
      Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Young): I am afraid the hon. Member is getting away from the subject of co-operative societies.
      Mr. WRIGHT: I notice, when we are debating this subject, that as soon as we get down to the agricultural labourer and the low-paid workmen we are out of order. There is this to be said, that they succeed very admirably in Denmark upon this question. I disagree with what has been said in this Debate, that you cannot get more than four quarters to the acre from the land in this country. We are assured that money is being lost on wheat grown in this country. I do not accept these statements. I asked
      1046
      for a return a few days ago, which was supplied by the Minister of Agriculture, and it shows that the average yield in Great Britain for 1921, I think, was 37 bushels to the acre, while the yield in Denmark, with inferior soil and climate, was, on the average, 54 bushels to the acre. Therefore, I say there is something radically wrong with the farming system of this country, which has remained stationary for 40 years. Then I take the question of the possibility of bacon factories being established. Fifty years ago, in 1870, the pigs in this country numbered 2½ millions. In 1922 they were 2¼ millions and in 1923 2,750,000, so that it virtually remained stationary, although during that period our population increased from 22,000,000 to 39,000,000, or 60 per cent.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the subject that we are discussing, which is loans to agricultural co-operative societies, and he must relate what he is saying to agricultural co-operative societies.
      Mr. WRIGHT: I am willing to abide by your ruling, but it is extraordinary to me. I sat through the discussion of this matter last week, and the question of pigs and bacon factories has been referred to over and over again. I will be obliged to you if you will tell me how I am out of order.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to refer to bacon factories, but it must be agricultural bacon factories.
      Mr. SHORT: On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. Member is not I entitled to make reference to those factories, inasmuch as a certain amount of money is to be allocated to co-operative societies on a co-operative basis?
      Mr. WRIGHT: With due deference, I will not resume this Debate.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I desire to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member who opened the discussion, and who said the main need of the farmer is not co-operation but capital. This Vote proposes to try to establish two things. It proposes that money should be given to co-operative societies to organise production. On that point I do not desire to make any comment, but with regard to the

      1047
      question of distribution, I suggest that there is not much hope for the farmer in that direction. Quite recently a friend of mine who was a distinguished Member of the House for many years, who was keenly interested in the question and apparently shared the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, was brought into contact with one of the gentlemen responsible for one of the biggest distributing houses in London and was given all the information at their command. At the end of the discussion, he frankly admittted that the whole of his case had been knocked down. On the whole, I am inclined to say that while co-operation may and probably could help the large farmer, he belongs to that class of people who least need our help. I am afraid in this House it is forgotten that by far the larger number of farms are small. For instance, two-chirds of all the farms in England and. Wales do not exceed 50 acres. In some of the Welsh counties the percentage is as high as 75 and even 80 per cent. Even if you exclude from that calculation farms of under one acre, it works out at an average in England of only 70 acres and in Wales 50 acres. I submit that the first and essential need of these farmers is not co-operation at all but capital. They lack credit. One hon. Member the other day was told across the House that the banks advanced money. I do not think there is any doubt that the banks have advanced money lavishly, and, in my opinion, often recklessly, to farmers for buying their land, with the result that in competition on the market they put up the prices against themselves. The difficulty experienced by the farmer at the present time is to get capital for his business. Take the position of the small firmer. He buys his seed on credit. He very often has to borrow money, and the sheep farmer has to sell his wool before the sheep are sheared in order to pay rent. Too often the farmer buys on credit at a credit scale and sells the next day for cash in order to get capital. To that class of people this Vote does not appeal at all. It will not assist them in any shape or form.
      During the course of the War, on the other hand, guarantees were given to the banks for loans to farmers for the purchase of seed, stock and agricultural
      1048
      implements. In Ireland to-day that is the settled policy of the Board of Agriculture, and the real and efficient assistance which could be rendered to farmers would be to enable the Government, either through these co-operative societies or by the establishment of some other system, to advance money to tenant farmers to buy seed, stock, and, if necessary, agricultural implements. Take the case of Ireland. According to the last figures, I can find no fewer than 3,354 loans were made to farmers to buy agricultural implements, The Scottish Board of Agriculture is advancing money at 2 per cent., including principal and interest, for settling ex-service men upon the soil. I do not quite understand why, if that money is obtained from Imperial funds, it should not also be available to the farmer and the agricultural labourer. The question, may be asked, I think rightly, can that assistance be given to the co-operative societies? I realise the difficulty. It lies in the fact of the very natural reluctance of the farmer to give to other farmers particulars of his financial position, particularly if that position is a weak one. Failing some assistance being rendered through the co-operative societies, I suggest that an effort should be made to establish an agricultural bank by which credit facilities should be given to the farmer. There are one or two other remedies, which I should not be in order in discussing because they need legislative action, such as security of tenure and a reduction in rates.
      There also remains the position of the agricultural labourer. It has been suggested that by improving the position of the farmer you would at the same time improve the position of the labourer. The labourer is entitled, either through the co-operative society or otherwise, to a cottage and to a piece of land in connection with it, and to assistance to stock the land so that he may obtain the produce for the use of his family. All this has been done through the co-operative societies and district councils in Ireland, and if we are anxious, as we say we are, to keep the labourer on the land assistance of this kind must be given. We say, and perhaps rightly, that agricultural labourers are moving into the towns. Having lived on the land, I can say that they are not attracted by the glare and glamour of the towns. They

      1049
      are driven to the urban centres by sheer necessity. There is no future for them except poverty. There is no prospect except a low wage, a tied cottage, and a servitude like that of the feudal system. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the small farmer and to ignore for the time being the Farmers' Union, a union of large farmers and capitalists who are quite capable of looking after themselves, and to render assistance to the smaller man, who has no capital and no security to offer the banks, and who, under present conditions, finds life exceedingly difficult. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that he will do something to keep the labourer on the land and will do an effective service to the State.
      Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I am glad the Minister, in giving the assistance of co-operation, does not put it forward as a panacea to cure all ills. I have had much to do with co-operation among farmers for a great many years and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) will agree that there has been nothing more disappointing, after the attitude one has taken up and the endeavour one has made to stimulate co-operation amongst the farmers. It may be the fault of the individual or it may be the fault of those who endeavour to stimulate co-operation. I have been connected with two societies. One of them became fewer and fewer in numbers and the turnover did not materially increase. The other was a co-operative butchery business which was started with a great flourish of trumpets in order to bear down the middleman. It finished its inglorious career after about 12 months, and so far has not paid any dividend on the capital that was subscribed. I also know of a co-operative market fairly near my neighbourhood but it has hardly been a success, to say the least. The first reason of this is that British farmers unfortunately have not got the spirit of co-operation which they have in other countries. There is another point which is even stronger. Nearly every farmer has a great friend who is a dealer in corn, and very likely he owes him a good deal of money. It is very difficult for the farmer to break away from a dealer with whom he has always been associated and to whom he owes money and to go to the co-operative
      1050
      society and pay cash. I am not at all sure we ought not to look at it a little from the dealer's point of view. I know it is the fashion to abuse the middleman but, after all, many of these middlemen have lost considerable sums of money and they are out of their money sometimes for six months or a year, or even more, and it is therefore difficult for them to carry on business at all. I have always thought that co-operation would be of real benefit to the farmer in enabling him to buy at a reasonable price, and I believe he should deal co-operatively also. I hope this will be the means of stimulating co-operation in spite of the two causes I have mentioned which may militate against its successful operation.
      Major OWEN: I rise to emphasise the point with regard to the admission of Irish cattle into this country. It is a question of very great importance to farmers generally, and it is arousing a great deal of indignation amongst them. It is well known from official information that as late as 1921 there were cases of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. Attempts have been made by officials of the Board of Agriculture to establish whether there is any disease in Ireland at present. It is well known by the Minister and his officials that, whatever attempts they make to secure information on this subject in that country, it is impossible to obtain it, because Ireland is no longer within the control or under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture. It is perfectly well known amongst the farmers of this country that wherever Irish cattle are brought, foot-and-mouth disease makes its appearance very quickly. We know from experience that cattle from Ireland are brought to Holy head by boat—
      Mr. REID: When the hon. Member refers to Ireland, he is, of course, referring to the Irish Free State. The Diseases of Animals Act in Northern Ireland is administered by the English Board of Agriculture.
      Major OWEN: I am, of course referring to the Irish Free State. Northern Ireland is still under the control of this country.
      Mr. HANNON: I hope that the hon. Member has actual evidence in support of the statements he is making?
      Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Plenty of evidence.
      Major OWEN: There is ample evidence to show that not a single official of the British Government can obtain any definite information from the Irish Free State as to whether there is foot-and-mouth disease in that country. It is well known that this disease follows in the wake of the importation of Irish cattle. The matter is made very much worse by the fact that certain privileges are granted to importers of cattle from Ireland, which are denied—
      Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. What has this to do with this Vote?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Young): The hon. Member is speaking on the first part of the Vote.
      Sir R. THOMAS: Foot-and-mouth disease expenditure.
      Major OWEN: This question as to the special privileges that are given to the importers of Irish cattle, and the fact that British farmers are refused and denied the same privileges, is a matter of serious importance. In the county which I represent, and the neighbouring county of Anglesey, there has not been a single case of foot-and-mouth disease for the last 40 years, and yet cattle dealers in those counties are denied the privileges which are allowed to the importers of Irish cattle of opening a pitching ground near the place where they can market their animals. The lambing season will be coming on very soon, and the House knows perfectly well that once a lamb is fat it is never fat again. In other words, it ceases to be marketable after a certain time.
      What does the Minister propose to do? Is he going to continue to give these privileges to Ireland to enable the importers of Irish cattle to market their cattle in this country, and to take markets away from the farmers of this country, when we know by experience that these Irish cattle bring in their wake the disease which is costing such an enormous amount of expenditure to this country? We ask the Minister to give a satisfactory answer to the British farmer with regard to this question. We are entitled to ask it before voting this big sum of £3,000,000 in respect of this disease. It would be a far more
      1052
      efficient way of dealing with the question to put an entire stop to the importation of Irish cattle.
      Mr. G. EDWARDS: I am not very much concerned in regard to co-operation so far as the big farmer is concerned, but I would say, in reply to the hon. Member below the Gangway, that, while we have a large number of small farmers, we ought to have a very large number of big farmers of from 1,000 to 2,000 acres. I very much doubt, as far as this class of farmer is concerned, whether he would avail himelf of co-operation, for he has capital enough and can purchase his cattle, his seeds and his implements from the manufacturer direct. What I am concerned about is the smallholder, and that is why I am particularly pleased with the proposal for co-operation. The small man is handicapped from the very first. The first thing he wants is seed, and through lack of capital or the want of proper organisation he is compelled to go to the middleman and get his seeds on credit at the most expensive rate. He is also handicapped in regard to his tools and machinery. Here I can see where co-operation can benefit this class of farmer, provided it is worked properly and that it is managed properly by men with business capabilities. In that way I can see how the smallholder will be benefited to a very large extent.
      If the smallholder is to hold his own, and if the smallholding movement is to be a success and not a failure, something in the direction of co-operation must be brought about very speedily. That is greatly needed amongst the smallholders. On account of his being handicapped through lack of capital in the purchasing of up-to-date machines, implements, etc., it costs him a great deal more to produce his goods. If co-operation can be properly established and properly managed, and if elasticity is allowed in the rules, the smallholders will be able to co-operate to purchase their machines, and to use them by the principle of organisation. They will be greatly helped, in spite of prices going down, in carrying on their industry, and will be prosperous in the times to come. Therefore, I am anxious about co-operation as far as the smallholder is concerned. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will be able to go a little further, and induce the Treasury to grant a little more than £10,000

      1053
      for this object. The smallholder is terribly handicapped when he wants to buy his (stock, and to get rid of his produce. When he wants to thresh his corn and put it on the market it costs him a great deal more than it costs the bigger man.
      I accept this co-operation proposal as an instalment to help agriculture, but it must be borne in mind that it will not be a solution. If agriculture is to be benefited, the great problem will have to be tackled, and very much more will have to be done in rendering aid to the industry. The agricultural labourer will have to receive a much better wage. I accept this co-operation proposal as an instalment, and I hope the House will accept it in principle and that the smallholders will be able to get to work and have these societies established at the earliest possible date.
      Viscount WOLMER: "We have had a practically unanimous Debate. There is a consensus of opinion on all sides that, whilst the Government proposals in regard to co-operation are excellent in themselves and praiseworthy in their object, they are in no sense a solution of the agricultural problem. While we are all willing and anxious to help the Government in this particular act, we are under no delusion that we are making any great contribution towards a solution of the problem before the country. One could go further, and say that not only will co-operation not solve the agricultural problem in itself, but that the agricultural problem will prevent a solution of co-operation. What I mean is, that so long as farmers are impoverished and in financial difficulty, we should find more difficulty in getting them to take part in co-operation than would be the case if the industry was in a more prosperous condition. At the present time thousands of farmers are in debt to dealers and middlemen. A man in that position is not free to break his connection. He is not free to trade with a co-operative society. How is the Government going to get over that difficulty?
      There is the point touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood). He pointed out that the Government are only going to contribute £10,000 to any one society, and he asked
      1054
      where the remainder of the money was to come from. You are not going to get large sums out of the pockets of the farmers under present conditions. A great many farmers have already burnt their fingers in co-operative societies, especially those that have been started during the last two or three years. "Once bitten, twice shy," and the farmer at the present time is in no mood to try further experiments. Therefore, I warn the Government that if they think that what they are now proposing is going to be either successful in itself or a solution of the agricultural problem, I am afraid that a very bitter disappointment awaits them. That, I think, is the general view on all sides of the House. I hope it will not be very long before we have further instalments of the Government's agricultural policy, and we know how they are going to tackle the real root of the question which makes agriculture unprofitable at the present time.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) raised a very important point in his speech to which the Minister did not refer in his reply. I think that it is a good instance of the difficulty that faced us in the whole problem. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the question of co-operative creameries and co-operation in the milk industry and pointed out that in the Linlithgow Report there were some very strong remarks in regard to the milk combine. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture how he thinks in a co-operative society any combination of farmers, with only £10,000 assistance from the Government, can possibly hope to fight the milk combine? The Minister of Agriculture knows that the milk combine has over £4,000,000 capital behind it and controls 60 per cent. of the entire wholesale milk supply of London and 30 per cent. of its retail trade, and it is impossible to think that any co-operative society can effectually compete against an organisation like that. I would ask the Government what they intend to do with regard to the milk combine? Do they intend to give effect to the recommendations of the Linlithgow Report in that respect? When I was at the Board of Trade we had a draft Bill which was going to be presented to Parliament to force the milk combine to publish its accounts and have those accounts examined. I would like

      1055
      to know if the Government are going on with that Bill because, as recommended by the Linlithgow Committee, I think that it is the first step to be taken in dealing with a vast combine of that sort which has such powerful influence over one of the vital articles of food of the people. Therefore while I wish the Government God-speed in this enterprise I hope that they will do something that is going to prove more beneficial to agriculture as a whole.
      The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. G. Edward), who has just spoken, anticipated that the large farmers would not avail themselves of co-operation, but that possibly something might be done by the small farmers. I think that the large farmers are more likely to avail themselves of this at present than the small farmers, for the reason that I have given that the small farmers are worse off than the large farmers and are more harried and, generally speaking, are less intelligent and less educated men, and the larger farmers are more likely to avail themselves of any scheme that is a good one. In order to get the great number of small farmers that exist to co-operate loyally with the co-operative societies I believe that a vast amount of propaganda is necessary. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not at any rate turned down propaganda altogether, though he rather discounted it, in his remarks the other day. I believe that propaganda is essential to any scheme for getting small farmers to come in, but in all these things there is a vicious circle. Unless you get the results the people will not come in, and until they do come in you will not get the results.
      Captain FITZROY: The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen) has raised the question of Irish cattle in reference to foot-and-mouth disease. I know that the opinion is very prevalent among some people that foot-and-mouth disease is being, and has been, imported by Irish cattle. I believe that there is no evidence which the Ministry have at present to support that theory, and I believe that the Committee set up two years ago, when we had the previous large outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, came to the same conclusion. All the evidence is to the effect that here is no foot-and-mouth disease either in the North or in
      1056
      the South of Ireland. What I believe has given rise to this impression in reference to foot-and-mouth disease is that the disease has broken out in this country among Irish cattle, and that leads people to suppose that, if the cattle have not come with the disease from Ireland, they have contracted it in their journeying about this country. Of course, Irish cattle do a great deal more travelling than cattle which are reared in this country before they come to their final destination. I would ask the Ministry are they quite satisfied at present with the methods of disinfection of cattle trucks and railway sidings. [HON. MEMBERS: "And ships."] Further, have they any power over the railway companies to effect this disinfection and deal with the methods at present adopted by the railway company for the disinfection of the trucks? Because it appears to me, and it is the opinion of a good many agriculturists, that the Irish cattle, and, indeed, other cattle, which now contract the disease, have got it in the railway trucks in the course of transport.
      The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I do not rise to take part in the Debate, notwithstanding the important questions which have been asked, but rather to draw attention to the fact that the general subject of agriculture has received a great deal of the attention and of the time of the House since we began our work some few weeks ago. I do not begrudge a moment of this time. It is time that has been very well spent, and I agree that we must give even more, time in due course to this very important subject, but I would remind hon. Members that they are making inroads on the time which I am certain many of them would like to be given to other subjects which must claim some, share of the attention of this House. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) drew attention to the unanimity of the views which have been expressed on all sides of the House as to the proposals of the Government so far as they go. It is not suggested that these proposals are offered as a complete solution of what is termed the agricultural problem, but there seems to be general agreement that they may be regarded as contributing towards meeting many of the difficulties of the agricultural situation. I would ask the House as speedily as possible to get through this

      1057
      Vote and to get to the next business, that being in the interests of the Members as a whole who are interested in the other subject to be considered.
      Mr. REMER: While I am not insensible to the appeal which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman, this question of foot-and-mouth disease so vitally affects many of our constituents who have suffered very severely that I must plead with him to allow a certain extension of time so that we may obtain a little more information from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote. I would like to supplement the remarks of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy) in reference to Irish cattle. I have heard a great many stories, such as were related to-night by the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire, in my constituency from people who seem to be, determined to make up their mind that Irish cattle are the source of foot-and-mouth disease, but when they came to be investigated by people connected with the National Farmers' Union, they were found not to be correct. I know a secretary of the National Farmers' Union in Cheshire itself who at one time thought that foot-and-mouth disease came from Ireland, but is now strongly of opinion that it does not come from that country, but I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture has taken the steps which he might have taken to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. For example, I might tell him what the American Government are doing at present in reference to straw. In the pottery trade they have to use a great deal of straw, and the pottery people in England who are exporting pottery to America packed with the British straw are obliged to have that straw disinfected before it leaves this country.
      I do not think that our Board of Agriculture are so thorough as they might be in disinfecting in every possible way both the trucks to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred and in other ways trying to prevent the spread of this disease. Many farmers believe that this disease is spread by the feeding stuffs which are sold in this country, particularly the foreign feeding stuffs, and I wonder whether the Ministry has taken adequate steps to see that foreign feeding
      1058
      stuffs are kept thoroughly free from infection. It might be a good thing in present circumstances if foreign feeding stuffs were prohibited from coming into this country. There is one point in reference to foot-and-mouth disease which has not been dealt with. I understand that if foot-and-mouth disease occurs on the farm the farmer receives compensation, but when a butcher or cattle dealer has cattle with the foot-and-mouth disease he does not receive any compensation. What is the reason for that distinction? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to why these people, who suffer just as much as the farmers, are treated in a different way?
      I desire also to refer to the question of the co-operative societies which it is proposed to set up. I view the proposal as it has been explained to us with a great deal of misgiving. I have some experience of this matter, because there are a present two agricultural co-operative societies in my constituency. One of them is solely for the purpose of enabling farmers in that locality to purchase farming materials, feeding cakes, etc. It is purely a buying co-operative society. That particular society is a financial success. Side by side with that is a co-operative society, which is a much, larger concern, which deals with milk, and while I cannot say that that co-operative society has been a failure, if has resulted in very serious financial loss to the shareholders. I think that the reason is not difficult to see. The one society has been very ably managed, while the management of the other has not been so able and so efficient. Are the Ministry going to be satisfied that the management of these co-operative societies to which they make advances is efficient and capable?
      6.0 P.M.
      Are they going to satisfy themselves that the people who control the societies are likely to make the concerns a success? Secondly, what kind of security do they propose to take from these co-operative societies for the money advanced? Is it proposed that they shall advance debentures, and, if so, will they be a portion only of the amount, which has been subscribed in the form of ordinary shares, and will ordinary capital or preference capital be subscribed before any sums are

      1059
      advanced by the Government? I see it states in the Estimate that this has to be approved by the Treasury first.
      We are entitled to some definite information as to the exact form in which these sums of money are advanced. They may run into very large sums, once the ball is started rolling, and we may wake up some morning to find that the money has been lost. I want to ask a question with reference to the bacon factories which are proposed under this co-operative scheme. Have the Government any way in which, before they deal with these bacon factories, they can take adequate measures to deal with the great scourge of swine fever? Unless swine fever is dealt with adequately before the factories are dealt with, the factories and pig producing will not be a success. While these schemes have been received with approval on all sides of the House, there is a great deal of misgiving about the spending of considerable sums of money in our present straitened finances, and I ask that some more detailed information should be given to the House on the subject.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: I had not the slightest intention of taking part in the debate but for the references to Ireland and Irish cattle. I would be a very poor class of Irishman if I did not rise to resent the insinuations, wholly without foundation, regarding Irish cattle. I know that in this House and in this country there is a general feeling that the expenditure which we are now discussing is largely attributable to the importation of this disease, but the insinuations made, both at Question time to-day and in speeches just delivered, call for more than an ordinary reply. They are distinctly to the effect that Irish cattle have brought the disease into this country. I want to read one or two quotations from speeches made in a debate on the Importation of Animals Bill in December, 1922. One of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland made this statement on that occasion:
      "What do I find has happened in England since 1900? Between 1900 and 1912, 2,200 foot-and-mouth disease cases have happened in England. In Ireland we have not had one solitary case detected. What do we find from 1912 to 1920 in England? 1,079 cases of foot-and-mouth disease. What do we find in 1919? 3,463 cattle slaughtered.
      1060
      In 1920, 11,373 cattle slaughtered; in 1921, 3,085 cattle slaughtered; in 1922, 55,238 cattle slaughtered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1922; col. 2512, Vol. 159.]
      Not one solitary case of foot-and-mouth disease emanated from Irish cattle. That is a statement made at that tme, and not a Member of the House, nor anyone representing the Ministry, contradicted the statement. I will quote a statement made by a gentleman who was then a Member of this House, and was looked upon as one particularly interested in the farming and cattle industry. He had sat on committees and commissions dealing with the matter. I refer to Mr. Pretyman. He said, in reference to a committee on which he had sat for the purpose of ascertaining whether the disease came from Irish cattle:
      "The outbreak was spread entirely, as stated in our Report, by the herds of Irish cattle which were distributed from Newcastle and Gateshead markets. Not one of these cattle introduced the disease into this country. They came into this country free from it. They went to the markets and picked up the disease there, and spread it from one end of the country to the other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1922; col. 2081, Vol. 159.]
      The House will not require any move evidence with regard to the importation of the disease from Ireland. The statements I have referred to made in 1922. You have had a great many more cattle slaughtered during the past year than ever before, and your veterinary surgeons have gone to my part of the country and have found that there were no cattle infected.
      Major OWEN: According to the information supplied to me by the Minister of Agriculture, there were cases of the disease in Ireland in 1921, and that is all I said.
      Sir W. ALLEN: It is most extraordinary that the Ministry did not contradict one of the speeches I have quoted, and more particularly the report of the Chairman of a Committee that was specially set up to inquire into the disease. That was in December, 1922. The report distinctly states that no disease came into this country from the cattle imported. If the late Minister of Agriculture had only extended the law in England as we asked him to do then, there would have been very little trouble in England during the past year because

      1061
      of the disease. It will be remembered that it was purely a six days' detention Order in the port of entry, or, if they were sold, at the farm to which they were taken. Our request—I believe I made it myself—was that he should apply the same detention to cattle going from Southern England to Scotland, and he replied, "Surely we ought to be able to do that in our own time." Unfortunately, as has happened very frequently with Governments here, "their own time" was too late. If they had granted our request then, a great deal of this expenditure would have been saved. So far as the Diseases of Animals Act was concerned, that is still a reserved service between this country and Northern Ireland. Your inspectors, therefore, are at liberty at any time, and it is their duty, to make inspections in Northern Ireland.
      Sir R. THOMAS: We said distinctly that we referred to Southern Ireland.
      Sir W. ALLEN: The quotations I have read refer to all Irish cattle. The Committee which was presided over by Mr. Pretyman took evidence with regard to all Irish cattle, and the statements made, covering the period from 1900 to 1922, included all Irish cattle. I am satisfied that Irish cattle do not bring over the disease. They catch it, as has been said, because necessary precautions are not carried out in this country. I refer to the proper disinfecting of all railway trucks and markets. Those things are properly attended to in Ireland, and as a result we have no disease there. If in this country you would look after the disinfection both of trucks and of the places where the cattle are housed, you would probably have less of the disease than there is now. In any event, I hope that in future there will be fewer insinuations that Irish cattle bring the disease.
      Mr. BUXTON: If I might have the permission of the House to speak a second time, I would be glad to answer some of the questions put to me.
      Sir GERALD HOHLER: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, can he tell me something about the new outbreak at Chatham? When I raised the question last week he had no information.
      Captain TERRELL: I would also be glad of some information with regard to the very serious outbreak in Oxfordshire.
      Mr. BUXTON: Had these points been raised by my hon. Friends a little earlier, I might have been able to get the latest information, but the House will not expect me to know by instinct about all the outbreaks which have occurred. I will, however, get the fullest information at the earliest possible moment.
      Captain TERRELL: The outbreak in Oxfordshire is a week old, and can the Minister not give the information now?
      Mr. BUXTON: If I may, I would prefer now to answer the questions which have been put in the course of the Debate. Firstly, with regard to the co-operative societies, some pertinent questions were put as to whether sufficient security will be obtained for good management, and again as to what security would be available against the failure of societies. These will be matters for the Advisory Committee, and it will be for the experts who voluntarily serve on that Committee to deal with them, and not for the officials of the Ministry. It is to these gentlemen we shall leave these questions, and in them we shall trust. A question has also been asked with regard to the disinfecting of railway trucks. The railway companies are under a legal obligation to disinfect railway trucks, and very detailed instructions are laid down in an Order of the Ministry of Agriculture. Cases of slackness that might occur are one of the questions which will be gone into by the Committee on administration, which is to be presided over by Mr. Pretyman. It is not shown that there has been any negligence, but, in any case, the question will be gone into fully. The question of Irish cattle is another one on which I should like to say a few words. Irish cattle cannot go to markets which are forbidden to English cattle, but they can enter certain ports, for instance Bristol, where special arrangements are made. These are not their normal markets, but special arrangements have had to be made, and many ordinary channels of trade are diverted in these days, owing to restrictions which are unavoidable. In times like these certain selected places are accepted as markets for the time being. I am aware there is considerable doubt and suspicion in the minds of some hon. Members as to whether Ireland is clear of the disease, and as to whether a pre

      1063
      ference is given to the Irish farmer, or whether there is any unequal treatment of the Irish farmer compared with the English or Welsh farmer. I am in a position to say there is not any unequal treatment or any preferential treatment. A point that has not, perhaps, been fully apprehended, is that Irish cattle, entering a port in this country, are under a very close inspection and very careful supervision. On landing, Irish cattle are required to be detained at the landing place, and are subject to veterinary examination. There are inspectors of the Ministry at the selected ports where they enter, and not one passes without careful examination. Then they are licensed to proceed, either direct to the slaughterhouse or to farm premises, where they must be detained for 28 days. These are very stringent Regulations, and the cattle cannot be distributed direct from the ports to the markets. There still remains in the minds of some of my hon. Friends grave doubt as to whether the disease is, or has been in Ireland, and whether, particularly in connection with the outbreak near Nottingham, the disease in this country is not traceable to Irish cattle. There is no evidence at all that the infection came from Ireland, and I am assured, and I am convinced, that the very able officials of the Ministry have satisfied themselves upon full and ample grounds that there is not, and has not been since nearly three years ago, any case identified as of Irish origin.
      Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not the fact that the Minister has no power to examine these animals in Ireland, and is it not as much as a veterinary surgeon's life is worth to condemn any cattle in Ireland? Is it not also a fact that these animals are brought right through to the pitching-grounds at Mode Wheel and Birkenhead before licences are granted?
      Mr. BUXTON: There is a provision as to detention at the ports, and there is examination by experts which should be ample to ensure that the disease would develop, if it had originated in Ireland, before the animals are passed on. It is certainly from other sources that the Nottingham outbreak spread, as far as can be traced, and I think my hon. Friend is absolutely mistaken in thinking it is traceable to Ireland.
      Sir R. THOMAS: Will my right hon. Friend say is he allowed to examine the cattle in Ireland? I think that is a fair question to ask him. Has he, as Minister, any control whatever over Irish cattle in Ireland?
      Sir W. ALLEN: Does the hon. Member mean Southern Ireland?
      Sir R. THOMAS: I do.
      Sir W. ALLEN: Why do you not say so?
      Mr. BUXTON: I think a much greater security and assurance against public danger than would be gained by inspecting in Ireland, is gained by the long detention of the animals after they arrive from Ireland. I hope I may be allowed to urge on the House that the time has come when the Vote might be passed.
      Sir G. HOHLER: I rise, after having vainly endeavoured, on several occasions, to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to protest against the failure of the Minister of Agriculture to give attention to a very simple and clear question. I am not concerned about Irish, cattle, but about what has been reported in the local Press as to a new outbreak at Chatham. The outbreak was said to have occurred a week ago, and I raised the point on that occasion, when I was informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry that he had no information. So far as I understand the facts of this case, they would seem to indicate culpable negligence on the part of the Ministry. The outbreak is not said to be traceable to Irish cattle, but it is stated a number of cattle were, imported from an infected area in the North, and on arrival at Chatham were found to have foot-and-mouth disease. I think I am right in saying that for 30 or 40 years there has not been an outbreak in that neighbourhood, and the result is that the disease seems to have been imported into a hitherto unaffected area. I quite appreciate the I Minister's assurance that he will give the information, but I wish to see if I cannot help him in obtaining the information by putting some additional questions. Will the right hon. Gentleman state specifically from what district these cattle came; how long were they within the borough of Chatham before the disease broke out; how many cattle were infected; at what interval of time the disease broke out after the cattle had been delivered to the

      1065
      consignee; have the trucks been fully disinfected, and by whom, and what is the knowledge of the Ministry in this matter? I understand the railway companies make a charge for this, but whether it is done properly or not, it is difficult to know.
      I urge upon the Ministry the great importance of this matter. The Minister, who is, I understand, acquainted with agricultural matters, will realise what this outbreak means to farmers at the present time of year. There is no use starting co-operative societies if something cannot be come to check this disease effectually. As I drew attention to this particular outbreak last week, and had an answer on the subject from the Parliamentary Secretary, I thought at least the Minister would have prepared himself with some facts and taken some interest in the matter. I mentioned that these cattle were said to have come from an infected area, and the Parliamentary Secretary said it was not possible. It may be that all these statements are untrue, but we should know the facts, and what I complain of is, that the two Members of this House who are responsible for the Ministry, do not seem to have taken the least interest in the matter, although these statements were published in the Press and I mentioned them in this House. Surely, we are worthy of more attention and a matter which has been raised in the House should be inquired into. The Minister suggested that I should have risen earlier in this Debate, but it is not a case of my rising earlier, although, as I say, I sought to catch Mr. Deputy-Speaker's eye sooner. I would prefer to have the information which I seek given to me direct, across the Floor of the House. Agriculture cannot sustain in continuance of the losses which it is suffering, and the present outbreak will mean all kinds of trouble to cattle owners at this season of the year. We should have some definite information from the Minister, because those who take an interest in the matter are deeply concerned, and supposing the right hon. Gentleman were a cattle-owner himself, or had a few sheep, I cannot help feeling he would take more interest in the case I have brought forward.
      Captain TERRELL: I ask the Minister if he can give any explanation of the serious outbreak which has recently
      1066
      occurred in Oxfordshire. Only a short time ago we had a long Debate on foot-and-mouth disease, and since that Debate the outbreak to which I refer occurred in very extraordinary circumstances. It first broke out on a farm several miles away from any affected area, and, I believe, the cause of the outbreak was that some cattle were moved from a market many miles away when they were already suffering from the disease. It seems to me there is some serious neglect on the part of the Minister in this connection. If cattle are sold in the markets to a trader, the Ministry should take precautions to see that they are not moved into a district which is free from the disease until it has been positively ascertained that they are not infected. What precaution do the Ministry take in cases of this kind? Are dealers in any way supervised by the Department of the right hon. Gentleman? I am told that in this particular case these cattle were in the market. A trader had bought them, and rumour has it that an Order was going to be issued the next morning by the Ministry forbidding the removal of this cattle, but that before the Order was issued the trader was up first, with his trucks alongside the market, and that he had the cattle removed to various parts of the country, and through that neglect or lack of supervision by the Ministry a very large number of fresh outbreaks occurred in various parts of the country I should like to know if the Minister can give us any explanation at all as to why it is possible for this sort of thing to occur.
      I would like also to refer to the question of assisting agricultural co-operative societies by loans. Like the majority of Members of this House, I am in entire agreement with this movement, although I regret to find that such a very small sum of money, namely, £200,000, is intended to be spent in this direction. We have in the county of Oxford one or two very good illustrations of what can be done in the way of co-operation, and I hope the Ministry will give good attention to all co-operative societies, especially those which encourage and embrace the smallholders and the allotment holders. The right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) raised what I take to be a very important point, namely, that of supervision, and he did I not seem to be quite satisfied with the fact

      1067
      that the Advisory Committee was to have control of this public money. I am in entire agreement with him in that respect, and I think that some business authority, somebody with a knowledge of trading, should be appointed by the Government to supervise these grants of public money and to see that the money is not wasted. We are told by the Government that this is simply a contribution towards solving the problem of agriculture. We have also been told by the acting Leader of the House that the industry of agriculture has had its fair share of time since this Parliament reassembled. We may have had a good deal of time, but we have not had many concrete proposals yet from the Minister of Agriculture as to how he intends to improve this industry. This is called an instalment, and it is an instalment, but a very small one, and I would press the right hon. Gentleman not to deal with this important industry by small instalments. It is about time that he made up his mind and came forward, with his courage in both hands, with a proper, definite, comprehensive policy, one which will place the industry on a paying basis, and one which will place the unfortunate agricultural labourer in such a position that he can live in some degree of decency and comfort.
      Mr. BUXTON: In reply to questions put by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Sir G. Hohler), I do not think it is my business to spend the day learning the details of every outbreak. I am called upon to attend to other matters of perhaps equal importance. I should like to make it quite clear that the information which he requests shall be obtained in as full detail as possible, and I shall be happy to send it to-morrow to my hon. and learned Friend. I hope it will be possible to give a full explanation of the extraordinarily obscure means by which infection is conveyed, because there are many obscurities which are not yet cleared up, but which we hope will be cleared up.
      The matters raised in regard to the co-operative societies are covered, as I have already stated, by our decision to establish an Advisory Committee on all those points.
      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
      Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.
      Considered in Committee.
      [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

      COLONIAL SERVICES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,606,504, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for sundry Colonial Services, including a Grant-in-Aid of Railway Expenditure in Kenya and Uganda and certain other Grants-in-Aid."
      Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: When we were discussing this question the other night, I rose at two minutes to 11 with the intention of preventing this Vote being taken then, because I had asked sundry questions of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and had not got replies which seemed to me adequate. We are asked to vote a sum of £3,500,000 sterling for railways in Kenya and Uganda, and, in voting this money, it is only right that we should take into account the history of money previously spent in Kenya on railways. Reference was made by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) the other day to the Wasin-Gishu railway, and he described how instead of starting from the junction at Mau, the railway had been constructed from the floor of the valley up to the plateau, within 10 miles of the Uganda railway, through land which belongs to European settlers, and it is with regard to that point that I desire some information from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It appears that on its passage from the floor of the valley to the highlands, this railway for over 50 miles goes through territory which has been granted to European concessionnaires, and granted on very favourable terms. There is one estate which, I believe, was granted on a quit rent of ½d. an acre in perpetuity, and that grant was of 100,000 acres of land. Through that land this railway

      1069
      passes, with the result that the land is being offered to other settlers at from £2 to £6 an acre. Further on, the railway passes through forest land which is also granted to European concessionnaires, and the net result of this traverse from the floor of the valley to the top of the plateau is to put into the pockets of European concessionnaires large amounts of money owing to the expenditure on railways. That seems to me to be, as it was described by an hon. Member the other night, a scandal. It has never been inquired into. We have demanded an inquiry, and Europeans in Kenya have demanded an inquiry, but we have not got it, and some explanation of those facts is due to this House from the right hon. Gentleman before we are called upon to vote another enormous sum for these railways in Kenya.
      There are one or two facts with regard to these grants of land which should be brought to the notice of the House. The figures I am going to quote are up to 30th June last, and they are official. 11,375 square miles of territory in Kenya have been granted to Europeans, and of those 428 are cultivated, 5,799 are for sale, and 5,148 are derelict. The motto nowadays is, "Africa for the Africans," and I think those figures show very clearly that it is about time that that motto was applied. The result of the construction of the Wasin-Gishu railway has been that instead of the railhead being in the Kavirondo, where they might cultivate cotton, sugar, and so on, it is actually at a place called Eldoret, on the top of the plateau. In the country round Eldoret the cattle population is 35 to the 1,000 acres. It can be imagined from that what chance there is of any large traffic on the railway from Eldoret to Nakuru. The extension that is proposed, known as the Turbo-Toro Extension, does undoubtedly go through country belonging to the natives, which will benefit by the railway, and to that extent this House will doubtless support the grant, but something has to be said about the branches. One branch is the Solai branch, which goes entirely through European territory, starts from the same junction Nakuru, passes through the same estates, and will have the same result in increasing the wealth of the European concessionnaires at the expense of the public.
      Another of the branches is described as the Nyeri branch. That branch goes
      1070
      partly through native territory, and then into white territory. If it had taken the other side of the mountain, east instead of west of Kenya, it would have passed into native territory. The third branch mentioned has been the one from Eldoret to Kitale. Though that goes through white territory, I have no doubt the opinion of the House will be that it ought to be constructed, because Kitale is in the centre of the territory which has been settled by ex-service men. They have settled away out there, 60 miles from the railhead, and it is only fair, in view of the fact that they have settled there, that the branch railway should go in their direction.
      I trust that before this railway is constructed, the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to ensure that this money is not spent in the development of European concessions. After all, the main taxation of that country is paid by the natives. The Europeans do not pay the majority of the taxation. The natives do, and the natives should have the first claim on the railways and on the prosperity which we all hope these railways will bring.
      There are only two more points to which I wish to refer. One is the way in which the last railway was constructed. No tenders were called for, and the contract was given to a large firm on condition that they should receive 5 per cent. on all expenditure and 1½ per cent. overhead charges. However necessary that may have been in that case, it is not a good system on which to lease contracts for railways, and if the railway is not going to be constructed by the Government itself, I consider that tenders should be called for, and that contracts should be given after consideration of those tenders.
      The other point I wish to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is this. When a railway goes through new territory, the value of the land on either side of it increases by an unearned increment. Would it not be possible, in this case of a brand new railway through fresh territory, to devise some system by which some of that unearned increment should go to the benefit of the Colony instead of into the pockets of those who own the land?
      Mr. JOHN HARRIS: The Vote before the Committee is not merely, as we have it in the Estimate, a very substantial sum,

      1071
      but, as I understand it, it is part of a much larger commitment totalling ultimately a sum of something like £8,000,000. That £8,000,000 will be carried, presumably, in the major part, by Kenya, which, added to the £5,000,000 of loan, will give Kenya a very heavy dead weight of debt for some years to come, a dead weight of debt in proportion to her capacity much heavier than any other Dependency under the Crown. Our principal concern on these benches is, will that money be well spent, and will it deliver the goods? We have to remember that the history of Kenya in this matter is a very chequered one. The economic condition of Kenya has caused a good deal of anxiety. For example, in a speech made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who, after all, is one of the principal authorities in this House upon Colonial questions, he said in 1922:
      "The white settlements are very nearly ruined now, and in five years' time they are likely to be absolutely ruined by this policy. The problem of getting good work out of the natives is such that, however much you develop your harbours and railways, I believe Kenya Colony is economically doomed by its past history and by the way the development of that Colony is proceeding."
      The main problem with which we are confronted in Kenya is to persuade, if we can, the settlers to reverse that policy. What is the policy which is adopted in Kenya Colony, and how does that differ from surrounding territories? And the success or failure of these railways which it is proposed to build will depend upon whether or not the right hon. Gentleman can get, within the next few years, the reverse to that policy. North in Uganda, south in Tanganyika, and further south in Nyasaland, they are pursuing the policy of the indigenous producer. In Kenya they are, as a settled policy, pursuing the policy of a wage production. If there is one thing which has been established more clearly than another in all these territories, it is that the indigenous worker of these territories, like the indigenous worker in this country, does not live by wages alone. We have therefore to try to get an entire change in the policy which has been pursued for these many years.
      I do not think anyone in this House would grudge for one moment this Vote
      1072
      of £3,500,000, or of a great many more millions, if only we could be assured that the goods, in the shape of raw cotton, would be delivered to this country. No one can watch the movement in the cotton world without realising that this country is rapidly approaching such a crisis as to make adequate cotton production within the Empire one of the most vital problems with which we are faced. Our total need is something like 4,000,000 bales, and British production to-day does not exceed 800,000 bales. It thus means that Lancashire is almost entirely dependent on external supplies, Lancashire with an output of manufactured cotton goods always exceeding £175,000,000, and very often approaching an output of £200,000,000. Thus this question, which has been brought before us to-night on the proposal for the construction of these railways, brings before this House an issue which, I submit, transcends all party considerations and is of such importance that I do trust the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be able to give presently some details of how he hopes to obtain raw cotton from this part of a great producing area of the Empire.
      We cannot consider this question, which, after all, is, in a sense, an Empire investment, without reflecting upon the very precarious situation in which we find ourselves as consumers of raw cotton. America produces her output of raw cotton on 40,000,000 acres of land with a population of 10,000,000, but the three factors which we have to bear in mind are these. Firstly, American consumption is rapidly increasing and rapidly overtaking American production; secondly, America is confronted with a constantly decreasing labour supply; and thirdly, America is faced with ever-increasing ravages by the boll-weevil. Therefore I do not think I exaggerate when I say that the issue before us to-night on the question of railways for the purpose of cotton production is one of the most important which has been submitted to this House for a long time.
      The question arises whether we as an Empire can produce sufficient cotton to supply our industries. I do not think anyone who has studied this question, and who has travelled in these territories, and who has realised the enormous

      1073
      potentialities of them, can doubt for one moment that, if we have adequate organisation, we need purchase very much cotton outside our Dominions. According to some of the figures of our possibilities which these proposed railways will touch, either directly or indirectly, we are, so far as I can see, in an extremely advantageous position as compared with America. If we eliminate entirely India and the Dominions, we have at least 500,000,000 acres of potential cotton-producing areas as against only 40,000,000 of American cotton-producing areas. In those areas we have a total population, eliminating altogether populations engaged in such directions as oil production and so forth, of something like 20,000,000. Therefore we have a potential population of twice the American population, and we have an area of at least 500,000,000 acres as compared with the 40,000,000 acres in America.
      The real problem is not whether we have the area or the people, because we have got them and we know it. The real problem is whether we can get the willing producer, and we have been slow to realise that main factor within recent years. We have had Committees on Empire development, on railways, on harbours and on private enterprise in connection with these territories, but we have never had a Committee, so far as I am aware, since 1835, to consider how best we might be able to develop the capacities of the people inhabiting those territories. Yet the African is a great producer. We have only to look at some of our territories to realise his capabilities. I often stand at the bottom of Walker Street in Liverpool and see these great lorries rolling by loaded with timbers, vegetable oils and bales of cotton, and I realise then the capacity of the peoples from whom that steady flow of raw material comes. If we could get the right vision, if we could get the right machinery, the right hon. Gentleman would easily be able to justify, not merely the proposal we have before us to-night, but a very much larger one.
      It is essential, however, that we should no longer be confronted with these repeated requests from Kenya Colony—I am afraid we must recognise we do get these unpleasant requests—for forced labour ordinances, for registration ordinances, for master and servant
      1074
      ordinances. All those things must be changed. I do not want to bring in issues which we can raise later on, but I was reading the other day a report which gave me a picture of labour conditions in Kenya Colony, which I think this House will agree must be changed. This Report is issued from Nairobi and is called the Native Punishment Commission's Report. This is not an incident; this is an admission in the Report:
      "It is a matter of common knowledge and every day practice in the Colony that the native, given the choice of going before a magistrate or accepting a thrashing from his master, will choose the latter."
      That sort of thing, and a matter of £6 a year wages, is not going to produce cotton in Kenya to justify this railway. The native will not work for £6 a year or the alternative presented to him of either a thrashing or going before a magistrate. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Stafford say the other day that he noted indication of a change in the mentality of the people in Kenya. I also have noticed some of those, and I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to foster that change so that some of those things which we have deplored in past years may not confront us again. In conclusion, I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this question of producing cotton within the Empire is of such vast and vital importance to us as an Empire, and from the standpoint of Lancashire alone, that something adequate should be done to meet the menace, which, happily, is some years ahead but is still growing. I do not know whether he would be willing to consider setting up some form of Commission which would face this problem of getting for us such a volume of native production in these territories and that such a Committee should be able to do some real staff work upon this question which would ultimately place our industries in Lancashire in such a position as to be independent of external supplies.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: In what part of Kenya Colony can you get labour at £6.
      Mr. HARRIS: This article, which I will be glad to hand to the hon. Member opposite, is an attack upon Uganda for following the native producer policy, and in it they point out the great advantages

      1075
      which would accrue to the native if, instead of being a native producer, he became a native wage-earner under a white plantation owner. They go on to say that he would be very much better off and that the average worker on a European plantation earns £6 to £10 per annum and a percentage in addition.
      Mr. AMERY: We have listened to an interesting speech from the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. J. Harris) and one that goes straight to the heart of an issue of immense importance to this country. The future of that great industry upon which Lancashire lives is one which none of us can regard without serious misgiving. The hon. Member referred to a menace which is bound to become more serious with every succeeding year, and against which we ought to take every measure in our power, so that when a really serious situation comes we shall be more capable of standing upon our own resources. The great industry of Lancashire is in some ways one of the most artificial in the world. Even in the early days there was great difficulty, for in that industry we were dependent upon sources of raw material not within our own control, and the great cotton field of the United States was one which we first created at a time when politically, and for a long time economically, the United States was a part of our economic system. We are bound once again to recur to the policy of a century and a half ago and create our own supply within our own territory. The hon. Member very rightly pointed out, as far as the character of the territories is concerned, and as far as the population is concerned, we have all the necessary resources. What we have to do is to open up that territory in two senses; first, the material sense of establishing communications, of which this railway project is a part; the other, the psychological sense to which the hon. Member referred, the necessity of building up a population of willing producers.
      There are many parts of the Empire where both conditions are present or can be created, but there are few parts where the conditions exist in so remarkable a degree as in East Africa, and more particularly in that region of Eastern Uganda which is served by the so-called Uganda Railway, and by this extension
      1076
      which we are discussing. For one thing, we have already, as a result of a good many years of work, built up the nucleus of that population of willing producers in Uganda. It is not something new. I remember when I was in Uganda, 16 years ago, efforts were being made to interest the natives in cotton production, to educate them in cotton production, and to give them every sort of encouragement to pursue the policy of becoming peasant producers, and contributing something to the welfare of Uganda and raising their own standard of civilisation. It is not altogether a new policy that is being advocated. It was the policy of the Uganda Government for many years past. I know when I was at the Colonial Office it was the policy we were trying to push all the time in connection with sugar growing in the West Indies, the policy of the cane farmer growing his own sugar. It is the policy which has been pursued with remarkable success in West Africa in connection with cocoa growing. It is a very hopeful and important policy, and I think we must look to it as the mainspring of the future economic development of Africa, both from the point of view of our interest and from the point of view of the economic education of the native. I think at the same time we should not take the view that because this is our main policy, that we adopt a hostile attitude towards the effort to develope industry in Africa by the help of the white settler. There are many forms of cultivation which the native is not able to carry out, at any rate at present, without direct supervision, and where the plantation offers the best opportunity for his education. Even in the other cases to which I have referred the white settler is needed for the graining or sugar factory, as a centre for the whole organisation and as an educating factor. Again, I would say this, that while there may be lapses on the part of the white settler, I do not think we ought to ignore the fact that in practice, taking the average white settler, he not only gets on well with the natives but is considerate towards them, and looks upon the whole problem not so much from the point of view of exploitation as from the point of view of development, of what he thinks the country ought to do, and be able to do, in the future. Cer-certainly, I have read of cases of brutality

      1077
      such as an hon. Member referred to the other day, which make one's blood boil, and make one think no punishment can be too hard for the men who have done such things. But, of course, we also read of cases no less painful in this country; but my own personal experience has been, taking the average, that the white settler does take an interest in the natives who work for him. He and his wife are not only on good terms but are really interested in the development of their character and of their level of civilisation. You cannot altogether leave outside the influence of the white settler in the midst of the native population. Civilisation has to come to the African in one way or another from the white man. Wherever you meet a higher civilisation in the African races, it has been due to forces of contact with races which have brought civilisation from elsewhere. We fully agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Stats has declared, namely, that our main and first trust is towards the native population. The basis of that policy is not merely that the native has a vested interest. That, of course, ought to be regarded, but it is not the only reason. The main reason is that the native is not only the main body of the population to-day, but if you take into account climate and other considerations, always will be the main body; and, therefore, you cannot build a true civilisation except on the basis of raising the mass of the population. Therefore, when you are considering the position of the white settler, in whatever degree he contributes towards the raising of the general civilisation, he deserves encouraging, and should not be regarded, as it were, as an intruder and a despoiler. Only where he exercises his activities in his own interests in order to break down and lower the economic standard would you have to guide or check his activities.
      It is not only that East Africa is a most promising field, but it is promising for certain financial reasons as well for others. One of the difficulties we have to face to-day is the high cost of raw cotton, due both to the world shortage and also to the state of the exchange relative to the United States. Nobody can say how far in the course of paying off our obligations, on particular dates, the exchange may remain stable. Therefore anything that can transfer
      1078
      our purchases in cotton or any other necessary article from the American Exchange—which is already overloaded by our tremendous purchases of sugar, tobacco, wheat and so on—to the sterling exchange will help the whole financial situation. East Africa is on the sterling exchange, and our purchases from there, however large, have no more effect on the exchange than purchases from Scotland.
      As to the actual alignment of the railway, certain criticisms have been passed. I think the Secretary of State for the Colonies has very fairly put the case. If you look at the matter not only as a local railway problem but from the point of view of the future main line from Uganda and the resulting development of the country the answer is an effective one. Undoubtedly the road selected is the best. I know that bit of the uplands. The part of the country along which it was suggested at one time that the line, should go is not a flat plateau; it is a mountain ridge, and is in every respect unsuited for the laying down of a main line, though a light railway might well have gone along the course suggested. Anyhow, I think the Members of the Committee will agree that those who have served the Colonial Office have again and again looked at these matters only with one consideration, and that was in the interests of the Colony. There is just one other word of criticism, which I rather resented, in respect of the branch lines being able to serve what has been called by one hon. Member the white area. There is no white area except—
      Mr. H. SIMPSON: The expression "white area" has been used over and over again, and is meant mainly to cover that territory owned by Europeans.
      Mr. AMERY: I know that, but the expression might give the impression that it was land mainly inhabited by white settlers. It is a fact that it is inhabited equally by the native population. At any rate, I would remind the Committee of this, that these branch lines are to be built, as I understand it, with the discarded rails from the relaying of the main line, and if the native area, that is, the cotton area, get the new rails, I do not think we need begrudge the white areas the using up of these rails. The scheme which the Government have

      1079
      taken over from us and are carrying is, as has been pointed out, one capable of development, and I only hope, if the Government remains in power, it will still further develop the whole scheme, and develop it on a comprehensive scale and with a broad perspective.
      I would remind the Committee that in South Africa we created new prosperity and a new strength in the national life by a broad policy of development to which this country contributed. We did not, as I am afraid we have been doing so far in the case of Uganda and Kenya, go on pressing them to pay a war indemnity. I wish to support very strongly the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn), that it really is unjust to saddle a little community, with a small white population and a large native population, with helping to pay a war debt which in no sense was due to anything that they did or allowed to be done. It was entirely part of the Great War which we waged against Germany, and in which they were only accidentally and incidentally involved because of the adjoining German colony, which happened to have a powerful armed force and a very able military commander. That is why it seems to me very unfair that this struggling and very important territory should be crippled, paralysed, and starved by this arbitrary imposition, which we should never have dreamt of imposing upon it if there had been a small strip of foreign territory between it and the scene of the operations.
      I mentioned just now the parallel with South Africa. There is in one respect a close parallel in the case of this railway scheme under discussion, and the situation that we were faced with in South Africa after the Boer War. You have here a railway which runs from one Colony in order to develop the resources of another Colony. We were faced with exactly the same problem in South Africa. The coastal Colonies had the railways, but the traffic was in the interior. The attempt was made there to solve it by a Railway Commission, but that broke down, because in the last resort they could not find out who was responsible for the policy. The railway situation, as well as the Customs position,
      1080
      forced the South Africans to reconsider the matter, and adopt the policy of union. In the same way you will not get a satisfactory development in East Africa till you face the problem as a whole, and until you, in some way or other, federate the various parts of it. It is essential from the railway point of view. It is essential from the point of view of the broad development of the cotton resources about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. It is equally essential from the point of view of general policy. The true perspective, the true balance, for the different portions of the country lies in a comprehensive scheme, and it would be much easier, under such a scheme, to make special provision and some measure of self-government for the highland area. I am sure the House will support the right hon. Gentleman in a serious investigation of the problem from the point of view of the unification of East Africa. That great territory, 1,000 miles long from Rhodesia to the Sudan, and 600 to 700 miles wide, has a definite character of its own. It differs from South Africa. It differs from West Africa also, which is an entirely native area. It has essentially a character of its own, and should be treated as a unit, and as a place which promises to become one of the most important and most valuable, units in the whole structure of the British Commonwealth.
      I would support what was said by the hon. Member for Hackney, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider what was called by that hon. Member the staff aspect of any development. It is no good spending the money of this House upon railways, no good having a general policy of development, unless you have thought out and considered what are the needs at this end, and how you can get the materials grown there most effectively put upon the market so that the crops are not wasted. A few years ago a good deal of the Uganda cotton was wasted because a certain prejudice was taken against it by the Manchester buyers, and, because of the lack of a better organisation at this end, the very important work at the other end was thrown back for two or three years. The crop was thrown on the hands of the natives: so much so that they were reluctant to begin again. I hope in this connection

      1081
      the right hon. Gentleman will consider the usefulness of the Economic Committee, to which reference was made the other day. That Committee not only can deal with Dominion affairs, but is capable of dealing with all sorts of questions of Empire development. The very question that has been raised here could be dealt with by that Committee, and sent to a sub-committee of experts to study as to what would be the best both from the point of view of development and cotton. I hope nothing I have said will be taken as a criticism of what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do. I am only glad to think that at any rate he is going to continue a policy initiated by the previous Government—that he is aiming at seeing it effectually carried out. I move, however, a reduction of £50 in Item A. 6 for form's sake in order to keep the Debate on Kenya, as the reduction previously moved has, I understand, lapsed.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am astounded, and I desire to be perfectly frank about it, for I fail to understand the Motion that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. He knows perfectly well that a general statement of policy was made by me three nights ago, and there has not been a hostile word of criticism. The Debate clearly demonstrated that the policy was one with which the House agreed. Why, then, even for form's sake, is it necessary to move a reduction of the Vote? The Debate could continue even without it, and when it is remembered that there is another Vote following in which hon. Members are interested, and when it is specially remembered—and I take this opportunity of saying this, because the Government are disturbed as to the state of the business of the House and the country—it is a pity. We are not in a position to move the Closure. I do not disguise from the House what are our difficulties. We are compelled to carry through Supplementary Estimates, not one of which we were responsible for, and we find ourselves handicapped and hampered, with no opportunity of commencing any business for which we are responsible. That is a very serious state of affairs. I desire to make it perfectly clear. I do not want to disguise my own strong feeling that we are entitled, seeing our difficulties are known, and that we are in a difficult position so far as the
      1082
      House is concerned, to a somewhat different treatment. Especially so, when there is no difference of opinion or no conflict of policy, we are, I say, at least entitled to facilities for our Estimates.
      The whole trend of the Debate really demonstrates that this question is a non-party question I have no hesitation in saying that the main work at the Colonial Office could be treated in the same spirit. We have differences of opinion and there are cleavages on certain matters, but the general sense of all parties is that Dominion questions and Empire problems should be kept out of the arena of party politics. I cannot guarantee that this cotton will go to Lancashire, and it would be unfair to the native to compel him, but the most I can say is that the more cotton that is grown the more opportunity there is for Lancashire to have its share. That is the only answer I can give to my hon. Friend. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson), those who listened to it, must be convinced not only of the difficulties of this particular question but of the whole subject. I will answer him by saying that the branch lines are not covered by this Vote.
      With regard to the general question of the railways, I do not want to commit myself either to one or the other policy, and I do not want to commit myself to saying that it will be done in one way or another. There is much to be said for the suggestion of trying both methods, but that any contract will be offered to tender I make it quite clear now, and I promise I will try to avoid the mistakes of the past. I do not think legitimate criticism can be levelled against the general scheme of the railways, because, undoubtedly, they are best suited to the places where the cotton is being grown. That, however, does not dispose of the question of the native himself, and here, I think, all sections of the House are apprehensive. I would like to be able to announce a policy, but I cannot do so because I do not know sufficient about the subject.
      However, I am absolutely certain of one thing, and it is that more attention ought to be paid to it, and when you talk about doing justice to the native, it does not mean, in my view and my conception of justice, merely dealing with his relation ship to the employers. I do not mean

      1083
      that at all. We have to see that justice is done to the native. There is also the educational side of the question, the training of the native, and general protection, all of which require consideration. I do not know whether it would be wise to appoint a small Committee to look into the whole question, but at the moment I am favourably disposed towards that course. I do not want to commit myself as to the form of the Committee, but that side of the question will not be lost sight of. Having regard to the fact that there is no disagreement with regard to the Vote, and that the House appreciates the object of the Vote, I hope the Committee will allow us to get this Vote at the earliest possible moment.
      Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: While the right hon. Gentleman is keeping an open mind as to the form this Committee will take, can he give a promise that he will have some inquiry made into the application of the principle of trusteeship on behalf of the natives, which was announced by the late Government, and for which he himself stands?
      Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member means, I suppose, how we shall give effect to the underlying principles laid down in the White Paper. My answer is "Yes." That is the exact problem I mean when I say I want to see what kind of Committee will be best to deal with the matter.
      Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that this grant will not cover the branch lines. I have here a statement from the Secretary of State in which, although it does not specify how the £3,500,000 is to be spent, the first item states that these branch railways are going to cost £1,000,000.
      Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: With regard to some of the criticisms which have been made, personally I congratulate the Colony upon getting as many railways as it can. When these railways are built, whatever agency is employed, I trust the labour will be native African labour, and that there will be no necessity to bring in Indian labour. In this connection I agree with all that has been said, especially by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as to the necessity of educating and training the natives. I see no necessity whatever for the appointment
      1084
      of any committee for this purpose. No such committee is required that I know of, and we want the local men to go into these matters because they know the capacity of the natives. In my view nothing will help better than the training the natives will get in the construction of these new railways. The hon. Member for Taunton told us that the natives paid a larger proportion of taxation than the Europeans, but can the hon. Member give us the proportion paid by the natives as well as the proportion paid by Europeans?
      Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: I have not the whole of the information here, but I believe the Europeans pay about one-third.
      Sir C. YATE: I am delighted to hear what has been said in regard to these proposals, and I hope that this £3,500,000 is only the beginning of the development that is going to take place in this particular territory. I hope before long we shall see a Governor-General appointed and that Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Nyasaland will be joined up and that there will be a Federation of the whole of East Africa. When we once get that accomplished I am sure it will lead to a great development in cotton growing, and that is a most important thing. Cotton cannot be grown, I am told, on the highlands occupied by the European settlers who develop the country in a different way, and grow other things. It is grown, I believe, by the natives at a lower elevation. I look forward to seeing a great development in this cotton growing. I hope this Vote will be passed without any further criticism, and that we shall go on developing this territory in every way we possibly can.
      Mr. GORMAN: I think all sides of the House are agreed as to the necessity for increasing the basis of our supply of raw cotton. I do not intend to deal with the importance of the cotton industry to the rest of the country, but I can safely say-that every other industry in the country shares in the prosperity or the adversity of the cotton trade. Its success or failure finds its reflection in the success or failure of industries as a whole throughout the country. There have been in Lancashire and in other parts of the country very serious discussions as to the reason of the slump in the Lancashire cotton trade. It

      1085
      is not my intention to go into those matters, but the experts are generally agreed that there are two causes for the present cotton position, firstly, insecurity in supplies, and secondly, instabilty in price.
      I think in is agreed that insecurity of supplies and instability in price are largely the cause of the slump. The whole of the Committee must feel that Lancashire is peculiarly situated in that its supply of raw cotton is limited to about 80 per cent. from the United States of America. During the last three or four years in America two things have happened. Firstly, there has been a shortage in American crops; and, secondly, America has taken an increasingly larger amount of the raw material which she has produced. In the year 1921–22 the total production of American cotton was about 8⅓ million bales. The next year it was about 10,000,000 bales, and the estimated production for this year is also about 10,000,000 bales. When it is considered that the world requires annually at least 14,000,000 bales of American cotton, that the American crop is only 10,000,000 bales, and that, of those 10,000,000 bales, America herself requires from 6,500,000 to 7,000,000, it means that there is available for the rest of the world a surplus of American cotton amounting to some 3,000,000 or 3,500,000 bales. The British Empire Cotton Growing Association, a body which deserves the support of all parties—for this is not a party question but an industrial question which must rise above all petty party considerations—have endeavoured to broaden the basis of supply of raw cotton, and, as has been said by hon. Members in this Chamber, if we can secure a broadening of the basis of the supply of raw cotton in Kenya, and also in other places, it will make for the removal of the two causes which are so largely instrumental in causing distress in Lancashire to-day. It will not merely tend to make the supply of cotton more regular, but it will have the concomitant result of making the price at which it can be produced more regular, and more easily met by the cotton mills of this country.
      Mr. SCURR: One is delighted to know that there is a feeling of regard for our obligations as trustees of the natives, but during the course of this Debate the
      1086
      only two parties that seem to have been referred to have been the white settlers and the natives. I agree with all that has been said in regard to securing everything possible for the natives, but there is another interest in Kenya which has not been referred to, and the question of how this interest is dealt with is going to be fraught with very considerable difficulties for the British Empire. We are discussing this district as a cotton-growing district, and we all recognise the importance of having a supply of cotton within the British Empire; but it will be useless for us to talk of gaining economic stability for the Empire if at the same time we do not concern ourselves with many of the political considerations. There have been in Kenya for a number of years—long before any white settlers went there—Indian immigrants, Indian settlers. Their numbers, as was shown in the Debates in this Chamber last July by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), were increased by the recent action in building the Uganda Railway. We did not go to the natives then for labour, and now we find that, by a threat of civil war, the white settlers are trying to impose, not only upon Kenya, but upon the Home Government here, a policy that is going to be fraught with disaster to the British Empire. While we have our obligations to the natives, surely we have our obligations also to the 300 millions of our fellow-citizens in India, and, as has been remarked in another place, one cause of the troubles that have arisen in India is the way in which this question of the franchise in Kenya has been dealt with by the late Government. I only rise for the purpose of putting to the Secretary of State certain categorical questions, to which I would ask him to reply. First of all, the Indians want to know what His Majesty's Government is going to do to implement the pledge given in this Chamber on the 25th July of last year.
      Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but no one should know better than he that this Vote has nothing whatever to do with India. An opportunity will be furnished later, and I certainly do not want to anticipate it, but it is obvious that the question that my hon. Friend puts to me has nothing whatever to do with this Vote.
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Rawlinson): The hon. Member will find the limits strictly laid down on page 14 of the Estimate, and I am sure he will see at once that he is now going very far outside those limits.
      Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Would it not be possible for us to give, as a reason why we should vote against any further advances to the Colony of Kenya, the policy laid down by the Government there and the Government here?
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, with all his years of experience, surely must know that such questions have been asked many times, and are always answered in the negative. Does the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) wish to proceed?
      Mr. SCURR: I bow to your ruling.
      Captain TERRELL: I was a little amused just now by the appeal made by the Secretary of State for the Colonics. He appealed to the Committee to pass this Vote without any further discussion, and referred to the awkward position in which the Government were placed. He stated that, as a Government, they were unable to move the Closure, as they had not a working majority. To me that is a great surprise, because I always understood that the Socialist Government which is in power has a definite working arrangement with the Liberal Socialists—[Interruption.] I am very glad indeed to find that they are all in agreement with that statement, and, if that be so, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have moved the Closure whenever he desired, and that he would have had the full support of the Liberal Socialists on every occasion. I understand that the main objects of this Vote are three—firstly, to develop the resources of the British Empire; secondly, to produce more, cotton within the Empire for our home industries; and, thirdly, to provide work for some of our unemployed people in producing the goods required for the construction of those railways in Kenya and Uganda. I was a little surprised just now when the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question asked, I think, by the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. J. Harris), as to whether
      1088
      there was any guarantee as to whether or not we were to get this cotton if it was produced—
      Mr. J. HARRIS: I did not ask that question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be thinking of someone else.
      Captain TERRELL: Anyhow, it was one of the hon. Member's friends—[Interruption]—I am sorry if he has not any friends. I am rather surprised that there is no guarantee at all as to whether or not we are to get our fair share of the cotton produced in that country. We are pouring out a great deal of the taxpayers' money for the development of that country, and we should have some definite guarantee that we are to get some return for it. Take the question of India, which is a great cotton-producing country. In India a very large amount of British capital has been sunk in order to develop cotton growing for our cotton industry in Lancashire, but what is the position there to-day? A reply was given only to-day by the Under-Secretary of State for India—
      Captain BERKELEY: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss the question of cotton growing in India on this Vote?
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discuss it, but it is in order to give an illustration, as regards the position in this particular Colony, of the position in other Dominions.
      Captain TERRELL: I do not wish to offend, but as you, Sir, have said, I am only giving these figures in connection with India as an illustration. To-day at Question Time the Under-Secretary of State for India, replying to a question submitted to him by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. de Frece), stated that in India there is an annual yield of 925,000 tons of cotton, and it is rather interesting to see how much of that cotton comes to this country. This country has poured tons of millions of pounds into India to develop that industry.
      Mr. THOMAS: As I rose to a point of Order in regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mile End, I must in fairness point out also that this has nothing whatever to do with the Vote, and I would ask that we keep within the limits of the Vote.
      Captain TERRELL: A ruling has been given.
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly entitled to give his illustration, but he must not go into details. He is entitled to say that it is not a paying speculation to finance cotton growing in Kenya because we have lost large sums in other Dependencies. He is entitled to use that as an illustration, but he must not debate it.
      Captain TERRELL: I am just giving a statement that was made to-day, and, surely, the right hon. Gentleman should not mind that. We want to get as much cotton as we can from the Empire. India to-day produces 925,000 tons per annum, and of that quantity this country is getting only 34,220 tons. It is going to other countries and not to our own. Even Germany is getting more cotton from India than we are. Therefore, I submit that we are entitled to ask for some guarantee that, if the money of British taxpayers is spent in Kenya, for the development of cotton growing there, this country should at least get its fair share of the cotton produced. Again, I should like to know what the Labour party's policy is in that connection, because I understand that one of the main points in the programme of the Independent Labour party is the rationing of the world's commodities. Am I to take it that, if that is part and parcel of the Labour party's policy, they intend that the cotton which is to be produced in that country—
      Mr. CLIMIE: Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in discussing the policy of the Labour party on this Vote?
      Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Is the hon and gallant Member right in calling us the Labour party and those on the benches to my right the Liberal Socialist party?
      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member can tell me what the proper designation of his party is, I shall know whether to rule the expression "Labour party" in or out of order.
      Captain TERRELL: I am sorry if I have offended hon. Members opposite. If I am out of order in discussing that policy, I will turn to the question of the construction of these railways. I want
      1090
      to ask the right hon. Gentleman two or three questions in connection with that. First of all, I want to know if it is the intention that these railways should be constructed by the State or by private enterprise. Secondly, if the railways are to be constructed by the State, will tenders be called for from private enterprise, in order to compare them with the State's estimates of the cost? Thirdly, I want to know, if the British taxpayers' money is to be used in building these railways, whether there is any guarantee at all that the material required for the construction will be entirely and exclusively ordered from British manufacturers and trading firms. Passing from the question of the construction of railways, I want to make reference to one other aspect of this case, the cost of production of cotton in Kenya. I am given to understand that, however much we develop the land out there, unless there is some change made in the rate of exchange—that is the rate of exchange on the basis on which wages are paid—we cannot hope to produce cotton on competitive lines. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman intends in the near future to revert to the rate of exchange based on the Indian rate and not on the home rate of exchange.
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. MOREL: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down will permit me to point out that he is apparently unaware of the Free Trade Agreement in regard to the Conventional Basin of the Congo, which excludes any Power whose territory is within that area from acting in any way contrary to Free Trade. We are not, therefore, in a position internationally to claim that all cotton produced in Kenya should come to this country. That Convention was affirmed by the late Government 18 months ago. This discussion has shown that we cannot deal with the question of the railways without dealing with the question of British native policy in Kenya itself. One is inextricably bound up with the other. I would like to express the satisfaction with which I heard my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary say that he hopes to foe able to institute a Committee of Investigation into the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), in a very interesting speech, referred to the great importance of our

      1091
      getting all the supplies of cotton we can. That has been touched upon by nearly every speaker in the Debate. But railways alone are not going to get us cotton. What is going to get us cotton is our treatment of the natives. If you have a policy which deals with the native decently, which increases his prosperity and increases his opportunities, you will get your cotton, but if you have a policy which is the reverse of that, you will not get your cotton. The policy which, unfortunately, has been pursued in Kenya for the last 20 years, which is entirely different from that pursued both in Uganda and Nigeria, has been a policy leading to the destruction of the native population. If the present policy continues, you will be faced with a continually dwindling native population in Kenya, with the result that you will have to whistle for your cotton. That is why I hope the right hon. Gentleman will institute an inquiry into the whole policy which has been pursued in Kenya in the last 20 years, and that this inquiry will be also turned towards the effect of legislation at the present day. There is no doubt that what between the taxation imposed, the whittling away of the native "reserves," the Masters' and Servants' Ordinance and the Labourers' Ordinance, you have a condition of affairs in Kenya which approximates to forced labour of a very bad kind. I am quite sure that if my right hon. Friend will make inquiries of experienced British officials who have spent many years in Kenya, and whose evidence is accessible to-day, and if he will go into all the records at the Colonial Office dealing with the withdrawal of native lauds, and the systematic impoverishment which the natives have experienced by that policy, he will be horrified by the result.
      Fate has so willed it that this territory of Kenya where, 20 years ago, the native tribes roamed practically unmolested, is the focus upon which has converged forces and influences representing two diametrically opposed Imperial policies. By accident, as it were, Kenya has become the centre where two entirely different schools of thought are contending in regard to the development of our Imperial policy in Africa. My right hon. Friend may well find himself
      1092
      compelled before very long to take decisions, and to advise the Government to take decisions, which affect far bigger issues than Kenya. That is why I venture to think that his idea of having a Committee, which well represent all shades of opinion in this House and the best experience that can be brought to bear on it, is an excellent suggestion. You must fundamentally change the processes and policies which have been followed for the last 12 or 18 years. My right hon. Friend has spoken of maintaining the policy laid down in the White Book. But he cannot do that unless he changes the process and policy fundamentally. We must build upon new foundations. We have to insure that the natives shall have real security of tenure in Kenya. At the present moment the native communities do not know, from one day to another, whether they will be shifted from their reserves to another part of the country. Everything depends upon security of tenure, whether you look at it from the political, the economic or the humane point of view. You will not get your supplies unless you have a happy contented native population of landowners producing in their own right and for their own profit. After all, in connection with these matters, we have had since the days of Edmund Burke a tradition to keep up. And we have also a high Parliamentary tradition to support, upheld in this House for many years by Sir Charles Dilke, with supporters of Members from all parts of the House. If my right hon. Friend maintains this high tradition, he will have the enthusiastic support of every Member on these benches, and he will have the support of every Member of this House who believes in the maintenance of these traditions, which are not the monopoly of any political party, and who is determined that these traditions, which have been violated in a monstrous degree in Kenya, shall be upheld, and that the policy there shall be the policy we have so successfully followed up and maintained in Uganda and Nigeria.
      Mr. THOMAS: May I make an appeal in regard to this Vote? This is the second day on which we have discussed it. There is another Vote to follow, in which I know there are Members interested, and I think we are entitled to ask the Committee to give us this Vote.
      Sir FREDRIC WISE: I apologise for keeping the Committee, but there is one particular point I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the financial side. I am sure we all agree that we want cotton wherever it can be grown, not only for Lancashire's sake, but so that it may save us in regard to the buying from the United States and in that way ease the United States debt payment. It states in A. 6, in regard to the Kenya grant, that the grant will be made to the Government of Kenya as an advance by way of loan, free of interest for five years. I never think it is satisfactory to get a grant of money free of interest for any space of time. It is not finance. One must agree that the finance of Kenya has not been very successful in the past, and I feel that in dealing with this interest in this way it is not the correct mode, and it is not the mode I have ever known to be carried on in any other country. We are quite agreed that there must be a railway built into the country, which is undeveloped, and the usual way, if the railway will not carry this interest, is to add the interest to the total capital sum. We are giving Kenya £175,000 a year, which, in five years, is £875,000, and in the ordinary course, where railways are built into undeveloped land, that amount has been added to the capital issue, and the interest has been paid out of capital. I have had experience of railways in Canada and various other parts, and I always feel that if the financial side is wrong, something will happen which will not carry the fruits of that railway in the future after it has developed. Would it not be possible to alter that amount, and put the amount of interest on to the capital? To give Kenya £875,000 for five years is adding to the very great monetary strain on this country. We are carrying a great dead-weight of debt, and every amount makes it heavier, and I would ask the Colonial Secretary if it would be possible to do this in the usual business way.
      Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give him an answer now. I can only say that I will give the point raised by my hon. Friend consideration.
      Captain BERKELEY: Do I understand that the Sub-heading is to be put as a separate Vote?
      The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move,
      "That Item K [Nauru and Ocean Islands] be reduced by £80,000."
      I move this because I am convinced, and I think it is not improbable that the Committee may later be convinced, that some further information is required with regard to this Item, before we can be expected to assent to it. I put down my Motion to reduce the Item by £100, but later reflection and my native caution have impelled me to consider the contingency, I hope remote, that possibly the right hon. Gentleman's answer may not be as full and satisfactory as I should like, and if that unhappy event should occur I feel that a reduction of £100 would probably be inadequate. A reduction of £80,000 will leave the right hon. Gentleman with a sum of about £26,000, which I believe will be adequate to enable him to finance it for the present, and I hope to show good reason why the remainder of the Vote should be postponed till a later date. I do not propose to go into the question of the policy involved in the agreements which are referred to in the explanation on page 14 of the Vote. That is an agreement which is scheduled under the Act of 1920. I do not propose to go back on the policy of that agreement, indeed I am rather doubtful whether it would be in order, but, at all events, for my purpose it is not relevant and it is not necessary. But I think perhaps it is necessary to say one word before I come to the actual questions I want to address to the right hon. Gentleman as to the history of the matter, because it is possible that it may not be immediately present to the mind of the Committee. Therefore, I would try to state the relevant, factors with regard to this agreement, and if I make any omissions or errors, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me, because I am only dealing at the moment with matters of fact.
      May I begin at the beginning by reminding hon. Members exactly where these islands are, The simplest way to put it is that they are almost as far from Westminster as anything could well be. More

      1095
      accurately and scientifically they are in Western Polynesia. They lie a little to the north-east of the Solomon Islands, to the west of Ellis Islands, and to the south of the Marshall Islands, and they are distant about 150 to 200 miles from each other. Nauru used to be German. Ocean Island has always been British. Nauru was originally annexed in the year 1888 and it was surrendered in September, 1914, I think, to His Majesty's Australian ship "Melbourne," sister ship of the "Sydney," which afterwards sank the "Emden." Both islands are of no importance politically or strategically. Their only importance is from the commercial point, and the reasons they are commercially important is that both of them contain large beds of phosphate rock, which is utilised commercially as a fertilising agent. In Nauru the phosphates were originally mined by a German company, which held them under a concession from the German Government given in 1905 for 94 years. That concession was in 1906 transferred to a British company, the Pacific Phosphate Company, which also held under licence from the British Government the right to mine the phosphate rock in Ocean Island under a lease of 99 years which ran from 1902.
      That was the position previous to the War with regard to the exploitation of the mineral resources of these islands. After the Peace Treaty it fell to the League of Nations to entrust the mandate for Nauru Island to someone, and it was entrusted to the British Government and an agreement was made between Great Britain, Australia and India. That is the agreement which was signed, I think, originally in 1919 and which forms the Schedule to the Act of 1920 referred to in page 14 of the Vote. Under that agreement the three Governments, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, decided that they would buy up the Pacific Phosphate Co., which was the concessionnaire, and accordingly arrangements were made to that end. The three Governments were to be joint adventurers in this undertaking which was to be managed by a Commission called the British Phosphate Commission. They were to be joint adventurers, but not in equal shares. The share of Great Britain was to be 42 per cent., the share of Australia 42 per cent., and the share
      1096
      of New Zealand was to be the remaining 16 per cent., and the necessary capital was provided in the respective countries. The total capital put in was as I make it out, £3,503,900, of which our 42 per cent., with a small addition for extra legal expenses, amounted to £1,488,000, and that money was voted and passed in the Financial Resolution which preceded the introduction of the 1920 Act. So much with regard to the capital provided.
      But there was also an arrangement made as to the disposal of the phosphates after they had been mined and it was agreed that they should be distributed between the three joint adventures at cost price, provided that any phosphates so supplied were to be used only for home consumption, and were not to be re-exported by the countries which took them. But it was contemplated that it was quite possible that one of the three partners might not desire to take the whole of its share, that is to say, Great Britain or Australia might not desire to take as much as 42 per cent., and New Zealand might not desire to take as much as 16 per cent. Therefore there was a provision put in that if any country did not desire to take up the whole of its share such additional share was to be marketed elsewhere, in some foreign country, at a commercial price, and the country that did not take up its proportion was to be credited with the cost price of the quantity of phosphates sold abroad, and the difference between the price actually realised in the world market and the cost price, whatever the cost price was, was to be put into a pool which was periodically to be shared out between the three joint adventurers in the proportions of 42, 42 and 16. It is the existence of that pool and the fact of its now being shared out which accounts, I assume, for the £253,580 which appears on page 14 of the Estimate. The only thing I am not quite clear about is as to the period of time in which this surplus has accrued. I am not quite certain whether it is one year or two years or whether, as is quite possible, it is 21 months. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me over what period of time this surplus of £252,580 has accrued.
      Mr. THOMAS: The financial year ends in June. Obviously, it must be the difference between now and June, making two years, so that it would be 21 months.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I suspected that it was 21 months. The point is not very material, but it is as well to have the matter put exactly. There is one more definition which requires to be examined, because it is material, and that is an examination of the provision with regard to the distribution of the phosphates at cost price to the three joint adventurers. Cost price is defined in Article 11 of the Agreement, and Article 11 fixes cost price in the first place on an f.o.b. basis. If the Committee will reflect, they will see that that is a reasonable provision, because the freight from Nauru to New Zealand, and still more the freight from Nauru to Australia, is obviously very much less than the freight from Nauru to the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is obvious that in working out cost price you have to take the f.o.b. and not the c.i.f. basis. Article 11 says:
      "Phosphates shall be supplied to the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand at the same f.o.b. price, to be fixed by the Commissioners on a basis which will cover working expenses, cost of management, contribution to administrative expenses, interest on capital, a sinking fund for the redemption of capital, and for other purposes, unanimously agreed on by the Commissioners and other charges."
      The Committee will see, therefore, that, in arriving at the price at which these phosphates were to be released to the three joint adventurers for their own home consumption the Commissioners had to take into account working expenses, cost of management, expenses of administration, interest on capital and a sinking fund for the redemption of capital.
      I think I have gone through the points which are relevant to the consideration of this matter, and I now ask the Committee to see exactly what this Estimate invites us to do. What it asks us to do, in short, is to take £106,504, which have accrued to us or are due to us as our share in the surplus profits out of the pool, and to put this money back into the business for certain specific objects and on certain specific conditions. I ask the Committee to put themselves in the position of a private trustee. What would a private trustee say if he received a notice from a company in which he was interested, paying him a dividend and at the same time informing him that it was proposed to issue new capital and
      1098
      inviting him to subscribe for his proportion of the new capital? The first thing the private trustee would think it right and necessary to do, would be to make inquiry as to how the business of the company was going on. No person in such a capacity could do otherwise. Conceive what would happen in a subsequent action if a private trustee were asked, "Did you pay money into the company?" "Yes." "Did you make inquiry as to the position of the company?" "No." "Did you see the accounts?" "No." "Did you see the balance-sheet?" "No." No private trustee could take up that position for a moment.
      The first point I put to the Committee in considering this matter is that the Committee of the House of Commons should have no less a standard if not a higher standard in such matters than would be required from a trustee in private life. Therefore, the first thing to look to in this Estimate is to ask, where are the accounts and where is the balance sheet of the British Phosphate Commission? When I saw the Estimate a fortnight ago, that was the first thing that occurred to me, and I addressed a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. I asked him whether the accounts of the British Phosphate Commission had been presented to Parliament and, if not, when did he think they would be presented? I was told by the right hon. Gentleman that he hoped the accounts would be presented and printed along with the other trading accounts of the Government at a later date. I then took occasion to point out to him, in a Supplementary Question, that this particular Vote was coming on, and that we were going to be asked to put £100,000 of the taxpayers' money back into the business and that it was only reasonable that we should have some information about the accounts before that was done. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would give that matter consideration. Subsequently, he was good enough to communicate with me and to inform me that he regretted to find on inquiry that it would be two or three months before the accounts could be presented. I told him that I did not regard that as very satisfactory, and that if I happened to be in my place when the Vote came on I should put certain questions

      1099
      to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the accounts, with a view to getting the irreducible minimum of information that was necessary. I propose to put one or two questions.
      The first information one requires about the operations of the Commission is in regard to output. What is the present output? We have had, as far as I can gather, no figures given. The only figures I have been able to gather relate to 1913, when the output was 337,000 tons. I do not know what is the present output. The figures for 1913, however, will give the Committee some idea of the size of the operations. The next thing about which the Committee will consider it is reasonable to require information is regarding the figures of gross revenue and net revenue. On the expenses side we want, not detailed charges, but certain broad details of expenses. We want the ordinary working expenses, the cost of management, and so on, and provisions for interest and sinking fund which are quite distinct and separate. Then there is a third set of expenses which fall to be charged against the phosphates before their cost price is fixed. This third set of expenses are rather extraordinary, because they are the expenses of administering the Government of the island. That is an extraordinary thing, and I believe the provisions in regard to these expenses are almost unique in connection with any British Dominion or Dependency.
      The provisions are contained in the Agreement, and the Agreement, shortly, provides that the Administrator and the Commissioners, so far as they do not have their expenses found from any other source, are to have them found and charged against the cost price of the phosphates. I do not desire to say anything in the way of attack upon the Administrator. I do not desire to criticise the administration in any way. I do not even know who is the Administrator. I have no doubt he is a very estimable servant and that he discharges his duties with zeal and efficiency, but I would point out that he possesses very wide powers under the Agreement. Article I of the Agreement, which defines the powers of the Administrator, is in the following terms:
      "The Administrator shall have power to make Ordinances for the peace, order, and
      1100
      good government of the Island, subject to the terms of this Agreement, and particularly (but so as not to limit the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Article) to provide for the education of children on the Island, to establish and maintain the necessary police force, and to establish and appoint courts and magistrates with civil and criminal jurisdiction."
      Captain BERKELEY: What is the date of that?
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: 1920.
      Captain BERKELEY: Are the ordinances of the Commissioner subject to approval by the High Commissioner?
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is precisely one of the questions that I was going to address to the right hon. Gentleman. This agreement was made and was confirmed by Parliament and it was enacted. But I think that at the time there was a certain amount of doubt in the minds of everybody with regard to the position of the Commissioner. How are these arrangements working out in practice? If the Commissioner by any chance does anything wrong in his administraton, if there is any cause for complaint with regard to the administration, on whom does the responsibility for that fall? Obviously the administration must be responsible to somebody. Who is the person or Government to whom he is responsible? I find it difficult to believe that it can be this House because, except on the discussion of a Vote like the present, there is no method under the procedure of this House whereby the conduct of this administrator can be challenged in this House.
      I find it hard to see how it can be challenged in the Australian Parliament either. I do not think that there is any vote of money in that Parliament, and I doubt if there is any vote of money in the New Zealand Parliament either. Who gives the Commissioner orders? Does the right hon. Gentleman? To whom does he report? Is it to the right hon. Gentleman or the League of Nations, or to whom? This opens up an endless vista of possibilities. I leave it to go back to my figures. The first figure one wants is the figure as to the output; the second is gross and net revenue. Then I want the charges against revenue, working expenses, interest and sinking fund, and the administrative charges. The sales figures are also essential. I want in the

      1101
      first place the sales to the three joint adventures. How much has each taken, and what is the price at which it has been given? I want also the figures of foreign sales. How much has been sold to other countries, and at what price? Those figures represent the minimum in the way of data which are necessary before one can be expected to pass this Vote.
      The Committee will notice that certain objects are set out in the Estimate as the objects for which the money is wanted. The further capital is required for the purchase and acquisition of machinery equipment and quarters. Is this new money which is asked for to be something in the way of replacement, or is it something for new equipment? If it is replacement of existing equipment, I cannot see how that figure can come into this Estimate, because the natural and proper method of dealing with it would be to charge it to repairs and renewals. I never heard of a company paying dividends to its shareholders, and at the same time making a call for repairs and renewals. If, on the other hand, this is for new plant, and not for replacement, then the question arises, what is there to justify the laying down of new plant either in an increase of the output or a reduction in the cost of output. Does this mean an increase in the output? If it does, what is the increase—and? do not know what the present output is. If it means a reduction in the cost of the output, what is the net reduction in the cost of output—and I do not know what is the present cost of output. The next object is for the purchase of the royalty rights in respect of the phosphate deposits of the island. Here, again, I am in some difficulty, because I turn to the Act and I find that Article 7 provides:
      "Any right, title or interest which the Pacific Phosphate Company or any person may have in the said deposits, land, buildings, plant and equipment, so far as such right, title and interest is not dealt with by the Treaty of Peace shall be converted into a claim for compensation at a fair valuation,"
      and these were subsequent arrangements, and the claim was converted and the compensation I understand was paid. What are these fresh royalty rights which had not been discovered then? I hope that we shall also have some information.
      1102
      I have to call attention to the last sentence of the explanation:
      "Interest will not be payable on the further capital provided."
      Why is interest not going to be payable on the further capital provided when interest was certainly payable in regard to the original subscription of £1,488,000, because it is provided in paragraph 9 of the Memorandum, which is referred to in this explanation, that this sum, £1,488,000, will be repayable with interest out of the proceeds of this sale of phosphates by the Commission to be set up under Article 3 of the Agreement mentioned in paragraph 2. Why is this particular amount of money which is asked for now not to be repayable with interest? Is this to be repayable at all, and, if not, why not? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also say what is the commercial rate of interest with which the adventurers are being credited in regard to the original subscription. We were never told what that rate of interest was to be, but were told that it was to be a commercial rate. What has happened, meantime, with regard to the interest? Where is this interest? It cannot be said that the commission has not been able to pay, because it is one of the prior charges before the cost price is arrived at, and, therefore, it must be brought to account somewhere Perhaps those are as many questions as I ought to ask. I hope that the Committee will think that none of the questions is unfair or unreasonable, and that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman's reply may be, he will not tell me that this is an inheritance from a previous administration. I have heard that said by many Governments during my time in this House, and I have been here as long as the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I never thought it was a very good defence, nor have I ever noticed that any Government, when it had a subject on which it could congratulate itself, was in a hurry to make use of such a defence. The defence is made only when there are things about which the Government is in difficulties. They then get up and say that the thing is an inheritance from their predecessors.
      However good or bad the defence may be in general, it is no defence at all in the present instance, and for this reason: My questions have been directed to the point that we are asked now to embark

      1103
      on an entirely fresh venture, to put back into the business money which would otherwise go into the Exchequer towards the surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is an entirely new departure, and in regard to it the excuse of inheritance cannot be used. It is all very well to say that this Estimate was prepared by the previous Government. But when these Estimates are prepared they are prepared about the end of November or the beginning of December The Government that was in office at the time never had the slightest idea that the accounts were not to be presented to Parliament when the Estimates were to be discussed. That is the point on which I want information. This may be a good expenditure or a bad one, but I cannot determine that without the accounts, or without the information for which I have asked.
      Mr. THOMAS: We have been treated to an interesting spectacle to-night. The hon. Gentleman, a former member of a Government, knows all the circumstances of Government, but treats the Committee to-night to an exhibition which at least implies that the Vote I am asking for is a Vote for which I am in a way responsible. The late Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies is present in the House, I notice, and he will tell the hon. Member that he would have listened with interest and delight to the speech we have just heard if he had been on the Treasury Bench instead of myself at this moment. The only difference is that I am presenting these Estimates. I intend to answer some of the criticisms, because, with the greatest respect, I do not understand some of the phrases that have been used. If they had been used by hon. Members on this side they would have caused an outburst. There was the phrase "the three adventurers." Two of them are Dominions.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was using the phrase, "the joint adventurers," only in the ordinary commercial sense. Anyone who engages in an undertaking is called an adventurer. I had no thought of causing offence.
      Mr. THOMAS: Of course, I accept that explanation. The three Governments concerned are New Zealand, Australia and ourselves. I can state the reason which, I understand, guided those who made this
      1104
      adventure. In the first place, Australia was the key Dominion involved. We are supposed to be the people who are always turning down the claims of the Dominions. In effect, Australia said this: "Phosphate is a fertiliser which is vital to the world. Only one per cent. of the world's store exists in the British Empire, but this field constitutes 40 per cent. of that." Imagine the situation. We talk about development of the Empire, about making the Empire independent of the foreigner. We talk about making the Empire self-supporting. One of the Dominions comes along and says, "Phosphate is vital to agriculture, and we are at least entitled to ask you to help us in this experiment." That is what Australia did, and New Zealand supported Australia in the demand. Then the British Government said, "This is something that interests us." Why? Because we were not only depending upon the foreigner, but phosphate was vital to our own agricultural interests.
      After all, this has not been a bad deal, though it may have been a bad Government that made it. We joined in, in the proportions of 42, 42 and 16 per cent. It was done not only to buy out the German company but to buy out the English company also, in addition to which it gave us the control of the phosphates and ensured some competition for English agricultural interests. What followed? Immediately after the War fertilisers had been bought at high prices, but English agriculturists did not purchase this particular phosphate. The depreciated exchange meant that the foreigner was unable to buy, as he had done previously, and America was dumping her surplus down here at a price lower than that at which we could produce the article, with the result that not only were we unable to take our quota, but New Zealand and Australia benefited, inasmuch as they took all the rest that we might have taken, and were entitled to take This is the wicked transaction described by my hon. Friend. As to the first point, this is an essential article; as to the second point, the whole Empire is involved: and as to the third, the two countries to benefit at our expense—if any at all—are New Zealand and Australia. Regarding the administration, my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well it is all a figure of speech about these imaginary difficulties

      1105
      as to the Commissioners who are said to be independent and responsible to no one and doing just what they like. He knows perfectly well that this matter is administered under a mandate which is exercised by Australia and for which Australia is responsible, and we have no reason to assume that she abuses her trust. Certainly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am not going to assume that she will abuse her trust, and if she does my right hon. Friend also knows there is an appeal to the League of Nations. That is the story of this autocratic body with powers to abuse everybody. That is the history of the whole case. So much for that side of the matter, and I hope my statement answers the hon. Gentleman's criticism. I am not answering for the Commissioners and will not attempt to do so, but if any Labour Member finds abuses in Australia, the Australian people will answer there for anything that arises. Let me come to the question of the accounts. My right hon. Friend knows about them because he made a good guess at the 21 months, and he knew what that period meant. He knew that the 21 months meant from June to March. The balance sheet is published up to 1921. The expenses for 1920–21, including interest and sinking fund, amounted to £628,103.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: And the rate of interest?
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. THOMAS: Six per cent. The sale of phosphates represented £1,222,802; less freights and insurance £620,758. There is a balance of £687,209. The figures up to the 30th June, 1921, are: Expenses including interest and sinking fund, £628,571, sale of phosphates £1,117,515; less freights and insurance £395,309, and there is—and this is the important point—a net profit for 1920–21 of £59,106, and for 1921–22 of £194,474. I make two further observations. The first object of this undertaking was not a bad one, and seems to have been justified. In the result it seems to have been a fairly good business transaction. My hon. Friend said that more details of the balance sheet were wanted, and he asked for the working costs of this, that and the other. If I had it, I would have no hesitation in giving the information to my hon. Friend, but when
      1106
      he puts forward the request on business grounds, I am not so sure that his proposition is sound. Business people do not usually show their competitors all their secrets, and we have competitors in this matter, and as long as the Treasury can be trusted at least to scrutinise the accounts—[Interruption]—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) will agree with what I am going to say. The Treasury can be trusted, at least, to see that the accounts are accurate. You may disagree with the Treasury, but no one would suggest that the Treasury is not competent to judge of the accuracy of accounts, and that is the only point I am making. I hope I have given my right hon. Friend all the information he desires upon the question. I sum up by saying it is not true that this is something for which we are responsible. The Estimate was prepared for me by the Department, in all its details, just as the Treasury were responsible for the finance with which I have dealt, but that would not excuse me for defending anything that is wrong. What I had to do was, not to say whether the policy was good or bad, but to ask the Department to give me sufficient information to warrant me in saying: This is something I can defend on its merits, no matter who is responsible for originating it. On that point, I was satisfied for the reasons I have given To the House, and I can only say to my hon. Friend that were it not for the accident—shall I call it so?—of my being here, instead of where he sits, it would have been delightful for me to have heard him asking these questions from those responsible for the transaction.
      Major G. F. DAVIES: I think it is a matter for self-congratulation for every Member of the Committee, that we have, in the course of this Debate, moved from the continent of darkest Africa with its tongue-twisting and almost comic opera names, to a part of the globe where the geographical nomenclature offers less serious obstacles to the tongue of an ordinary Briton. I could not help thinking during this Debate, especially when the geographical position of these places was alluded to, what a great advantage it would be to Members of the Committee if we had a large white screen hung opposite you, Sir, and a cinematograph operator projecting not a picture but a map of the

      1107
      places in question. To change suddenly from the vast area of the continent of Africa to a dot in the South Seas places a considerable strain on the imagination of hon. Members. The importance of this island of Nauru, as we have probably gathered, is, as Euclid would have said, in inverse ratio to its plane superficies. It has been my lot to have spent a good many years in the islands of the Pacific down in Honolulu, where perhaps hon. Members know, the ukuleles, hula dancers, and Hawaiian singers come from. Unfortunately, I could not devote all my time to the pursuit of these arts and crafts, and I had some connection with the question of phosphates from the Pacific Islands, not, unfortunately, as a vendor and producer so much as a purchaser and consumer, and I know full well the great value of these phosphates to the agricultural industry, which is an additional reason why I am interested in this Vote.
      The opener of this Debate ran through some of the history leading up to this situation, but, as I understand it, there are one or two things which, I will not say, are at variance with what he was saying, but which, perhaps, make it a little bit fuller. The Pacific Phosphate Company originally had concessions to work phosphates on Ocean Island. That island was south of an imaginary and arbitrary line which had been drawn across the Pacific, which divided the German sphere of influence on the north from the British sphere of influence on the south. The Island of Nauru was situated north of that line, and within the German sphere of influence, and it was administered by, though not actually part of, the Marshall Group. The Pacific Phosphate Company, exploring the possibilities of phosphates in the islands of the Pacific, discovered the deposits on Ocean Island, and were working them. In the course of their further exploration, they discovered that there were very extensive and exceedingly valuable deposits on the Island of Nauru, which were, apparently, then unknown to other people. A German company had a concession from the Imperial German Government for exploring and developing many islands in that part of the Pacific Ocean, including Nauru, but they had not discovered the enormous potential resources and the value of the phosphate
      1108
      deposits there. The Pacific Phosphate Company, having discovered this, acquired from the German company their concession rights in Nauru, and as soon as development began to take place, the Germans realised that they had allowed to go by them something that was very valuable, and of which they were ignorant. In passing, it is a comfort to know that sometimes a British company is clever enough to get ahead of a German company.
      As soon as the German company realised that the Pacific Phosphate Company had acquired this concession, and was working it, they proceeded to try to purchase all the Pacific Phosphate Company shares they could on the market, so that, at the outbreak of the War in 1914, there was a considerable German holding in the Pacific Phosphate Company—not 50 per cent. of the shares, but a very considerable proportion. When the War broke out, these German interests were taken over and disposed of by the Public Trustee for whomsoever they might concern, and the purchasers were all British subjects, so that again the Pacific Phosphate Company became a 100 per cent. British concern. So it went on during the War, and after the Armistice came the history of where the three adventuring Governments took part. The Government of Australia was the first to move, realising, as has been pointed out, the extreme value of these phosphate deposits and their comparative proximity to Australia, and, if I am rightly informed, they made a claim—whether based on a misplaced admiration of Government participation in industry, or whether, perhaps, they realised the value and importance of the deposits to themselves, I do not know—to the Island of Nauru and its potentialities, as somewhat in the nature, perhaps, of spoils of war. As soon as the Government of New Zealand heard this, they made a similar claim, and it was those two claims which brought the British Government into it, and, as hon. Members have already heard, it was decided that the enterprise should be shared—42, 42 and 16 per cent. respectively.
      A good many questions were asked by the opener of this Debate, and dealt with by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and there are, in this connection, one or two very vital questions on which I, personally,

      1109
      and, I think, a good many other hon. Members of the Committee, would like some further information. The figures have been available, and have been quoted to us, as to the cost of the original investment, and there is a provision in the agreement that in case there is need of any further capital necessary for working expenses, it is to be contributed by the three Governments in the same proportions, and it is, of course, under that Clause that this Vote comes before the Committee, but what is not clear to my mind is what are the liabilities of the Governments concerned, and particularly of the British Government, with regard to any further possible capital expenditure in connection with the development of these islands of Ocean and Nauru, and particularly Nauru. To be sure, our share is 42 per cent., but there is nothing to indicate so far—and I feel it would be interesting to the Committee to know—if there is a limit, probable or actual, of our capital liability in connection with this enterprise, whether or not it is a profitable one.
      Another, and very important question, it seems to me, is this: Are we here, in this country, getting any actual benefit out of this undertaking? I am not now thinking of interest on the capital involved, because I fancy we could use that capital in other directions which would be of more immediate benefit to us here, in England, but the question is this: If this undertaking were gone into by the three Governments concerned—and I think it was—because of the exceeding value of these phosphate deposits, and the great value to agriculture of phosphates as a fertilising and manuring agency, are we now getting anything out of it? Unless I am misinformed, during the past two years not one single pound of phosphates from Nauru has been brought to this country, and, therefore, we are in this position of, to the extent of 42 per cent. of the capital—and now under this Vote indeed, of 42 per cent. of our profits on that capital—assisting the Governments of Australia and New Zealand to get their stores of phosphates, while we are here in the position of Empire benefactors. I should be the last person to discourage such a position, but it is true that charity begins at home, and, as one interested very much in our agricultural difficulties here and in the importance of our being
      1110
      able to get good and the best fertilisers at reasonable prices for our agricultural community, I think it is a matter of some importance to know whether we are getting any direct benefit in the way of fertilising material out of this enterprise, and, if not, why we have not been getting any. There may be reasons, such as high freight rates or others, but I do not know what they are.
      Then there is a matter in connection with the administration. It is provided in the Agreement that there is an Administrator and three Commissioners, one appointed by each of the three Governments concerned. Among the duties of these three Commissioners is that of disposing of the phosphates for the purpose of the agricultural requirements of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand so far as those requirements extend. The deposits are to be worked and sold under the direction, management and control of the Commissioners. I cannot conceive that in a little island the size of Nauru the three Government Commissioners are resident there very much in the year. It is possible that those from New Zealand and Australia could pay periodical visits without taking up too much of their time, but it seems beyond all common sense that the Commissioner from here could spend very much time there carrying out in person his responsibilities under the Agreement, to wit, the control, management and working of these deposits. Therefore, I think it would be interesting to know exactly how the Commissioners' responsibilities devolve upon some lower placed official, and who he is, and whether the Commissioners have met anywhere so as to arrange for this management and control, which is a joint liability and responsibility on their part.
      Finally, there comes the question of labour on these islands. I have had some experience of Pacific Island natives. Their principal industry, unless there is some special reason or peculiar case, is making wreaths of flowers and waiting until it is to-morrow. From what I know of phosphate deposits, they cannot be worked with that kind of labour, and it follows of necessity that there must be some imported labour of some sort to work these phosphate deposits. Whether that is South Sea Island labour, or whether it is Hindu labour, or whether it is Japanese or

      1111
      Chinese, I do not know, but it has to be one of the four undoubtedly. The duty of the Commissioners, I take it, is the control, not only of the native population, who at a guess are not taking any very active part in the operations of the Phosphate Commission, but of those who are actually doing the work. It would be enlightening to the members of the Committee if they had a little information on that particular point.
      These questions are not being, asked by me in any carping or cavilling spirit, but merely for information.
      Mr. BLACK: I am sure hon. Members listened with very great interest to the explanation which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but there are one or two things he said which struck me as rather peculiar. The first was when he sought to throw the onus on the Australian people for the management of the Island of Nauru. I understood that it was the League of Nations which had issued a mandate, and that this country had accepted the mandate. As we have a Commissioner appointed to represent this country, it appears to me that we are not able to shelve any responsibility, but must take the full responsibility for what happens on the Island of Nauru. We share the profits, and if there were losses we should share them. Therefore, it is up to us to see that the conditions which obtain with regard to the working of the phosphates, and all the details with regard to the organisation, are satisfactory to a nation such as we are.
      The next thing I noticed was that the Secretary of State for the Colonies produced accounts which have not been circulated to this House. I consider that we should have been in a better position to have discussed with accuracy the granting of this money for these accounts, which we were not able properly to appreciate as they were read from the Table, if those accounts had been circulated to the House. We should then have been able to investigate them and we should have known better where we are. It appears to me that in a matter of this kind it is up to the Government to give the House all the information it possesses. Therefore, I would ask that on another occasion we might be supplied
      1112
      I with the figures which are available to the Government. I want to ask a question on the accounts with regard to this £253,000 profit which has been made. Is that all profit, or does it include the interest and the sinking fund as well? According to the accounts which are given here, our share of £106,504 is our share of surplus profit. I suppose business men do not include interest on capital in profit. If the interest has been earned in addition to the profits, I should like to ask where the interest is shown and how it has been accounted for.
      I desire to ask a few questions with regard to the conditions under which the Chinese are labouring. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to lay on the Table details of the agreement that these Chinese labourers sign, and I have had the opportunity of going through these particulars. While I desire to congratulate the Commission upon the profit which has been made out of this enterprise, I do feel that in a country which is largely responsible for setting an example to the world in regard to the manner in which it treats its employés, we ought to be assured—I do not make any allegations, but only ask questions—that the conditions under which these Chinese are labouring are such as would commend themselves to the sentiments of the British nation. I think we have a special interest in this matter. Therefore, I desire to ask a few questions. First of all, in the agreement it is stated that the wages that are paid to these Chinese are as specified later on in the agreement, but when I come carefully to search the agreement I find no record of what they are. I desire to ask what wages are paid to these Chinese workers in the Island of Nauru. Why have these wages been omitted from the copy of the agreement with which I have been supplied? Are they stated in the original agreement? If they are stated in the original agreement, have they been suppressed in the copy that has been sent to me? I notice that overtime is paid at the rate of 5d. an hour, and, therefore, if overtime is paid for at double ordinary time it would lead one to suppose that the wage paid is 2½d. an hour. I do not think Members on the Labour benches will be satisfied with the payment of 2½d per hour, even to Chinese labourers. I

      1113
      want to appeal to Labour Members with regard to the several matters I am bringing forward.
      The second question I have to ask is this. In the agreement it is stated that any piece-work arrangement that is to be made is to be made by mutual agreement. I want to ask the Committee how the Chinese labourers are in a position to stand up for their rights with, regard to piece-work arrangements when they have been brought 3,000 miles from Hong Kong or China to work in Nauru. There should be some arrangement whereby some arbitration board is appointed or some outside body to whom these Chinese labourers could appeal with regard to wages. The third question is this: Is not the contract a very one-sided contract, when three months' notice to terminate the agreement can be given to any Chinese labourer, whereas he has no right to terminate the work before the three years expire. What right have we to say to the Chinese labourer: "We discharge you with three months' notice," while he has no right to terminate the agreement? I hope representatives of the Labour party are taking notice of these things, because in my opinion these clauses in this agreement are a scandal and a disgrace. It is most peculiar that there are two agreements; one the Chinese labourer is asked to sign before he leaves China, and another he is asked to sign when he arrives at Nauru. Under the first agreement five days of 9½ hours are to be worked, and one day, Saturday, 4½, making 52 in all. When he has to sign the second agreement for three years he has to work six days of 9½ hours, or 57 hours. Before he leaves China the arrangement is 52 hours, and when he gets to Nauru he is faced with an agreement by which he has to work 57 hours. Is that straightforward British integrity? By this agreement a man has only six days' holiday in the year. He has his Sundays and six days' holiday. Is that agreeable to hon. Members on this side? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If there is any emergency, any breakdown in machinery, this man is to be asked to break into his six days' holiday without any compensating day being given to him for the time he works in the emergency. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has he any dole?"] He deserves something. I do not know that he gets it. The last question I have to ask is the most serious of all. It is
      1114
      this. Are any proper reasonable provisions made whereby these Chinese labourers may take with them their wives to Nauru?
      Miss LAWRENCE: May I ask the hon. Member what is the date of the agreement?
      Mr. BLACK: I think it is 1922. It is
      "An Agreement made at Nauru, Central Pacific, this day, 1922, between the British Phosphate Commission (herein called the Commission)…."
      HON. MEMBERS: Lloyd George!
      Mr. BLACK: Let hon. Members interrupt. I do not mind. The more they interrupt the more I am pleased. In this agreement there is nothing mentioned about the wives of these Chinese workers, and I am credibly informed that at a certain location either in Samoa or in Nauru there is one place where there are 500 men and only two women. I ask hon. Members whether it is treating the natives of the island in a satisfactory manner when the arrangement has been made by the late Government, or the one before, during the last two years, that conditions like this should obtain, and that these Chinese should be over there in their hundreds and thousands, the conditions being such that their wives are not invited to go with them, no provision being made in the agreement for taking them with them. I do not desire to ask any further questions. I do not charge the Secretary of State for the Colonies with the slightest responsibility for this state of affairs, but what I do ask, in the name of the British nation who esteem honour and integrity in bargains and desire to treat the natives as they would be treated themselves under similar circumstances—I ask the Labour Government whether they are prepared as early as possible to look into this matter, and that we, when we touch the profits which are earned out of the phosphate industry, can stand up in face of the world and take clean money and not be ashamed of the money.
      Captain BOWYER: I feel sure that the whole Committee will congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken not only upon the merits of a very serious speech but the way in which he has refused to be put off by very good humoured comments, and the admirable information which he gave on this important matter. The only

      1115
      comment I will make upon the matter with which his very eloquent address dealt is to comment upon the interruption that came from the benches opposite. I suppose the hon. Member who challenged the party on these benches to cheer, did so for the same reason which we have heard for many years now, in that I suppose his claim was that it is his own party alone which can speak and has the right to speak for the working man.
      Mr. GREENALL: There was nothing serious about it.
      Captain BOWYER: Let me comment upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, because, of course, he was quite entitled to make what use he liked, and he made admirable use, of the retort, "Well after all your party was in power and you made the agreement; or the Government at any rate with which you are connected." That is perfectly true. I am perfectly certain that the admirable speech of my hon. Friend below me was made in the first place for this purpose alone, to discover what has been the result of the agreement and what are the conditions out there to-day. It was a matter of knowledge which could not have been ascertained either when the Conservative Government was in power or when the agreement was made.
      Mr. THOMAS: Had you read the reports, you would have seen.
      Captain BOWYER: Not in the least. I have tried to study the information which is at the disposal of the Committee. I have read it very carefully and read the Agreement Act of 1920, and I find that this country is very much concerned.
      Mr. THOMAS: Hear, hear!
      Captain BOWYER: For it appoints one of the Commissioners, and it was, indeed, in the first place entrusted with a mandate with the rest of the British Empire. While the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to make the retort he pleases to make on the lines I have indicated, he surely must not rest content there. He must satisfy himself, being at the head of one of the Departments of the State, that any information which is brought to his attention during the course of this Debate is properly
      1116
      sifted out if not now, then afterwards. What is the information given to the House? He never told us at all on the Colonial Vote why he put back this money into the business; why the original arrangement made in 1920 has not been sufficient to carry on the administration by those concerned. May I remind the Committee that when this agreement was made Sir Leslie Wilson was then the spokesman on behalf of the Government, and he used these words:
      "It is estimated that all the expenses of administration under the Agreement, including the cost of the sinking fund and the interest on the capital, will not amount at the most to more than threepence per unit—each one per cent. of phosphate of lime—and as Nauru Rock averages 84 per cent. of phosphate of lime and Ocean Island averages 86 per cent. of phosphate of lime, it will be seen that under the Agreement, at cost price, that is covering all the expenses that I have mentioned, it should be possible for Australia and New Zealand to obtain their phosphate at about £1 per ton cheaper than at the present time, and at the same time provide for all the necessary repayment of capital and interest."
      Articles II and XI of the Agreement specifically cater for—if I may use that word—the working expenses for running and capital, and for purchases in the first place necessary to run this as a going concern. What I should have expected from the Colonial Secretary was in the first place an explanation as to how much was this sum, and why it has not proved to be sufficient, and secondly, some details as to exactly on what schemes the £100,000 odd which we are now asked to put back into the business will be spent. I need not weary the Committee by reading out Article XI. It has been referred to already. Article II, however, which is very concise, says:
      "All the expenses of administration, including the remuneration of the Administrator and the Commissioners, so far as they are not met by other revenues, are to be paid out of the proceeds out of the sale of phosphates."
      I understand that the arrangement, first of all, was that Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia were to get their phosphates at cost price. I will not split hairs as to exactly what cost price means. But, having looked up the details, I find that in Nauru there are 216,000,000 tons of phosphate there for the taking, and that before the War it was estimated that the annual output could be made at least

      1117
      400,000 to 500,000 tons per annum. The right hon. Gentleman never replied to my hon. Friend who invited him to say whether, in fact, we have received any phosphates. That is a vital matter, if only judged from the agricultural stand-point—
      Mr. THOMAS: I told the House distinctly that the difficulty of agriculture in this country was due, firstly, to want of phosphates; secondly, to the difficulty of exchange; thirdly, to America dumping and Great Britain not taking its share; and finally, because New Zealand and Australia had taken more than their share.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: What did America take?
      Mr. THOMAS: I will give you the exact amount so that the comparison can be made.
      Captain BOWYER: My difficulty was this: I listened with all the attention of which I am capable to my right hon. Friend, and I understood him to give his figures in pounds sterling. That immediately led me to the conclusion which, I put to the House, was not unreasonable that I should draw, that under Article 14 we had been credited with these sums of money out of the common fund; that, in fact, we had not received any of the tons of phosphates about which I am now asking.
      There is a second point I want to make. It is so simple a point that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer on the spot. The procedure was so simple. We were to have as much phosphates as we could use at cost price, together with New Zealand and Australia. This is a point I want to make. What was not sent there at cost price of what was produced from year to year was to be sold, not only at market price, but at the best possible price, and out of what was sold outside, the three great Dominions were to find the costs of administration. I therefore get back to this: When the right hon. Gentleman now to-day is asking us to put more money, to provide more for administration and for working capital, surely he must give us some details as to how the costs of administration have failed to be found out of the surplus phosphates which could be sold all over the
      1118
      world, and, indeed, in other parts of the British Empire.
      I should like to ask a question about administration. Here, again, I do not think the Committee ought to be put off by the fact that the Administrator is not responsible to this House. Who is responsible? Surely, we have some responsibility in the matter? Let me put it in this way. If my right hon. Friend is going to make inquiries as the result of this Debate into, for instance, the matter raised by the last speaker as to the conditions under which Chinese labour is to be utilised, how is he going to make his inquiries? There must be a link, a channel, through which he will inquire, and I submit that our Commissioner will be the man who will be interrogated, and who will be invited to make a report as to how, in fact, the Administrator is carrying on his duties, and how the Chinese are being treated.
      Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that among these Chinese labourers quite a number of suicides happen every week?
      Captain BOWYER: If that is so, then there is all the greater need for inquiry. What I am surprised at in this matter is the attitude of the Colonial Secretary, because if the Administrator is responsible to the Government of Australia, how comes is that we are discussing this Vote for everything we are saying must be out of order? The right hon. Gentleman must see that there is a great demand for an inquiry into the status of the Administrator and how he is carrying out his duties. The Administrator has not only to provide education for the children and make ordinances for peace good order and good government, but he has to maintain the police force, appoint Courts and magistrates with civil and criminal jurisdiction.
      The administrator is allowed to raise a revenue on his own account inside Nauru. He can impose taxes and levy duties, and what are they for? If, on the one hand, any of those duties and taxes raised by the administrator can be earmarked for administration and carrying on the business of getting phosphates, how comes it that that is not mentioned, and that, over and above the amount raised by those taxes and duties, money is being asked for to-day? I want to lay stress on the fact that we on this side of

      1119
      the House are really keen about any matter which may develop the Empire. I only mention that because the Colonial Secretary rather twitted my hon. and gallant Friend with desiring to oppose something which was really going to develop the Empire. But we are doing nothing of the sort. We are simply acting as guarantors or trustees for the taxpayers' money.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that business people do not show competitors their business secrets, and for that reason he said he did not propose to give an answer to any questions relating to details. But even if business people do not give away secrets to their competitors, the shareholders have a right to see the balance sheet, and that is the main thing we are asking for to-day. We are asking why this money is necessary at all after the adequate sum which was provided in 1920. I want to know how it comes about that in 1924, three years after the agreement was made, money is being voted now for the purpose of the royalty rights in respect of the Pacific deposits of the Island of Nauru. In Article 7 it is clearly stated that:
      "Any right, title or interest which the Pacific Phosphate Company may have in the deposits, land, buildings, and equipments shall be converted into a claim for compensation at a fair valuation."
      If I do nothing else but succeed in getting the Colonial Secretary once more on his feet to give us a little more information on these points, I shall be very pleased.
      Mr. HARDIE: Would it be in Order, when an hon. Member is flinging about on this subject weights and measures in this way, for the Colonial Secretary to have a slide rule to calculate them?
      Mr. ROYCE: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down in regard to the facts which he has placed before the Committee, but I would like to say a few words with regard to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Black) with regard to the conditions of Chinese labour in Nauru. It has always been a subject of wonderment to me that hon. Members can have so much interest about Chinese labourers abroad and be so very insensible with regard to conditions of labour at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have nothing to withdraw, in
      1120
      fact I should like to repeat my statement. With regard to what has been said about Chinese labourers, it reminds me very much of the lines written by James Russell Lowell:
      I du believe in Freedom's Cause
      Ez far away ez Paris is,
      I love to see her stick her claws
      In those infernal Pharisees.
      It's well enough agin a King
      To draw resolves and triggers,
      But liberty's a kind of thing
      That don't agree with niggers.
      It seems to me that the nigger or the Chinaman is looked upon as somebody who ought to be preserved, while we intend to take no care of our own people. We import Chinese into this country, they enter into competition with our own people, and they are a source of trouble to our social order. We are quite unconscious of what is going on under our own noses.
      Mr. J. HARRIS: We do not shut them up in compounds.
      Mr. ROYCE: I am quite aware of that. What I wish to say about these conditions is that the Chinese labourers are quite able to look after themselves. In a case where the whole of the labour is drawn from one source, one stoppage of work would bring about the end of any grievance. I am aware that hon. Members below the Gangway, on a former occasion, were very solicitous about Chinese labour. Personally, I have seen those same Chinese slaves come into Johannesburg and engage every cab at the railway station, whilst my wife and I have had to carry our luggage up to the hotel. I do not think we were suffering, but it was not a condition of slavery. The hon. Member for Harborough is very much concerned that these people have only six days' holiday a year. I wonder how many days' holiday an agricultural labourer has in a year; and, as I have remarked quite recently in this Chamber, during the recent winter many of our agricultural labourers in the villages have been earning no more than 15s. a week. I wonder whether hon. Members could spare some of their sympathy for these people? [Interruption.]
      The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed.
      Mr. ROYCE: I agree that they have as much sympathy as I have, but it is not vocal, and it is vocal in the present case. [An HON. MEMBER: "And that is all!"] And that is all. Well, my Friends—[Laughter.] I do not mind calling them my Friends. They help us upon occasion, when it suits them. But I have a few words also to say to my Friends opposite. I noticed that they were awfully shocked when the hon. Member for Harborough said that these men work 52 hours a week; but I think that is what they proposed for the British agricultural labourer, under the conditions of the Agreement when they proposed to give the farmer £1 an acre. If it is good enough here for the agricultural labourer, it cannot be too bad for the Chinaman in Nauru. Then the hon. Member for Harborough complained that they have to re-enter into an agreement when they get to Nauru. I presume the reason for that is that an agreement entered into in China would not be legal unless it were confirmed in Nauru. I do not suppose there is very much in that. My sole object in saying these few words is to suggest that hon. Members might save some of their sympathy for the people we have at home, and give a little less to some of those abroad who are quite able to look after themselves. If hon. Members knew the Chinaman as I know him, they would know that he is not a man who cannot look after his own interests. He knows exactly what he is entering into. The complaint is made that he is not permitted to take his wife with him. Well, I have a distinct recollection of entering into a three years' agreement, and no one asked me to take a wife with me. This, Mr. Young, is sickly sentimentality. If hon. Members would only come down from Heaven and view the things that they see here in their own country, or if they would only look for them, they would find much more to enlist their sympathy at home than they can find in Nauru. [Interruption.] There seems to be an impression that I said that a Chinaman is not a man. I did not say that. What I said was that a Chinaman is not a man who cannot look after himself.
      Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I have no intention of following the last speaker on the important question as to
      1122
      whether Chinamen are capable of looking after themselves, or as to the necessity of taking their wives wherever they go, but there are one or two things that I should like to say before we pass this Vote, and I am afraid that some of my remarks must be rather in the nature of questions. I am sorry that that is so, because I fear the Colonial Secretary has been rather snowed under with questions hitherto. I do, however, desire to elicit a certain amount of further information. It seems to me that we we are spending a great deal of money upon this island of Nauru, and that it is rather questionable—indeed, very doubtful—whether we shall ever see any adequate return for the money we are spending. I think I am right in quoting the Colonial Secretary as saying that he could not give us the actual commercial value of the phosphate, because so very little of it has hitherto come to this country. It is possible that the reason for that is that the farmers here do not consider it to be of any particular value for agricultural purposes. I am told that this ground phosphatic rock from Nauru is inferior in many ways to basic slag and some other forms of chemical manure. We must not forget that science is making great strides at the present time. I am told that at any moment some commercial process may be evolved by which it will be possible to fix nitrogen from the air, and in that case we shall have a fertilising agent of far greater value than this phosphatic rock from Nauru can possibly show.
      10.0 P.M.
      Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there really is this quantity of phosphate at Nauru? I believe I am right in saying that this is organic limestone strongly impregnated with phosphoric acid. Although, undoubtedly, the entire foundations of the island are organic limestone, it is at present very uncertain to what depth this impregnation has penetrated, and, consequently, we do not know with any degree of certainty what actual quantity of phosphatic rock is obtainable from Nauru. That being so, are we wise in spending all this money on the development of this island? With regard to the treatment of the aborigines, the indigenous inhabitants of these islands, I think I am right in saying that a question on that subject was asked at the League of Nations meeting at Geneva last year, and that the

      1123
      reply given was not altogether satisfactory. I see that reference is made in the Estimate to the purchase of royalties, and I should like to know how the native owners of the island are paid for the rock which is taken away. Is the ground being bought from them outright, and, in that case what sum of money is being paid for it? Are they being paid in royalties at so much per ton taken, or in what exact way are they being compensated? We must not forget that, after all, this rock is the bedrock of the island, and it is only a question of time, if this deposit is as large as people make out, when the whole island will be dug away from under their feet. We all know the views of the Colonial Secretary with regard to royalty owners and landlords. I have heard him voice his opinion on that subject in this Chamber, and we have only to refer to that admirable work of his, "When Labour Rules," to obtain a definite statement as to how he hopes to deal with landlords and royalty owners when the day comes for the Labour Government to be in power as well as in office. I should like to have from him an assurance that he will not treat these royalty owners and landlords in Nauru in the same way as he hopes to treat landlords and royalty owners in this country when he is in power as well as in office.
      Another point which occurs to me is that, however likely it is to prove a fertilising agency, is there any chance of our getting this phosphate rock to this country? Our co-adventurers—and I use that expression with all due respect, because the word adventurer is a classic word: it is Shakespearean: and our forefathers who colonised Mew England were always referred to in the works of the period as adventurers—are in Australia. Nauru is 10,000 miles from these shores, whereas it is only 1,000 miles from the shores of Australia. Although we can claim 42 per cent. of the produce, I think there is very small prospect of this produce ever reaching this country. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, is he convinced that the supply of this phosphate rock is equal to the estimate made, and is he convinced that the aboriginal inhabitants, who are the rightful owners of the island, are being treated with that fairness, and justice which would meet with the approval of the League of Nations at its next meeting? It was my
      1124
      intention to speak on the subject of the labour which is employed to work this rock, but that has been so fully dealt with by the last two hon. Gentlemen who spoke, that I feel there is no need for me to say anything further on that subject. I should, however, like to ask are they free men or are they working under a system of slavery? Is their condition one which to describe it as slavery would make one guilty of using a terminological inexactitude?
      Captain BERKELEY: I hope very much that the policy which has been enunciated by the hon. Member for Holland (Mr. Royce) is not one which is to receive the support of the party of which he is a member. He speaks on questions of the recruitment of native labour, I understand, with some authority, because he has had some experience in the business. I have had some experience from observation of the kind of ills and misusages to which indentured labour is subject. To hear a member of the Labour party put forward the astonishing doctrine that a Chinaman is not a man—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Withdraw!"] The hon. Member for Holland stated that a Chinaman was not a man, and subsequently qualified it by saying that a Chinaman was perfectly capable of looking after himself in anything that was needful.
      Mr. ROYCE: I said that a Chinaman was not a man who could not look after himself.
      Captain BERKELEY: I accept that. The hon. Member is making a statement which anyone who is familiar with what is called the Chinese coolie, or for that matter the Indian coolie, knows is not strictly in accordance with the fact. It is not correct to represent the Chinese coolie as being a person who understands the details of a contract. So far as coolie labour is concerned, there is a very clear duty on the Government, not only because of the duty which any British Government must assume towards subject population, but because of the fact that the British Empire is interested in this question, as a mandatory of the League of Nations. There is a very clear duty on the British Government to investigate all the allegations which my hon. Friend has made, and to see that the abuses to which he

      1125
      has drawn attention are removed. Whilst they are conducting that investigation, I would suggest that they should look into the nature of the quarters provided for these labourers. I see the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) in his place. My hon. Friend, before he was Under-Secretary for the Colonies, occupied a distinguished position on the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. He personally drew the attention of the Mandates Commission to the fact that these Chinese were living in compounds. There is accommodation and accommodation. There is a kind of accommodation which is familiarly termed "coolie lies," in which it was customary to house coloured indentured labour. It consisted simply of a galvanised iron shed with no flooring, which in effect reproduced the conditions of a particularly bad kind of stable. I see that some of this sum that we are to vote to-night, and I hope it will be voted, is to be devoted to quarters. I would like to know what kind of quarters are to be provided?
      Before proceeding to the speech of the Colonial Secretary himself, I would like to ask if he would indicate how much of this sum we are voting is to be set aside for health, education and welfare work among the native population, as distinct from the coolie population. That brings me to the right hon. Gentleman's own remarks. Surely he is under some misapprehension. He referred to the mandate which Australia was exercising. The mandate is surely conferred on the British Empire by the principal Allied and Associated Powers and not, as one speaker remarked, by the League of Rations at all. It is a mandate which is exercised with the general supervision of the League of Nations. To say that mandate has been passed on to Australia permanently is incorrect, and indeed to say the mandate itself has been delegated is, as I submit, incorrect. May I make it plain by quoting from a League of Nations publication dealing with the subject dated August, 1922:
      "Representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand accordingly met and drew up arrangements for an administration which was incorporated in the Nauru Agreement of 2nd July, 1919, by which the Australian Government was nominated as agent for the three parties to administer the Island for
      1126
      the first five years, but in all matters relating to the native policy reference was to be made to all three Governments concerned, whose concurrence was essential. The impression that the administration of the Island was exercised de facto by the Australian Government, which now assumes responsibility for it, is not justified by the actual facts, which show that in the administration the Australian Government is merely acting as agent for the mandatory authority, i.e., the British Empire.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Owing to that report a fresh agreement was entered into last year when I was at the Colonial Office and presented to the League of Nations. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the report of the League of Nations for 1923, he will see that the position, which was obscure in 1922, has been put on a regular basis and that Australia is recognised by the League, and the Australian representative is recognised by the Mandates Commission as responsible for presenting the annual report on Nauru.
      Captain BERKELEY: That is the presentation of the annual report to the permanent Mandates Commission. The question we are discussing to-night is to whom in the Empire is the Administration of Nauru responsible. How can we exercise a check on the Administration? How could this House of Commons exercise any control over the ordinances which are passed by the Administration?
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: You cannot possibly do it. It would be out of order to do it. The Administration is appointed by the Government of Australia, and is responsible to the Australian House of Commons, and it ought to be ruled out of order from the Chair to criticise an Administration which is not responsible in any way to this Parliament.
      Captain BERKELEY: This interchange of observations between my hon. Friend and myself illustrates the difficulties with which the whole of this subject is hedged around. I perfectly understand and share, although I have had not the experience of the hon. Gentleman but a certain limited experience of this question, the difficulties of the mover of the Motion. It is very difficult to know where the real controlling authority lies. Ocean Island is not administered under a Mandate. It is administered by the Western Pacific High Commissioner. You have this astonishing situation, that the House

      1127
      of Commons is confronted with a Vote lumped together for two islands, one of which is responsible partly to the League of Nations and partly to the Australian Government in some indeterminate manner, and one of which is part of a group of islands administered under the Western Pacific High Commissioner, and you have a single vote covering these two items. I only make this observation in order to show that there is a substantial difficulty, and that the Colonial Secretary was not justified in brushing this case aside and saying that Australia is responsible. Quite clearly, Australia is not responsible for Ocean Island and I am not in the least clear how far Australia is responsible for the administration of the Island of Nauru. The Colonial Secretary contends that when you delegate responsibility in this matter you have no control over the agent to whom you are delegating it. That is a proposition from which I respectfully differ. You have this mandate conferred upon the British Empire and exercised by three members of the British Empire. By agreement with the League of Nations, you delegate from the main mandatory Empire to one of the individual nations composing it, certain responsibilites. Does the Colonial Secretary seriously contend that the Empire as a whole has no control over the manner in which Australia carries out the responsibility which has been delegated? If he advances any such contention, I am sure hon. Members will not agree with him.
      Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: What about Australia?
      Captain BERKELEY: The point is that there is a ludicrous administrative tangle, owing to the fact that you have these two islands, in close proximity, one administered under one system, over which, apparently, we have no control whatever, and one administered under a system over which wc have complete control, and the profits accruing to this country from the mines of both islands are lumped together in one Vote—a very difficult situation. Reference has been made to the powers of the Administrator over criminal questions. I hope the Colonial Secretary will consider the question of making provision for these criminal questions to be dealt with in the same
      1128
      manner as other criminal matters are dealt with. You have the High Commissioner's Court, which deals with the questions of crime that arise and which are sent up by Commissions of First Instance. It seems to me, and I am sure it will be the opinion of the Committee, that you have no right to delegate these almost monarchical powers to one administrator, who is selected by a country which is in itself not the controlling authority, but which is merely an agent for the controlling authority, the controlling authority itself being responsible back to a supreme international body, in the Council of the League of Nations. I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that he should seriously consider whether he cannot manage to bring both the administrations of these two islands into line together.
      Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I happen to have been one of the three representatives of the British Government at the League of Nations which met at Geneva in 1922, when the whole subject which we have discussed to-night was brought up, and when the Australian Government, with the rest of the Governments represented at the League of Nations, took this matter into consideration. I think that the discussion was largely introduced by a society represented by the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. J. Harris). Accusations such as have been made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Black) were made at that meeting, and naturally for a time my sympathy was entirely with those who were making the accusations, because if there are atrocities inflicted upon the workmen employed it is the duty of every man to take them into consideration. The Australian Government were represented by Sir Joseph Cook, and another gentleman, whose name I do not for the moment remember, and at the moment they happened to represent a Labour Government. They resented with all the force at their command the accusations which they thrust back upon the accusers, and they made such statements as to convince the whole Council that the administration of Nauru by the Government of Australia had been traduced by people who did not understand the situation. Now, after two years, when improvements have admittedly been

      1129
      secured by the agitation that has been carried on, we hear the same old stale suggestions and accusations made against Australia—because it is Australia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The way in which they were resented by the Australian representatives at the League of Nations two years ago showed clearly that they looked upon it as something entirely personal to themselves.
      Captain BERKELEY: May we make it quite plain that there is in no sense any accusation intended to be made by anyone in this party against the Australian Government, but that we merely draw attention to the manner in which these contracts have been entered into in China which has nothing to do with the Australian Government.
      Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: It is the Australian Government at this Council of Geneva which took over the entire responsibility of contracts. The complete sovereignty of this island practically for five years was transferred to the single Dominion of Australia, solely because it was discovered—
      Mr. HARRIS: Not sovereignty.
      Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I am using the wrong phrase, but the hon. Member understands what I mean. This arrangement to which reference has been made was come to because at first we were three equal authorities, but it was found impossible to conduct administration of the island with three sets of people, and so the agreement was arrived at by which the sole authority should be vested in one Dominion for five years, and in the next five years it is to go to New Zealand, and, I believe, that in the following five years it comes to this Parliament. It was because of the chaos that existed before that this new arrangements was arrived at. So that you are really attacking what has been decided as the result of some years' experience in the administration of the island. We may assume that Australia and the Australian Government are perfectly correct in considering every attack made on the administration of Nauru as an attack upon themselves. It is useless to burk the subject. When the Report of this Debate is published to-morrow, and the High Commissioner for Australia gets a copy of it, I warrant that the Colonial Office will be making all sorts of explanations of the speeches
      1130
      made by hon. Members opposite to-night [HON. MEMBERS: "And on the other side of the House!"] I do not care whether similar speeches have been made on this side of the House. It is perhaps only because hon. Members here do not understand it.
      I can assure the Committee that the Australian Government will look upon an attack on the administration of Nauru as an attack upon themselves. And they are entitled to do so. Some six or seven years hence, the British Government will be responsible entirely for the administration of this island. Hon. Members would resent, I am sure, a positive and definite attack upon our administration by the Dominion Parliament of Australia. In these circumstances, it is essential for the smooth working of the interests between the Dominions and ourselves, that speakers who make these violent attacks upon the administration, because of an alleged want of humanity on the part of the administrators towards the people in the employ of, or under the control of, the Australian Government, should be careful to distinguish and to direct their remarks to the proper quarters. For some reasons I sympathise with the speech of the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce). It may be all right on an ordinary party platform to refer to the wages of the Chinamen, and to compare them with the wages of Englishmen in England Everybody knows, as a matter of fact, that the two things do not admit of comparison. It was well known, before any agitation began, that the Chinamen at Nauru were receiving four and five times as much in wages as they received in China. That is admitted. But the figure is nothing compared with the wages of our workmen here. At least, let us be fair to the Australian administration. It is grossly unfair to charge the Australian Government with being careless of the interest of the men in their employ.
      It has been said that the men live in compounds. There was not a sufficient number of the natives of the island to work the mines or to do anything beyond the tilling of the land. With reference to the compounds, the Australian Government admitted that these men were under a certain amount of restraint, and they were, rightly so, because it is impossible to allow the ordinary coolie Chinaman

      1131
      to roam aimless and uncontrolled among the aborigine population. If you are bound to have Chinamen there to develop the mines or the phosphate deposits—which you can dispute if you like—it is a moral certainty you must have them controlled under such conditions that they are not a danger to the people around them. Therefore, there is nothing in the contentions which have been made, and I merely rose to say that, having heard the whole of this discussion at the League of Nations two years ago, I resent the aspersions that are being cast upon the Administrator, who is responsible to the Australian Government.
      Mr. THOMAS: I am quite sure the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) is pleased at the amount of interest which has been evidenced in this Debate, and I wish to ask hon. Members whether they are considering this matter from the business point of view or the moral point of view? If it is from the business point of view I shall give them some facts. The original capital has paid, and is paying to-day 6 per cent. after full provision for sinking fund. That is the first point. The second point is that the money with which we are dealing is surplus profit over and above the 6 per cent. My hon. Friend opposite is in error and I am correcting him by the definite statement that this money is not new money; it is not additional capital but is the surplus after 6 per cent. has been paid to the Government. What we are asking is that, instead of this surplus being handed to the Treasury, it should be put back into this fund, a course to which New Zealand and Australia have already agreed. I shall state briefly the purposes for which the money is being used. I have already explained that we have received our full interest, that all provision is made for sinking fund, and I now wish to explain the use to which the additional surplus is to be put. It is to be used, first, for the purchase of a steamer for conveying labourers and supplies, which will amount to about £60,000; second, for buildings and plant, including a store, light railways, locomotives and other machinery; third, for the purchase of the royalty rights of the German company which held the Nauru concession
      1132
      before it was made over to the Pacific Phosphate Co., amounting to 1s. per ton, the total for which is £148,000 and which has already been paid to the Public Trustee and is set off against reparations. Therefore, I want the Committee to observe the business side of it—6 per cent. on your money, full provision for sinking fund, this going to a capital appreciation to which New Zealand and Australia have already agreed.
      Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Why is there no provision for interest or sinking fund on this £106,504?
      Mr. THOMAS: For this reason: because New Zealand and Australia and we felt, as a sound business proposition, that if you are putting your surpluses back into a business, you have confidence in the business, and you reap the reward by the development of your business.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: We do not get a penny of money out of it.
      Mr. THOMAS: When the hon. Member says that, what more interest does he want than 6 per cent.? Secondly, is any hon. Member of this House going to get up and say that it is not a good thing that at least 1 per cent. of the phosphates of the world should be in the British Empire? Is that a bad thing? That is what is secured by the Vote we are now taking. The third point I want to come to is that of the Chinese labour. I know the political virtue that has been extracted out of this subject too well to make any mistake, so far as our party is concerned. Therefore, I first want to observe that I guard myself against accepting the strictures against Australia. I would be making a profound mistake if I attempted to do it, and I am not going to accept it. All I am going to do is to say that everything that has been said in this Debate shall be communicated to the Australian Government, but it must not be taken that I accept it as accurate in any degree. That would be unfair. While it is true that I need not take that course, while it is true that an appeal under the Mandate could be made to the League of Nations, and I could quite legitimately ignore the whole situation, the relationship between the Dominions and ourselves is such that we need not treat each other as enemies, and I certainly do not propose to do so.

      1133
      If there is a complaint, they will be as ready to consider it as we would be if they made it to us, and it is only in that sense that the communication will be made.
      I must, however, correct the statement with regard to the wives. It is not true, as has been alleged, that no provision is made for the wives; but the Chinamen, for reasons of their own, have no desire to bring them. With regard to their agreement, it is not made in China: it is made in Nauru. With regard to the remarks that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley) made as to the difference between the two islands, I can hardly take him seriously. Either he did know that one was a mandate and the other a Colony—
      Captain BERKELEY: Certainly!
      Mr. THOMAS: Then if he knew that, he must have known that that is the exact difference in the Government, and therefore, when my hon. and gallant Friend asks. "Why lump it into one Vote?" he knows very well why it is lumped into one Vote. It is not because we are asking the House of Commons for money for the Government of this place. We are not asking the House of Commons for a copper. We are merely asking the House of Commons to sanction the surplus profits that I have already mentioned going back into the business that has already proved satisfactory.
      Captain BERKELEY: That is the whole point of my objection. The House is voting surplus profits, which would otherwise have gone to the Exchequer, back into the business again. In the case of the one business, we can exercise a supervisory control, but in the case of the other, according to the right hon. Gentleman, we cannot exercise any supervisory control whatever.
      Mr. THOMAS: I refuse to accept strictures against one of our own Dominions.
      Captain BERKELEY: I am not making any strictures.
      Mr. THOMAS: I have made it perfectly clear that, so far as my evidence goes, Australia is as anxious to do the right thing as we are. I again repeat that I will communicate the statements made to Australia in the spirit I have already
      1134
      indicated. I ask the House to grant this Vote on the following grounds. Firstly, that it is a good sound commercial business proposition, and a very successful one: secondly, that it will be a mistake to lose this important fertiliser: thirdly, that Australia and New Zealand are getting their share in what we are entitled to; and fourthly, because the business will prosper as a result of this money being retained.
      Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is there any chance of the British farmer getting any of this phosphate?
      Mr. THOMAS: We would be delighted if the British farmer would take it.
      Mr. SAMUEL: It is not on sale.
      Mr. THOMAS: I do not want to go too technically into it. I could do so. The British farmer has experienced difficulty in this matter, and we are hoping that he may be helped. That is why we do not want, to lose control of this matter
      Mr. JAMES HOPE: The purposes for which this money is being asked may be, and I think probably are, sound and excellent, and I have no sympathy with the criticisms that have been made upon the Australian Government. But as a Supplementary Estimate presented to Parliament, I can hardly conceive anything more faulty. It is really such as to make the ghosts of Gladstone and Sir W. Harcourt rise out of their graves. I am rather sorry for the Colonial Secretary, because I have my doubts as to whether he ought to be presenting this Estimate at all. If the Government thinks it well to make an advance without interest and without any prospect of repayment, or any security for repayment, that should be put forward by the Secretary to the Treasury. At any rate, for part of this money the Colonial Secretary cannot be responsible. In so far as it goes to Ocean Island, he might be, and if there were strictures on the Government of Ocean Island he would have to answer for the administrator of the Western Pacific; but in so far as this grant goes to Nauru, the Australian Government is for the time being in absolute responsibility, and it would be most improper for the Colonial Secretary to accept any responsibility for the actions of the Australian Government. Unfortunately, however, the whole sum is lumped into one, and

      1135
      we cannot tell how much of it goes to Ocean Island and how much to Nauru, and I think the stricture of the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley) is a perfectly fair one. We vote this £106,000 on the basis of accounts that were closed some 21 months ago, but although the accounts were closed then, we have not got them. We have not got any balance at all. I do not quite understand about the 21 months. From when and to when do they run? He said this sum represented the profits for a period made up of two years or parts of years making 21 months in all. I cannot understand what the 21 months are. Are they 21 months beginning September, 1920, and ending June, 1922? That has not been brought out, and I think it should be brought out.
      Mr. THOMAS: Undoubtedly. It was June, 1920, to June, 1922.
      Mr. HOPE: But the right hon. Gentleman said they made up 21 months.
      Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend said 21 months.
      Mr. HOPE: Are they for one year? The right hon. Gentleman gave two distinct figures, making up the £106,000 in all. I come to another point. He says that these are made up of surpluses of two distinct years. It may be one thing to have a surplus, but are they true profits? I understand the surplus is arrived at by the difference between what is receipts and what is called the course as defined in the agreement of 1920. That is purely an arbitrary figure, and includes the administration cost of the island. Of that we have no particulars. No commercial auditor would pass an account like this on the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman. Before we sanction this we should have more information on the point. In the development of this island, interest should be debited and recorded so that we may get it if the business proves to be a success. The 6 per cent. only applies to the original capital, and there is no mention of 6 per cent. due in this case and no mention of the repayment of capital. If this business is so sure of success and is based upon so firm a foundation why cannot the Administrator go into the money market and get a loan in the ordinary way. Why should
      1136
      we have the necessity of putting back this money without any security for the return on capital?
      Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend must be in error. The figures, I have just ascertained, are to July, two years to July. When you say why not go on the amounts. I have explained that Australia has agreed to put their amounts in. If we refuse this Vote, the only difference would be to remove the 42, 42, and 16, and transfer whatever is the relative value of our 42 to Australia and New Zealand. Would you desire that?
      Mr. HOPE: The only answer I would give is that it is bad business from our point of view and that of Australia and New Zealand We should ask about this £106,000 as a Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman says that we shall have the amount in three or four months. He cannot want all this money in the course of the present month. This Amendment proposes to give him £26,000. That is surely enough to show the good will of this House, and it is surely more than he can want in the course of the present financial year. I suggest he should accept this Amendment, be content with his £26,000, and bring his balance at a time when he can have the whole figures, and the House can judge whether the expenditure is justified or wasted. I trust he will accede to that. If he does not, I am afraid we shall have to go to a Division.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do hope my hon. Friend will not press this reduction to a Division. After all, it was the late Government, on the representation of the Australian Commissioner and the New Zealand Commissioner, who urged that we should put this money back into the business. I do think it would be extraordinarily misinterpreted in the Dominions if any such vote was given by the Unionist party. I am the person who knows probably more about the whole story than anyone else, and I have been rising the whole of the evening to take part in the Debate, and have been unable to catch the Chairman's eye. If I had had time to go into the whole story of this Estimate and into the whole of the circumstances of Nauru and Ocean Island, I think a great many rather unfortunate speeches which have been delivered in this Debate, and which will be heard out-side

      1137
      side these walls, need never have been delivered, and some explanation could have been given.
      I profoundly regret that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary did not make a fuller explanation at the very outset of the Vote. In the position I was in this House, from the very beginning when this agreement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and signed by him in July, 1919, in Paris, I knew of it, and when it came to the House I moved the rejection of the agreement. I say I profoundly regret that the British taxpayers' money—and I still regret it—ever went into this business. Having been in, it was my duty last year under the late Secretary of State for the Colonies to enter into negotiations with the Australian and New Zealand Governments both in regard to the business side of it, and in regard to regularising questions that have been raised at the permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, and I represented the British Empire on that Commission. I had a great deal of personal reason to go into the whole matter. It was regularised and straightened out the following year. I submit that on this occasion it is the desire that if Parliament, contrary to my advice, did ratify and did approve of the Nauru Agreement, signed by the right hon. Gentleman I have mentioned, Mr. Hughes—as Parliament decided that, and embodied the Agreement in a Statute—we have no option, unless we legislate first, but to abide by that Agreement. What is that Agreement? It says that
      the Commissioners shall decide by a majority. In the course of last year the majority of shareholders, that is to say, the Australian and New Zealand Commission, who are much closer to Nauru than our Commissioner who is in London, decided that, for the purpose of carrying on the business more efficiently, ay! and more economically, and with a view to reducing the cost, it was desirable that more capital should be put into the business. The only way to raise that capital is for the various shareholders, namely, the British Government and New Zealand Government, to put more capital in—
      Mr. THOMAS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the right hon. Gentleman wants his Vote now, and I have a good deal to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—I think it is extremely unfair that the right hon. Gentleman, who knows that I am more concerned in this than any man, should be deprived of the chance of saying some-thing. I understand it is the wish of the House—
      Mr. THOMAS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
      Question put, "That the Question be now put."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 97.

      Division No. 12.]

      AYES.

      [11.0 p.m.

      Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

      Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

      Falconer, J.

      Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

      Finney, V. H.

      Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

      Cape, Thomas

      Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

      Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

      Chapple, Dr. William A.

      Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

      Alstead, R.

      Church, Major A. G.

      George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

      Ammon, Charles George

      Clarke, A.

      Gillett, George M.

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Climie, R.

      Gorman, William

      Ayles, W. H.

      Cluse, W. S.

      Gosling, Harry

      Baker, W. J.

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

      Banton, G.

      Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Barnes, A.

      Compton, Joseph

      Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

      Comyns-Carr, A. S.

      Gray, Frank (Oxford)

      Batey, Joseph

      Costello, L. W. J.

      Greenall, T.

      Berkeley, Captain Reginald

      Cove, W. G.

      Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

      Black, J. W.

      Crittall, V. G.

      Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

      Bondfield, Margaret

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool)

      Bonwick, A.

      Dickson, T.

      Grundy, T. W.

      Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

      Dodds, S. R.

      Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

      Broad, F. A.

      Dudgeon, Major C. R.

      Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

      Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

      Dukes, C.

      Hardle, George D.

      Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

      Duncan, C.

      Harney, E. A.

      Brunner, Sir J.

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

      Harris, John (Hackney, North)

      Buchanan, G.

      Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

      Harris, Percy A.

      Buckle, J.

      Egan, W. H.

      Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

      Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

      Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

      Stamford, T. W.

      Hastings, Sir Patrick

      Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

      Stephen, Campbell

      Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

      Haycock, A. W.

      Maxton, James

      Stranger, Innes Harold

      Hayday, Arthur

      Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

      Sullivan, J.

      Hayes, John Henry

      Middleton, G.

      Sunlight, J.

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. A.

      Mond, H.

      Sutton, J. E.

      Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

      Montague, Frederick

      Tattersall, J. L.

      Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

      Morel, E. D.

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

      Hirst, G. H.

      Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

      Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

      Hobhouse, A. L.

      Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

      Thomson, Walter T. (Middlesbro, W.)

      Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

      Morse, W. E.

      Thornton, Maxwell R.

      Hoffman, P. C.

      Moulton, Major Fletcher

      Thurtle, E.

      Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

      Murray, Robert

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Hudson, J. H.

      Naylor, T. E.

      Tout, W. J.

      Isaacs, G. A.

      O'Grady, Captain James

      Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

      Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

      Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

      Turner, Ben

      Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

      Owen, Major G.

      Turner-Samuels, M.

      Jewson, Dorothea

      Paling, W.

      Varley, Frank B.

      John, William (Rhondda, West)

      Palmer, E. T.

      Viant, S. P.

      Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

      Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

      Vivian, H.

      Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

      Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

      Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

      Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

      Phillipps, Vivian

      Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

      Potts, John S.

      Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Raffan, P. W.

      Warne, G. H.

      Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

      Raffety, F. W.

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

      Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

      Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

      Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

      Kedward, R. M.

      Rea, W. Russell

      Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)

      Keens, T.

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

      Lansbury, George

      Ritson, J.

      Weir, L. M.

      Laverack, F. J.

      Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

      Welsh, J. C.

      Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

      Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Westwood, J.

      Leach, W.

      Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

      White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

      Lee, F.

      Royce, William Stapleton

      Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

      Lessing, E.

      Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

      Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

      Linfield, F. C.

      Scurr, John

      Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

      Livingstone, A. M.

      Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

      Williams, Lt -Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)

      Loverseed, J. F.

      Sexton, James

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Lowth, T.

      Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

      Windsor, Walter

      Lunn, William

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

      McCrae, Sir George

      Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

      Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

      M'Entee, V. L.

      Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

      Wright, W.

      Mackinder, W.

      Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

      Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

      Madan, H.

      Smith, T. (Pontefract)

      Mansel, Sir Courtenay

      Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      March, S.

      Snell, Harry

      Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Frederick

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

      Hall.

      Marley, James

      Spence, R.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

      Elveden, Viscount

      Perkins, Colonel E. K.

      Ainsworth, Captain Charles

      Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

      Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

      Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

      FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.

      Reid, D. D. (County Down)

      Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

      Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

      Remer, J. R.

      Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

      Greene, W. P. Crawford

      Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

      Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

      Greenwood, William (Stockport)

      Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

      Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Gretton, Colonel John

      Ropner, Major L.

      Barnston, Major Sir Harry

      Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

      Roundell, Colonel R. F.

      Becker, Harry

      Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Beckett, Sir Gervase

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Sandeman, A. Stewart

      Betterton, Henry B.

      Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

      Savery, S. S.

      Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

      Henn, Sir Sydney H.

      Shepperson, E. W.

      Blundell, F. N.

      Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

      Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

      Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

      Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

      Stanley, Lord

      Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

      Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      Burman, J. B.

      Hood, Sir Joseph

      Sutcliffe, T.

      Butler, Sir Geoffrey

      Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

      Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

      Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

      Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

      Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

      Huntingfield, Lord

      Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

      Chapman, Sir S.

      Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Hiffe, Sir Edward M.

      Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

      Clayton, G. C.

      Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

      Warrender, Sir Victor

      Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Weston, John Wakefield

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

      Kindersley, Major G. M.

      Wheler, Lieut. Col. Granville C. H.

      Cope, Major William

      King, Captain Henry Douglas

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

      Lamb, J. Q.

      Wise, Sir Frederic

      Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Page

      McLean, Major A.

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

      Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

      Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

      Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

      Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

      Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Eden, Captain Anthony

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Nall and

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

      Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

      Ednam, Viscount

      Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

      Resolution agreed to.

      Question, "That Item K be reduced by £80,000," put accordingly, and negatived.
      Original Question again proposed.
      It being after Eleven of the clock and objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the business.
      Mr. THOMAS rose in his place, and claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do I understand that the Minister in charge means to prevent further discussion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS [28th February].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the Year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, the sum of £2,958,020 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. William Graham.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL
  "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
  WAR CHARGES (VALIDITY) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  LEGITIMACY BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  LUNACY LAWS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: I desire to raise a matter that was mentioned at Question Time. It is of such great importance that had I been able to move the Adjournment for 8.15 I should certainly have done so, because in my opinion and in that of experts of high authority, there is a condition in this country due to the maladministration of the lunacy laws which is creating a very definite and scandalous menace to personal liberty. The facts that have recently been revealed in the case of Harnett and Bond and the facts that are standing to be disclosed for any inquiry prove conclusively that in many cases people who are sane and perfectly all right to be at large are being immured within the walls of asylums without having any right to be there at all. I wish I had had more time at my disposal to have gone into the position in regard to the question of certification, and to have dealt with various matters appertaining to the administration of the lunacy laws in connection with discharge and also with medical inspection. Unfortunately, the time at my disposal must make my observations somewhat fugitive in order that I may cover as much ground as possible. It may be useful to read one or two communications which I have received in regard to this question, and which startlingly disclose the very serious position which exists in connection with the administration of the lunacy laws. One letter says:
  "DEAR SIR,—Should you desire it, I can furnish you with useful information with regard to the existing conditions behind the scenes in mental hospitals. With my left hand now resting on my Bible, I assure you that 19 out of 20 attendants in asylums are cruel, cowardly brutes"—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"]
  "This I have seen with my own eyes, and more than once heard the fact voiced by people outside, and even by two attendants themselves. One nurse told me she had nearly fainted on seeing a junior nurse ill-treat a patient, and a senior warned her that the would report her to the matron, but desisted, unfortunately, when the cruel girl entreated her. One attendant told me she was kind to patients when she first went on to the staff, but as the other attendants laughed at her, she soon joined the ranks of the cruel."
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what name is attached

  1143
  to that letter which makes such serious accusations?
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: I am not prepared to disclose the name. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is no use saying "Oh!" I am prepared to disclose to the Noble Lord the letter which I hold in my hand, and which he can verify, but I am not prepared to give any name for the purpose of its being published in the Press.
  Dr. GUEST: On a point of Order. Is it desirable that very serious accusations of this character should be made in a way which appears to me to be rather reckless?
  Mr. SPEAKER: My attention had been distracted for the moment, and I did not hear particularly what the hon. Member was saying, but with the hon. Member's experience, he must surely know that he must use some caution in matters which affect personal reputations.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Will the hon. Member say whether the letter is from an inmate of an asylum, or a doctor, or a layman?
  Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Is it not in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to make such reflections as he likes in this House on the conduct of the lunacy laws in general, without interference?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, but I gather from what has been said that there was some question of a personal character. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: I have made no personal reflection whatever. The whole thing is obstruction by two or three Members.
  Dr. GUEST: On a point of explanation, as your attention was distracted at the time, may I say that a suggestion was made that 19 out of 20 attendants are vicious and cruel, or words to that effect.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a statement for which the hon. Member must take his own responsibility.
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: I am here for the purpose of animadverting upon the cruel administration of the Lunacy Laws. Surely, I cannot be expected to throw bouquets at the asylums I am attacking. I am quoting instances which are of far less importance
  1144
  than the facts revealed in the recent case of Harnett and Bond. I am endeavouring to substantiate the fact that the case is not an isolated one but has been and can be repeated in innumerable cases, and I am endeavouring to adduce evidence for which I take the responsibility, and the documents in connection with which I am prepared to hand over immediately, so that any hon. Member can get up and make an attack on the point. I come to another letter, in which my correspondent sets out certain things, and says:
  "I think you will agree that the unfortunate conditions obtaining at a certain asylum are equal to, if not worse than, the terrible sufferings at the present time, which we read about in Siberia."
  I am not mentioning the particular asylum, but I wish to state that there are conditions which are being complained of by people outside asylums, which ought to be inquired into, and which not only provoke but justify the setting up of a Royal Commission.
  Lord E. PERCY: In connection with these letters which are put anonymously to the House, has the hon. Member investigated the facts himself? If not, in what sense are they evidence to bring before this House?
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: I am within the ruling of Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I have been in communication with an authoritative person, whose word I am prepared to accept, who recited various cases to me as to the way in which the Lunacy Laws are maladministered, and I am not prepared to enter into a passage-at-arms with the Noble Lord in connection with the few words which I have got to say.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: May I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has only a few minutes in which to conclude.
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: There is no doubt something must be done in connection with the facts revealed in the Harnett case. May I read the following passage from the "Law Times" of 1st March:
  "The disclosures in the case of Harnett v. Bond, which was tried before Mr. Justice Lush and a special jury, will come as a shock to most persons. That at the present day, a sane person, fit to be at large and not dangerous to himself or others—and this was the finding of the jury—should be confined in an asylum from 1912 to 1921, when

  1145
  he escaped, passes belief. It is clear that the existing precaution to prevent sane persons from being detained in asylums are insufficient, and some sort of judicial inquiry must be provided."
  Of course, there are urgent and dangerous cases which call for immediate action, but that full safeguards should be taken to prevent improper detention has been shown by the recent case. I have personally gone carefully and meticulously into all the facts connected with certification, discharge, and medical inspection, and am bound to say that I have ample evidence, which I am prepared to produce to any Member of this House, that in every head and department of the administration of the lunacy laws not only is there neglect but danger to personal liberty. I urge upon the Government and this House, which are responsible for the liberty of every person, that a Royal Commission should be immediately set up to look into the bad conditions prevailing in the administration of the lunacy laws.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): In less than a minute which
  1146
  remains to me, may I point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a most sympathetic answer when the question was put this afternoon, and nothing I can say to-night, having regard to the fact, as hinted in the answer given by my right hon. Friend that an appeal might be lodged, can add to that answer. That appeal has now been lodged, and the matter is sub judice, and it would be improper for me to refer to the case at all, but I understand that the appeal may be heard at an early date, after which the Prime Minister, I feel sure, will consider the advisability of having the inquiry started at once. I hope that will satisfy the House.
  Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: Will not the Committee of Inquiry be set up in any case?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Clearly I cannot to-night go beyond the promise made by the Prime Minister this afternoon.
  It bring half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.