HC Deb 30 May 1927 vol 207 cc35-175

The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir HERBERT NIELD:

In page 5, line 28, leave out the words "Amongst the."

In page 5, line 29, after the word "establishments," insert the words shall be issued only after consideration by the National (Whitley) Council for the Administrative and Legal Departments of the Civil Service in accordance with paragraph twenty-two of the constitution of that council, as approved by His Majesty's Government, and that such Regulations when issued shall lie upon the Table of both Houses for twenty days of Parliamentary Session before becoming operative, and.


The first two Amendments are outside the scope of the Bill.


On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether the basis of your decision is that these Amendments refer to Regulations which are not directed by the Bill itself?


No. The subject-matter of the Clause is a particular condition with regard to combinations of certain civil servants, and this goes a great deal further than that with regard to Civil Service Regulations. I do not say that because of the restrictions in this Clause something else ought to be done. That might be a matter for argument, but the actual proposals put forward cannot be read into this Clause. It might, no doubt, be in order to say this Clause makes certain other things necessary. I do not rule at present on that. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) which is the first Amendment I select.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, after the word "servants," to insert the words other than established civil servants engaged in occupations analogous to occupations prevailing outside His Majesty's civil establishments. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in charge of this Clause. I know his great sympathy with the Civil Service, and as, I suppose, he has been the head of more Government Departments than any other Minister in the present Cabinet, and a very brilliant head, he knows the capabilities of the Civil Service, their loyalty, their patience, their industry and the pride the country has every right to feel in them. The right hon. Gentleman further will sympathise with me, and I with him, when I say I speak with great knowledge of one class of civil servants, the dockyard employés, who will, of course, come under the provisions of this Clause except as regards any rights to benefit that they may have in outside bodies. These men who work in their several trades in the dockyards will, unless my Amendment be accepted, be prohibited from belonging to their ordinary craft unions. There has never been any sort of trouble with the men in the Royal Dockyards. There has never been any threat of a strike. Their regular machinery of negotiation is exactly the same machinery as their respective unions use, and the same negotiators in their respective unions bargain on behalf of their members who have employment in the dockyards. It will be an extraordinary rupture in the long years of negotiation which hale gone on since the unions have been recognised by the Admiralty to say that no longer can these trained negotiators who understand the whole facts of the case, who know personally the officials of the Admiralty with whom they have to deal negotiate on behalf of their members and the dockyard workers are to be cut off, a class apart, segregated, not allowed to be affiliated to their mates outside doing exactly the same work in industrial employment, and you will have an extraordinary position whereby the men building warships in Chatham, or Portsmouth, or Plymouth will not be allowed to belong to the same union as the men building warships at Elswick or on the Clyde, men doing exactly the same work. Those great engineering firms, Armstrongs and Vickers, have the same established list of men and the same negotiations take place. When the Admiralty want to cut down the wages of their own established men, as they sometimes do, they point to the wages of these great employers who build ships on the Clyde, on the Tyne and elsewhere.

It is a ridiculous position. The dockyard workers received a well-deserved tribute from the right hon. Gentleman himself for their excellent conduct during the War and the very fine service they did for the country. They were prohibited from enlisting or joining the Fleet. They were kept at their work and never failed the country once. I am now speaking as an officer who served in ships built both in His Majesty's Dockyard and in private yards, and the dockyard built ships are infinitely better, from the point of view of reliability, than those built in private yards. They may be, in some cases, more expensive, but the excellence of the work on the material is beyond question. These are the people who are to be segregated, cut off from their mates and refused permission to affiliate. That, I think, is an insult to them. I do not want to labour the point, but I think it is clear that here, where you have boilermakers, rivetters, fitters, engineers and moulders, all these craft unions in the dockyards, it is absurd to say that because these men are established in the dockyards they are not to belong to their appropriate unions. The position is ridiculous, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will admit that it is so, and agree that this part of the Bill must be redrafted like so many other parts of the Bill. The Attorney-General was sensible enough to see that parts of his Bill would have to be dropped, and I do not despair of the Chancellor of the Exchequer having to agree to redraft Clause 5.

With regard to the Civil Service as a whole, I want to make this clear to the Committee, because there has been a lot of, what I may call, cinematographing argument about this part of the Bill. A sort of picture has been drawn of the whole Civil Service downing pens, downing hammers, downing post bags or whatever they work with, and going on strike and coercing the Government. The usual word used is "loyalty"; they cannot have divided loyalty. Let us look at the actual facts. The more irresponsible of the Government apologists have no advocates now. The argument is, that the Civil Service is seething with Bolshevism, that there are Communist cells in every Government Office, and that they are only straining at the leash to take part in some vast revolutionary strike. That is the sort of word-painting we get from the other side, and especially on the platforms outside. Let us look at the actual facts. There has been no strike in any Civil Service Department since 1890, when a strike occurred in the Post Office. That was before the Post Office Union had affiliated with the trade union movement and the Labour party. Since the affiliation there has been no strike action taken in the Post Office. The only strike of Civil Servants of any magnitude at all was that of the Post Office servants in 1890, and it affected the postmen and sorters at one of the large London offices.

Since the Post Office unions have been affiliated there has not been a strike, and yet, the Post Office workers, I am informed, are probably the most advanced, politically, in the whole Civil Service. A strike fund was created by the Post Office Union but it has been suspended for many years at the request of the members, and the money subscribed to that fund has actually been returned to the individual members. The rule dealing with the strike fund still appears in the Union Rule Book, but is headed by a statement that it is suspended until such time as its reinstitution shall be authorised by a ballot of the membership taken at the discretion of the Executive Council in which a majority of two-thirds of the actual membership shall be recorded. There are hon. Gentlemen here who will deal with this matter with much greater knowledge than I possess.


Let them deal with it; do not touch something you do not know anything at all about.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I have as much right to speak about the Post Office as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones).


I do not want to speak about it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I have more right to speak about dockyards than the hon. Gentleman has.


You have not.


I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should be allowed to develop his argument.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I said that there were hon. Gentlemen who, naturally, know very much more about the details of this than I do, but I am attempting to make a broad case. If the Government succeed in obtaining this privilege, they will be placed above all other employers of labour in the country in this way. They will be the only large employers of labour—and the Government are very large employers of labour—whose servants will not be allowed to belong to the unions of their respective crafts. That will place the Government in a privileged position. The rates and conditions prevalent in outside industries are frequently quoted by the Government officials when dealing with the lower grades of the Civil Service in regard to rates of pay and conditions. It will be very unfair if employés are not allowed to look to their appropriate unions in order that they may check those statements. If the thigh officials in the Admiralty or the Post Office are able to point to the rates and conditions obtaining in outside firms as arguments for resisting demands for increases of pay or for enforcing reductions, it will be unfair if the persons affected have not the means of checking the figures which they would have if they retained membership of their craft union. Already civil servants suffer from a great many political disabilities. They are obliged to resign if they stand for Parliament, and if they are defeated at the polls they are not reinstated. They have clearly to understand that they will not be reinstated—except as an act of grace.

There is another point I want to make, and that is the question of the conduct of the officials of the Civil Service associations formed into unions at the time of the so-called general strike last year. This argument is sure to be used. I wish to direct the Committee's attention to the fact that at the trade union conference those who spoke for the civil servants made it perfectly plain that they had no power at all to instruct their members to withdraw their labour. It is true that some momentary assistance was offered, but that, after all, could have been done in a private capacity, and would not have been against the law. There is nothing to prevent the Post Office servants, or dockyard employés or clerks subscribing to the funds of miners who are locked out, any more than there is to prevent the Prince of Wales from subscribing or desiring to subscribe. If these civil servants in their unions had affiliated with the Conservative party, does anyone suggest that there would have been this demand for the withdrawal of their civil rights?



Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) says that if they had been affiliated with the Conservative party there would have been just the same demand.


Just the same objection.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Does the hon. Member say that there would have been the same demand for this Clause?


I know nothing about that. I say there would have been the same objection.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I can believe this of the hon. Member, that if he had been the power behind the throne in the Conservative party, he would have done his best to prevent this Clause being brought forward. I accept what he says there, and I hope his vote will be with us in the Lobby. Unfortunately, as we all know, the hon. Member is not the power behind the throne in the Conservative party. Others with a much less sense of justice and fairness, rule that great conglomeration. Speaking generally, it is because These unions of civil servants represent the great mass of weekly wage-earners of the country and the poorer masses of the people, that they wish to support the party for which I have the honour to speak. That is the reason for the demand made in this Clause. It is an attempt to hit back at them through this Measure.

The trade unions affected are the Admiralty and Royal Dockyard Draughtsmen's Association, the Association of Civil Service Sorting Assistants, the Association of Officers of Taxes, the Civil Service Clerical Association, the Post Office Controlling Officers' Association, the Post Office Engineering Union, the Union of Post Office Workers and the established workmen in the dockyard, to whom I have already referred. The broad reasons for which I ask the Committee to accept my Amendment are, that this affiliation has been permitted for 30 years, and there has been no undesirable result. No complaint has been made about the affiliation, until this Bill was introduced. We went through all these trying years, with many great strikes, and there was no cause of complaint expressed by the Government. No Civil Service trade union has either an active strike policy or a strike fund. That is a fact, and the head of the Treasury knows it perfectly well. No Civil Service trade union took any active part in the general strike—none whatever. The Government as employers have no right to any greater privileges where its workpeople and employés are concerned than a private employer. In fact, a Government in which the Executive is becoming so powerful, and so powerful in the Courts—in the last resort it is armed with very great powers in the Courts, as representing the King—is the least deserving of special advantages in dealing with the huge numbers which a modern State employs as workpeople.

While the conditions of civil servants are determined by comparison with conditions of similar workpeople in outside employment, they should be entitled to take part with those employés outside the Civil Service who are doing similar work to themselves, in mutual attempts to secure their betterment. It is obvious that the larger the numbers associated with unions of persons doing similar work, the greater their bargaining power, the greater control they have over their standard of life and the greater power they have in dealing with the backward employers who want to depress wages and lower conditions of employment. The affiliation of Civil Service trade unions has in no way injured the Civil Service as a whole, and there is no reason for this Clause being inserted. My Amendment takes away part of the sting from the Clause, and does something to remove what I can only say is an affront to a very loyal body of public servants.


I want to avail myself of the permission to have a general discussion in relation to the civil servants affected by this Clause. I do not ask, as the last speaker did, for definite classes to be cut out, because they are very much the same in the nature of their employment as those who are engaged in similar occupations outside. I desire to voice the opinion of a large number of loyal civil servants who have never contemplated allying themselves with the Trade Union Council, or taking any sides in that way to use public opinion outside to try to force the Government to concede their terms. What I wish to do is to put before the Committee the position in which these particular civil servants are placed. They have, apparently, no remedy for their grievances. Although on paper there does exist the Whitley Council and a variety of other organisations, in practice they are useless, for reasons which I shall state. The civil servants concerned are a large body of intellectual men; many of them have high educational standards. They have to pass some kind of examination, as is the case with the ex-service men whose examination has been discussed so often in this House.

These men have no wish whatever to ally themselves with organisations outside to get them to take up their case and to force the authorities to concede it, but they do ask for means whereby their grievances may be met. I am credibly informed that the organisations which do exist at the present time and which are intended to protect these men are really largely made useless by the control exercised by the senior departmental officers. The Whitley Council, when it arrives at a decision, can get no further if objection happens to be taken by a departmental chief. Questions which often arise as to the meaning of phrases in the Regulations or in the Statute are impossible to be dealt with by the Council, and it can only operate with the full consent and concurrence of the higher departmental officers. Then there is the Industrial Court. I am told that the Industrial Court is never able to get beyond a certain stage if there is a difference of opinion between the staff side and the official side. Therefore, the men are only left with direct representation to the head of the Government

A large proportion of these civil servants, feeling acutely the position in which they are placed, their helplessness, approached the Prime Minister, and asked him to receive a deputation. I have here a copy of the letter which was sent to him containing that request. Their position was placed clearly before him, and he was asked to receive the deputation in order that they might put their grievances before him. For some reason or other the Prime Minister declined to receive the deputation. It is a very improper thing, in these days of democracy, that a large body of public servants should be without any redress at all. Some years ago I had to make representations on behalf of an Inland Revenue servant, a man who had served a great number of years, who had always been complimented by his chief and who had rendered excellent service during the War in addition to his ordinary departmental duties. For some reason or other, he was never selected for advancement and promotion, and when I made a strong case on his behalf, it was intimated to me that I was very likely to get the man dismissed, because he had put his case for redress before a Member of Parliament. I can quite understand that it is very embarrassing to have individual cases put into the hands of Members of Parliament, but if that is not open to these men, surely the other channel should be open as far as possible for them to get their grievances redressed.

This House, I understood, was instituted for the purpose of redressing grievances, whether they come from the community at large or from individuals. What I ask is that there should be a sympathetic consideration on the part of the Government. If it be not possible to move an Amendment to the Clause providing that certain steps shall be taken before the Regulations are issued, I hope I shall have an opportunity to ask the Government to consider machinery which will do away with the undoubted grievance that exists now. Take, for instance, the number of Civil Servants employed in the Royal Courts of Justice, and outside in offices associated with the Royal Courts of Justice. I wonder if hon. Members know that the advancement and dismissal of these men are really in the hands of one individual. Nominally the patron is the Lord Chancellor, but actually it is the Permanent Secretary. There are hundreds of men who are dependent upon the control exercised by that official. I do not think that ought to be so. The whole class of civil servants who are paid out of public money, should have that feeling of security, which a proper tribunal, an impartial tribunal, to whom they could appeal in case of need would give. I am assured that 98 per cent. of those on whose behalf I speak have served with the Colours, and they are not likely to be disloyal. A great proportion of them volunteered for active service.

I appeal to the Government on behalf of these persons, who have invariably been loyal and who do not desire to mix themselves up with any outside political body whatever. I appeal to the Government to give these men, if possible, before this Bill passes in its final form, some tribunal which shall give them some confidence that they will not be treated abruptly, without sympathy or a fair hearing. It is claimed that we do not condemn people unheard in our criminal Courts. Indeed, we put the burden of proof on the prosecution all the time; yet if this Clause passes and one of these men fails in his observance of loyalty, however slight it may be, he is to be dismissed the Service. There is no provision for a reprimand in his case. I ask the Government, in the interests of this vast body of men, that they shall not be left in the precarious position in which they are at present but that they shall be assured of an independent tribunal to which they can bring any grievance they may have.


The Committee will have heard the intervention of the right hon. and learned Member with a great deal of interest. While he was speaking I was wondering whether he is a little concerned as to his own position under this Clause. I understand that he is in receipt of a certain Government salary for a position which he occupies, and, as far as one can read this Bill, it would seem quite logical that he would be called upon to disaffiliate from all his political associations.


I do not know to what the hon. Member refers, but if it is the fact that I hold the Recordership of the City of York, may I inform the hon. Member that the meagre income I get from it comes from the City of York and not from public funds?

4.0 p.m.


The right hon. and learned Member is on firmer ground than I thought, and he is able to get away on a side issue while those in much humbler circumstances are evidently going to be brought within the ambit of this Bill. I want to put the main case for civil servants under this Clause. One has to deplore the fact that, as far as the discussions have proceeded, despite all the arguments that have been adduced, and however logical the case may be, it is apparent the Government have made up their mind that there shall be no departure from the letter and spirit of this Bill, no matter what injustices may be inflicted and no matter how strong the case that is advanced. In face of that position, the most one can do is to hope to get some elucidation as to the meaning of the Bill, and the classes that are to be brought under its operation. We are legislating in the dark on this Clause, as we have been doing all the time on this Bill. This Clause is no clearer than all the other Clauses. At the beginning it states that Regulations are to be laid before both Houses of Parliament which will embody the position of civil servants when this Bill becomes an Act. It is fair to ask whether these Regulations will be laid before Parliament before they are finally adopted, and whether the civil servants or their organisations will be consulted in the framing of the Regulations. The Clause as drawn is aimed at individuals and not at associations. The liability is on the individual; he is to be dismissed if he remains in membership with an association which is affiliated to any outside organisation. That is the import of the Clause. But before the Committee can properly discuss the provisions of the Clause, it is necessary that the meaning of some of the expressions used should be clearly understood. What, for instance, is meant when the Clause refers to "civil establishments" and "established civil servants?" Civil establishments; does that apply to the dockyards and places like Woolwich Arsenal; civil servants does that mean all those people employed in the Civil Service, or only those who hold a Civil Service certificate or are pensionable? There have been discharges in the dockyards, recently, of people who are called civil servants but who do not come under that nomemclature, in that they are not pensionable. It would seem extremely unfair that people who are likely to be for a number of years in the employ of the Government, and then in the employ of private contractors, should be in the position of being deprived largely of their civil rights under this Clause.

I want to point out exactly what the Clause does in other respects. It upsets a practice that has grown up for over 30 years, where a large number of wage earners in the Civil Service have been affiliated to the Trades Union Congress, and, in more recent times, to the Labour party. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has already said there has never been a strike of civil servants, except one which took place in 1890, when a number of postmen and sorters, driven to desperation by the wretched conditions of their employment and pay, embarked on a strike. From that date, with the growth of the organisation, and their embarkation on a different line of policy, the possibility of a strike has been further removed, and there has been no suggestion of a strike. In fact, not one of the Civil Service organisations has within its rules any power whereby it may embark on a strike. They have never even considered it from any point of view, but this Bill will, for the very first time, introduce the word "strike" into the vocabulary of civil servants, for they will be driven to the position that, having no other outlet and no means by which they can voice their grievances and get them considered fairly and with some measure, of publicity, they will be forced to consider ways and means against which hitherto they have set their faces. What is still more deplorable, you will have civil servants placed in the position in which they will look to one political party to redress what they believe to be a grievance set up by the present Government. In spite of my own political faith, I should deplore that condition of affairs in the Civil Service, but this Bill, and this Clause in particular, will bring that about.

It is curious to note that we shall be the only Civil Service in the world, practically, where we shall place such an embargo and such restrictions on civil servants. Since the Bill has been before the public, the association with which I am most intimately connected, has been in communication with all the important countries of the world as to the position that obtains there with regard to this matter, and there is no single instance where they are debarred from association, either with others outside for industrial action, or for Civil Service activities. Whether it be our own Colonies, the United States of America, France, Germany and other countries, all of them have the freedom that is now going to be denied to this country. Take the case that will probably strike us as being a little more analogous.

There was a rule in the United States Civil Service very similar to our own, that they were not allowed to take part in any political activities or to associate with other bodies outside with a view of getting the economic position considered. Now, however, they are allowed, and are actually affiliated to the American Federation of Labour; and only last year, or the year before, we had a representative from the trade union movement of America, who was a member of a post office organisation of the United States, who Came to this country as a fraternal delegate. The rule which I have mentioned, which says they were not allowed to associate with other bodies outside or bring political pressure to bear upon the American Legislature for the improvement of their conditions was rescinded by an Act of 24th August, 1912, which says: The right of persons employed in the Civil Service in the United States, either individually or collectively, to petition Congress or any Member thereof or to furnish information to either House of Congress or to any Committee or Member thereof, shall not be denied or interfered with. This Clause, coupled with the regulations now in force, will put the Civil Service in this country in a decidedly inferior position to that which obtains in the United States, and other countries in Europe. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir E. Nield) has intimated, there are regulations in the Service now, which forbid civil servants seeking the help or assistance of Members of Parliament to obtain redress or consideration of their grievances in this House.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill)

Their own personal grievances.


No; grievances of the Service. No civil servant may approach a Member of Parliament. If it is done, it is running a considerable risk. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of my own particular case, and the case of my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. MT. Baker), who is unfortunately ill and not able to be here? Both of us were in the Civil Service, and, when we attempted to bring cases before Members of Parliament and get them to act on behalf of ourselves and our colleagues, we were reminded of this rule and threatened with dismissal, if we persisted. It was because of that rule that the Civil Service took the line it did, in asking certain people to come out of the Service in order to seek election, so that they might voice the grievances of the members on the Floor of this House. These rules are still in the regulations, and we have no guarantee that the regulations that are now foreshadowed in this Bill will remove them or in any way cause them to be widened or improved upon. I ask the Committee if it will set aside the political prejudice which has hitherto guided its consideration of this Bill, and give some concern to the rights of a large body of men and women who, despite what might be said in this House, have, again and again, received testimony as to the impartiality, the ability and the faithfulness with which they discharge the duties with which they are entrusted. These people, numbering something like 300,000, of whom the greater part are in the Post Office, and the greater part are wage-earners in the ordinary accepted sense of the term, are going to be placed in a very inferior position and a very difficult position.


Will they all come within the scope of this Clause?


As far as I know, they will. As far as we know, we have a right to say that all these come within this Clause. There is nothing to indicate that they will not, but, as any rate, a large number of people employed in the Post Office, who are established civil servants in the generally accepted sense of the term, will come within the scope of this Bill. That being so, and there being no ease built up against the Civil Service as such, as having betrayed their trust or done anything to forfeit the confidence placed in them, we have the right to ask why this Clause is introduced. The excuse is the general strike of last year. That is only an excuse, because there can be no ease alleged or sustained against any Department of the Civil Service or any member of the Civil Service of having taken part. It is all nonsense to talk as has been done, again and again, in this connection. Some little time ago the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a deputation from the Civil Service Civil Rights Defence Committee, who put before him a number of points with regard to this particular case and asked his consideration of it. He replied to them in the course of a lengthy speech from which I take the following. He told the deputation that the general strike was not a mere movement of spontaneous sympathy with the mining population. The General Council of the Trades Union Congress may not have had the power to call out this or that particular union, the technical power, but they were authorised by their constituent bodies to act on behalf of the whole congress of trade unions, and they made their plans with the utmost detail. A regular plan of campaign was developed, over months of preparation, deciding which services were to be paralysed, on which day, who were the first line troops and who were the shock troops, and who were to be kept waiting until further development rendered it desirable for them to intervene—all this was worked out by the general staff. A vast plan was set up, similar to the mobilisation that takes place for the defence of a country against a foreign enemy, and the object of this plan was to paralyse the whole of the services of the community, their food, their fuel, their locomotion, everything on which their lives and their health depends, to paralyse them completely with a view to intimidating Parliament, newly elected, into doing what, according to its sovereign and paramount right, it was not prepared to do. One can imagine with what gusto the right hon. Gentleman rolled this off. We can hear him using the similes in which he so delights—mobilisation of troops, shock troops and general staff. How he delighted in shouting this off to the deputation. Nobody knows better, however, than the right hon. Gentleman that it was utter nonsense, and that there was no foundation of truth for it. The one thing that can be said is, that the general strike showed no general carefully prepared plan. It showed no well-laid schemes of planning and mobilisation Had it done so, the probable result, or at any rate the effects, would have been very different. The facts are, as the right hon. Gentleman himself knows only too well, that it was a spontaneous outburst and a desire to assist the miners in their distress because the Government had definitely aligned themselves against the miners. If there had been any well-thought plan, or any foundation for this attack on the Civil Service, then it is quite obvious, even to a person like myself, who, makes no profession to profound military knowledge and language like the right hon Gentleman—


The language is taken directly from the language of a circular issued on behalf of the trade unions a few days before.


The right hon. Gentleman may have taken some of it, but the Committee will recall, only too well, the well-known phrases of the right hon. Gentleman, and the spirit that underlies so many of the speeches that he has made in this House. As a matter of fact, had the Trade Union Congress thought this out, and had they desired to paralyse the Government, they would have made a start with the Civil Service. They would have endeavoured to make it effective there in order to paralyse the nation. The right hon. Gentleman is only helping me with my argument. It is because there was no intention, no plan, because it was never considered, that we have a right to ask him why this attack is being made upon civil servants in this particular direction. The right hon. Gentleman, it is true, can pick out certain wild speeches and utterances that were made by individuals here and there, as they are always made in times of great emotion and stress, and nobody knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman. One has only to read his record, and I can imagine that his speeches give most uncomfortable moments to those who are now ranged behind him. For instance, he has made the finest speech that has ever been made about the difficulty of trade unions entrusting themselves to the judgment of magistrates in this country, should they come before them, with regard to matters such as this. He made that speech in 1913.

Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman knows probably more than anyone else, and he ought to be prepared to give consideration and to make some allowance for others. He should rather have concern for the responsible people, for those who organised what actually took place, and he should have regard for the service that the Civil Service rendered during that time. It is true that sums of money were contributed by the Civil Service towards the maintenance of the dependants of the miners engaged in the dispute. Had they not a right to do it? Someone much higher than any civil servant gave a very commendable lead in that direction. In contrast with the Government, civil servants desired not to carry the warfare to the women and the children. The right hon. Gentleman did point out to the deputation that waited upon him that a certain amount of money had been contributed to the funds of the Trade Unions Council, in connection with the general strike. He must know as well as anyone else, for he reads as diligently as others, that the money was contributed and earmarked for cases of hardship that arose among people who were victims in the strike, and that it was not used for carrying on the strike itself. That had just the same application as the money subscribed to support the miners themselves. If this Clause is adopted it means that the machinery of the Civil Service for collective bargaining and for consideration of grievances, is to be scrapped, and that civil servants are to be placed again in the position in which they were 30 years ago, when their wages and conditions were a crying scandal to the whole country. It was only when they became associated with outside bodies which were able to bring a certain amount of public pressure to bear on this House, that they were able to get their case considered by this House and were able to get anything like decent conditions of life.

The right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) endeavoured to get an Amendment moved to give some power to Whitley Councils. The fact that that Amendment was declined by the Chair, and that there is no assurance from the Government on that subject, indicates the intention of the Government, as far as one can see, to cripple in every possible way any attempt on the part of civil servants to build up any effective machinery whereby they can get their case considered. What does the Whitley Council amount to? It is a body composed of representatives of the Departments and the Civil Service organisations. There has to be common agreement before any of the decisions arrived at can be accepted. It only remains for the Department concerned to say that it disagrees with a decision, and it becomes non-effective and nothing can be done. The arbitration machinery which is set up for going to the Industrial Court lays down very definite limitations. Only certain things can be laid before the Court, and other things which are quite as important as pay and hours are ruled out. Surely we have a right to ask whether the Regulations regarding Whitley Councils are to be revised Are they to be made effective? Is power to be given so that the decisions arrived at shall have executive authority? Or is it simply to be a weighting of the scales against the employés, so as to rob them of their right of representation in this House? There is the limitation of arbitration, for instance. There is a limitation to pay, leave and hours. But conditions of service are equally as important. Then there are grading and classification. All those things are important in the Civil Service; yet they are definitely and deliberately ruled out.

We have just had before the Industrial Court a case presented on behalf of the wage-earners of the Post. Office, and the Department has been opposing that claim, and, what is more, has lodged a counterclaim for reductions of wages. It has to be remembered that many of the servants of that Department are getting wages very much less than £3 a week, that there are 125,000 servants whose total wage, including cost of living bonus and everything else, does not reach £3 a week, and that men whose wages were only 45s. were opposed by the Department on the ground that they were getting more than those employed by outside bodies. All this is a reason why one should keep contact with those outside bodies, if comparisons are to be drawn with them. Yet we are to be prevented from taking any part whatever in improving the conditions of outside workers, and thereby doing something to raise the standard which we ourselves aspire to attain. The Anderson Committee some time ago, in issuing its Report, drew attention to the difficulty in which civil servants are placed. It called attention to the fact that the Government themselves draw comparisons with outside occupations when they seek to set a standard of life and wages for their own employés. Surely if they do that their workers should have a right of association, if only for comparison, if only for building up their influence.

Not only that, but one wants to know, with regard to this Bill, what civil servants can do. The Clause lays it Crown that they may not be associated with outside bodies, directly or indirectly, for political purposes, or for the promotion of any political object. Exactly what does that mean? Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us, for instance, whether civil servants, in their collective capacity, can have regard to any outside associations or organisation? Are they permitted to subscribe amongst themselves under the organisation that will be formed under this Clause—will they be permitted to contribute, if they so desire, to the wage fund or maintenance of any Member of Parliament, no matter to what party he may belong? It is not clear in the Bill, but one gathers that that is the Government aim, that the Government are more concerned about the political aspects of the Bill and the growth of the political Labour party than about anything else, and are seeking as far as possible to weaken here and there any association or affiliation or connection with that party, and are aiming a direct blow at two Members of this House. It is a thing which is not usually done. One would imagine that there would be some kind of playing according to the rules of the game, but it is left to the Tory party to indicate that, when they find themselves up against difficulties, there are no rules in any game that they are not prepared to break, if it suits their particular purpose.

Just now, in the Regulations of the Civil Service, it is permissible for any civil servant to stand for election to municipal bodies, whether borough councils, urban councils or the London County Council. Under this Bill is that all to be set aside? It has to be borne in mind that these elections are fought under the banner of certain political associations, and that it will be impossible for candidates to seek election unless they are "run" by one or other of the political parties. Is that to be swept away and taken from them? Will they be allowed to occupy civic positions? There are numbers of civil servants up and down the country occupying positions as mayors of towns or chairmen of urban Councils. They are in those positions with the consent of the Council as a whole, and they are doing valuable public service. What is to be the position of such men in future? Are they to be allowed to continue to seek election, and will they be permitted to run as candidates under different political parties? I say that this Bill will be the way to make strikes. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Cooper), speaking at the Westminster Conservative and Unionist Club on 11th May, said: Civil servants might still strike on questions affecting their own hours of work or wages, but they might not be affiliated with an outside organisation. That is a very interesting interpretation of the Bill.


indicated dissent.


It is interesting to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer repudiates one of his own side. The statement I have quoted was made, I presume, before an important gathering of Conservatives and Unionists. The fact that it is now dissented from is a further indication of the confusion that arises under the Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make clear what is the intention of the Government on the point.


From what is the hon. Member quoting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Cooper) is not here?


From a report of the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Oldham as it appeared in the "Times" on 12th May. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself gave some indications a little while ago of what exactly is underlying this Clause. Speaking to the same deputation to which I have already referred, the right hon. Gentleman said: The development of trade unionism, particularly in the present century and particularly in the last decade, has produced a very great change in the situation. We have seen the trade unions become great political factors, actively engaged in party polities, in endeavouring to secure the return to Parliament or to office of one particular set of politicians, and to oppose the interests of the others. It is not the principle to which they object, but only to the fact that it is the Labour party which is the "particular set of politicians." Having said that, I want to deal with the position taken up by Post Office servants and others in connection with the general strike, which is the excuse for bringing in this Bill. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, if it be necessary, not only that no body of civil servants came out on strike, but also that the civil servants and the organisations particularly concerned received commendation for their action during the strike in maintaining the services and keeping them running? I remember very clearly the tributes paid in this House to the telephone service and to the postal and telegraph services, for the way in which they discharged their duties and obligations during that difficult period. Most of the persons concerned in those particular services are within the ambit of the Union of Post Office Workers and are affiliated to the Trade Union Congress and the Labour party itself.

It has been the practice over many years, when industrial troubles have threatened, for the Post Office at least to communicate with the Union of Post Office Workers in order to get the position clearly defined and to make sure of proper co-ordination and harmony in running the services without any conflict, to the hurt of the general public. Here, for instance, is a letter that came from the Post Office on 9th April, 1921, when there was a threat of a great upheaval: With reference to the verbal representation made on the part of your union, I am directed by the Postmaster-General to inform you that he has issued instructions that Post Office servants should not, in the event of a stoppage of work on the railways or in the transport industry, be required to perform duties previously performed by railway servants or transport workers. Is it the desire of the Government that Post Office servants should be used for other work, as Members, say, of the Army or Navy, to do work of another character, when an industrial upheaval arises? Surely they will have enough to do to maintain their own services, which the State and the Government have a right to demand of them, and if anything can be done to make sure that those services are performed with a minimum of friction and without a breakdown, the Government should rather welcome it than do anything which might have the reverse effect in days to come, for as surely as night follows day, if and when another great industrial upheaval—which we hope may never happen—should come, and this Clause be in force, it will be much more difficult to get the same service from the Post Office and other civil servants in that respect than it has been in the days gone by

When people are working under a sense of obligation and of a right to discharge their duties under a contract entered into, they will strain every nerve to see that those duties are discharged, but when they are labouring under a sense of injustice and fee that there is an endeavour to impose upon them restrictions and handicaps that would not be imposed on other workers outside, then, in spite of themselves, there is bound to enter in an entirely different feeling, a sub-conscious feeling of resentment, which is bound to reflect itself in the work discharged. Under the agreement that we have already had, it has always been in the power of the officials of the union themselves—and they have exercised it—to see that their men do discharge their duties, and to see that they fulfil the honourable obligations which have been signed on their behalf ay their representatives, and I defy any hon. Member in this House to stand up and show any instance where that has been departed from, or where there have been any violations of it.

Let us now come to the position as it was in May of last year. This is a letter from the Secretary of the General Post Office to the Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers: In response to your inquiries, I am directed by the Postmaster-General to say that in the light of present circumstances he is able to state that Post Office servants will not be required as a condition of service to perform duties previously performed by railway or transport workers in the event of stoppage of work upon the railways or in the transport industry. Instructions have been issued accordingly, but it is to be understood that this does not prevent the use of Post Office servants for loading and unloading vehicles used for the conveyance of mails normally sent by rail or by other means, or for duty for which any Post Office servant may volunteer. It is possible that further developments may necessitate a reconsideration of this assurance, in which case notification will be sent to the union. There can be no doubt that the Post Office authorities were quite content—nay, they were glad—that these arrangements should be entered into, and that they could be assured of being able to discharge the duties of the Department without fear or favour to all sections of the community. To pass a Clause like this will break down all that spirit of goodwill in the relationships which have been entered into hitherto, and should there ever be another appeal nobody should know better than the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is easier than to put grit into a big machine like the Civil Service and to prevent it functioning, to work, for instance, directly to the rules laid down, which would be more embarrassing than a strike itself. That sort of thing is likely to arise should regulations like these be passed. Then we have this letter, which was issued by the Postmaster-General himself after the general strike, dated 19th May, 1926[: The Postmaster-General has received with pleasure reports upon the efficiency with which all grades of the Post Office staff have performed their duties during the recent emergency, often under very difficult conditions, and at the cost of considerable personal inconvenience. The staff may rest assured that they have taken a vital part in safeguarding the welfare of the community; and the Postmaster-General wishes to convey to them the thanks of His Majesty's Government for their services. Those are the thanks when the danger is about, but here are the thanks when the danger is over. After these people—through their organisation, which is able to speak collectively on their behalf and to enter into honourable engagements and commitments—have received the thanks of the Government, through the Postmaster-General, the Government come along with this Bill and this particular Clause, aimed for political purposes, with no regard whatever to the duties that these people have discharged so far.

What is the reason and why the need to bring in a Clause like this? It is absurd, and one does not want to indulge in threats at all, but the right hon. Gentleman must know, human nature being what it is, that anyway the civil servants do resent this very keenly. They feel that they are being treated very unfairly in this connection. This right of association and of connection with outside people has been bought for them at a great price over many years of struggle. It was acceded to them by this House when Mr., now Earl, Buxton was Postmaster-General, after it had been discussed by this House, and it is noticeable that ever since that time Postmasters-General of all parties have stood up in this House and have testified to the value that has accrued, both to the Department and to the servants themselves, from the formation of these associations, from the co-operation with the Department, and from the measure of good will that has been built up hitherto. That is the record so far.

We make no apology for being associated with outside industry and with, the workers of other classes, for, after all, we belong to them. Our interests are their interests, and if there is a low standard of living among the workers in other industries, it is bound to find itself reflected in the Civil Service. For that reason, we have taken our share in the struggle to raise somewhat the general standard of life for the people. Surely, then, we might ask the Government to pause before they put this Clause into operation. These civil servants have had the benefit, or otherwise, of having people directly representing their interests in this House, and I venture to say, with as much modesty as one can, that the House has not suffered because there have been people here who have been able to put their case, with a knowledge and a technical understanding of the facts, when it has arisen for discussion. This Bill may do very much to make it impossible for them to continue that representation here, and for them to voice their grievances and get them considered, and, after all, this is the place where they should be considered. Parliament is the last resort of the employés of the Government, and they have a right to expect that in the High Court of their own employers there should be someone competent to present their case with expert knowledge and a full understanding of all that is involved.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will presently try to ride off by quoting speeches which have been made here and there by individuals, but I put it to him that the things that matter are the conduct of the service itself, the action of the responsible unions themselves, and the recognition of that action by the Post Office authorities. My memory takes me back long enough to know when conditions in the service were very much worse and when the service was not so good as it is now. To drive people back in this way to a spirit of resentment, with a feeling that one party in the State is going to treat them more fairly than another, will react with great disadvantage to the service as a whole, and the community is bound to suffer in that respect. For these reasons, I ask—though I know it is asking in vain, for the Government have made up their minds in regard to this Bill without any regard to the arguments and with a determination that, however much a case might be proved, they are not going to consider it—that at least we should be told fully to what we are going to be committed, who will come within the ambit of this Bill, and what is meant by civil servants. What is meant, for instance, by the words in this Clause: In this section the expression 'established civil servant' means a person serving in an established capacity in the permanent service of the Crown"? Does that mean that the service of the Crown is permanent, or does it mean that the persons in the service of the Crown are permanently employed, or does it mean that there are persons who may be in the service of the Crown to-day, but who, owing to a falling-off in the work, say, in the dockyards and other establishments, may be in the employment of others to-morrow? That is not at all clear, and we have a right to ask that it should be clarified more than it is. For these reasons, I hope the Committee, apart altogether from the cleavage of political differences, will give very careful consideration to this Clause before they come to a decision upon it, that at least the Government will not leave us in any doubt as to their intention when the Bill becomes an Act, and that they will pause before they pass a Clause which will divide the service and stir up a spirit of resentment and ill-will against the Government which has hitherto not been known, and which we may all have very grave cause to regret in the days to come.


Before the hon. Member sits down, will he answer this question? He spoke about the relations between the Civil Service in the United States of America and the American Federation of Labour. Is he not aware that the American Federation of Labour is an entirely non-political organisation and has no relation to party politics in the States at all?


Quite the contrary. I happen to have been a delegate to the American Federation of Labour from this country, and I know that that federation is constantly to-king part in politics and throwing its weight one way or another according to whatever might be the circumstances of the case. The Post Office servants there are affiliated to the American Federation of Labour as a part of that organisation, and they take part in the political activities of the American Federation of Labour in bringing pressure to bear upon either the Democratic or the Republican party.


Everyone will recognise the peculiar right and the peculiar qualifications of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr Ammon) to speak on this subject, and I would congratulate him upon the doughty stand he has made on behalf of those interests which have been committed to his care, and the full and careful manner in which he has placed before us a very large number of considerations which are urged by those members of the Civil Service who are opposed to the legislation which we now have under consideration. At the same time, I should hardly think it was appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to reproach the Government with having made up their minds to drive this Bill through, and to pay no attention to argument of any kind, because, after all, the party with which the hon. Member is associated, and on whose Front Bench he sits, declared their intention of opposing this Bill long before it was introduced. One of the reproaches made, on the other hand, against the Government and my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, has been that we, in the course of the long period during which this Measure has been before the country, have shown ourselves willing to accept a great many changes, to such an extent that we have even been taunted with re-writing some of the Clauses of our Bill.

I am very glad that the discussion of this Clause should be conducted in the same cool and restrained atmosphere which has characterised so many days of the Debates on this Measure. I do not believe there is any Clause in the whole of the Bill which is more likely to gather to itself an overwhelming preponderance of public opinion throughout the country than this Clause dealing with the Civil Service. It is an extremely modest and moderate Clause. It is no use making out that it is a Clause which creates some vast revolutionary change in the life of the average civil servant. I, myself, believe, that, if no word of these Debates on this legislation could ever be published outside this House, 99 civil servants out of 100 would, in their ordinary conduct of life, their ordinary principles of life, have been unconscious that this Bill was passed or that any change whatever had taken place. I believe they will be able to live exactly the same kind of lives after this Bill has passed, and to have the same effective protection and the same rights as they have enjoyed for a, great many years.

This Bill is not intended to make sweeping changes affecting the Civil Service. It is not intended to cause a violent overthrow of the principles which have guided the Civil Service. On the contrary, it is intended to preserve the principles that have for a great many years been the credit and the distinction of the British Civil Service, and, by timely action, to correct unwholesome growths which in the last few years have been steadily creeping in, and of which we had certain evidence, to which I will come presently, a year ago at the time of the general strike. The Clause was very effectively and compendiously described by the Attorney-General in his opening speech on the Bill, and I do not wish to repeat what was then said, but the effect of the Clause is limited to established civil servants. That is very important, because the position of the established civil servant is a coveted position. I think that, for the Civil Service as a whole, there are between two and three candidates for every vacancy, and the status of an established civil servant is a greatly desired status. To be permanently employed, to be employed all your working life and to be pensionable at the end of your service, and to have these advantages guaranteed, not by a private employer, who may rise or fall owing to the competitive accidents of the world of business, but by a strong, stable State and nation—these are conditions which are greatly desired and greatly valued and cherished by a very large number of people in the country. It is only to this class of established civil servants, permament and pensionable, that the special provisions of this Clause apply. We consider that, in view of their special permanent and pensionable position, the State is entitled to demand from them a particular relationship; and the object of the State, in giving these special conditions, is to secure faithful service in all circumstances in the hour of need.

The hon. Member who moved this Amendment, as a peg upon which our general discussion, by the ruling of the Chair, is to hang, dwelt particularly on the case of the dockyards, and he suggested that dockyard men, among others, should be outside the scope of the Bill. I remember that before the War, in 1912 and 1913, when I was First Lord of the Admiralty, I increased the proportion of established men in the dockyards, greatly to the satisfaction of the dockyards, but not entirely to the satisfaction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in those days. I made that increase with what object? With the express object that we should have a solid body of men in the dockyards upon whom we could count in all circumstances, no matter what labour disputes might be in progress, for the necessary upkeep and running repairs of the fighting Fleet. Supposing that we were going to make exceptions in this Clause, if there were any class who should not be excluded from the scope of such a Clause, it would be the class for which special exception is now asked. The whole object of that high proportion of established men in the dockyards is to make quite sure that, whatever happens, the main safeguard of the country will not be affected by some temporary internal domestic dispute on an altogether inferior plane to that of the safety of the country.

I have heard some remarks in these Debates already which seem to suggest that civil servants who occupy permanent pensionable positions have to suffer very much through having no means whereby they can voice their grievances. If, however, there be any class of employés from one end of this country to the other who have effective means of voicing their grievances, or who do effectively voice their grievances, it is the civil servants. This is not the time for us to discuss the question of Whitley Councils, which has been mentioned; this is not the time to discuss the subject of the resort to arbitration. All these matters are unaffected by the Bill. They have nothing whatever to do with the Bill. The Bill does not touch them in any respect, and Parliament can at any time—either now, next year, the year after, or at any time—devote careful attention to the question of the relationship between the State and its civil servants, and can devote careful attention to the machinery whereby grievances and disputed matters are adjusted. We close no doors upon any improvements that may be effected in the machinery—


You cannot close any doors.


I say we close no such doors by this Bill. After all, when I am told that civil servants will have absolutely no means of voicing their grievances after this Bill is passed, I am bound to say, first of all, that every civil servant has the right of appealing to the ministerial head of his Department. Associations of civil servants are entitled to bring forward, and to be heard in regard to, any questions arising out of the conditions of service of those who belong to them. Throughout the Service there is a complete network of Whitley Councils, at the centre there is a National Whitley Council, and, above and beyond all that, the Government have accepted the principle of compulsory arbitration with regard to the Civil Service. For instance, an arbitration claim may be proceeding in regard to the Post Office which would add £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 to the annual Budget, affording hon. Gentleman opposite another reason for abusing me for allowing the expenditure of the country to increase. The Government take up the general position that if an arbitration goes against them, they will come forward and use their powers to present the Measure to the House of Commons. I agree that this is a matter which must be considered in relation to all the circumstances of each particular case, but this resort to compulsory arbitration, and the acceptance of the principle by the Government, is certainly a most tremendous provision.

5.0 p.m.

Quite apart from that, civil servants have effective means of bringing their influence to bear upon Members of Parliament, both in the Lobbies of this House and in their constituencies, and those means are not affected in any way by this Bill. It has always been understood in the Service that it is wrong for a civil servant to approach his Member, or any Member, of Parliament, about his own particular case; that has always been considered to be contrary to the traditions of the Service; but there is not the slightest reason why any civil servant in any Member's constituency should not approach that Member about the interests of his class of the Civil Service, or of the Civil Service as a whole; and, judging from a number of Amendments which appear on the Paper, they have shown no indisposition to avail themselves of that privilege. Civil servants are, of course, expected not to take a prominent part individually in politics—they are not expected to sit on platforms, or to deliver speeches from the tails of wagons, or to attend large demonstrations in favour of particular parties or particular candidates; but they have their influence as citizens, and they are not hampered in any way in the slightest degree, either before or after this Bill, in the exercise of their reasonable influence as citizens. But there is an element of discretion which has always been required of civil servants, and I was very glad to hear from some of their leaders, when they came to me in deputation, that they fully recognised that that element of discretion must govern the actions of civil servants, even as individuals, in regard to political matters. It would be a scandal if we had members of the Civil Service taking a prominent part in controversial politics. I agree entirely that that line has been observed with peculiar skill, and with a peculiarly British common sense and spirit of compromise. It is not a line which we can draw absolutely clear-cut, because this is a question of what is proper, and in our rough-and-ready island manner we usually manage to arrive at a good and harmonious procedure in regard to these matters. All that is going on at the present time in the ordinary life of the Civil Service—that is my point—will be able to go on after this Bill has been passed into law. I think it is a complete delusion to suggest that the Civil Service of this country will either feel themselves hampered in putting forward their views after the passing of this Bill or that they have not ample and convenient methods for the expression of their views to the Government. The hon. Member for North Camberwell asked me 12 questions, and I will answer all those questions, of which he has given me notice. He asked: "Will the Civil Service organisations be consulted with regard to the proposed Regulations, and will the Civil Service Regulations concerning political activities, now in force, be revised? "The answer is: "We do not intend to refer the Regulations under this Clause to Civil Service organisations. These Regulations will not involve any revision of the existing Civil Service Regulations concerning political activities. The second question is: "When will the Regulations be issued? Will they be laid on the Table of the House before they are put into force?" The answer is: "The Regulations will be issued as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law. In order that Parliament may be aware of their provisions, we are quite content that they shall be laid upon the Table of the House." I give that definite assurance. We cannot say that they will be laid in draft, but that Parliament shall be fully informed of what is going on and shall be seized formally and officially of the Regulations, we consider entirely proper, and I take this opportunity of saying that that will be done.


Shall we have an opportunity of discussing them in this House?


How can the hon. Gentleman use that argument? The various Members of the official Opposition have the right to choose the subjects for discussion on every Supply day, quite apart from all the other opportunities which are afforded by Parliamentary procedure. It is farcical to suggest that if the official Opposition wished to discuss this matter, they would not get time in which to do so. Many hon. Members, composing the large majority, and who sit on this side of the House, have felt a sense of grievance because they are never able to choose the subject of discussion on any Supply day. The object of Parliamentary procedure has been to give every facility to the Opposition, and of that special privilege and advantage the hon. Gentleman and his leaders will be able to avail themselves to the utmost.

The third question is: "Will the Government allow time for the organisations to recast their rules and constitution and make other necessary amendments arising out of the new legislation?" The answer is: "Yes, the Government propose that the regulations to be made under Clause 5 should take effect from the 1st January, 1928. That will give ample time for any changes."

The hon. Gentleman then asks: "Will provisions be made for an appeal to an independent arbitrator to be heard before civil servants are dismissed under the provisions of this Bill I" The answer to that is: "Certainly not."


You will be dismissed before then.


A hopeful disposition is not the sole qualification to be a prophet. The hon. Gentleman has asked me, about the regulations in respect to the Whitley Council We are not touching that in this Bill at all. That will be a matter for discussion in Parliament on any other occasion.

Then the hon. Member asks me: "Will civil servants be permitted to seek the assistance of Members of Parliament on questions of pay and conditions of service?" The answer is: "They are perfectly free to do so except on their personal claims."

The next question is: "Will civil servants be eligible to stand for election to municipal authorities under the auspices of a political party?" The answer is that that is already dealt with by the departmental regulations and it is not affected by this Clause. In some cases they are permitted to do so now, and in others it would be inappropriate. It would be inappropriate, for instance, for officials of the Ministry of Health to stand for election on local authorities, and it might well be inappropriate for members of the Excise Department to stand for election on local public bodies.


On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a large number of officials are already members of such bodies?


That is really not a point of Order.


The rule at present is that various Departments concerned exercise a discretionary power.


Will they be allowed to do so in future?


Certainly there will be no change in this respect. Then the hon. Member for North Camberwell asks me whether individual membership of political parties will be permitted. Of course, there is no reason why a civil servant should not be a Socialist, or a Conservative, or a Liberal in his individual capacity, but that is governed by the general principle of his not taking a prominent part in politics.


You have not answered the question.


I must ask the hon. Member to refrain from interrupting.


We have had enough of this kind of thing.


I must ask the hon. Gentleman to listen and not to interrupt.


The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ammon) then asked me a question in which a great many of his constituents, in the larger sense, are interested. I am going to give a clear answer to this point, because I am very anxious that there should be no misunderstanding.

The question is: "Will civil servants be permitted to form political organisations within the Civil Service?" The answer is "No."

The next question is: "Will civil servants' organisations be entitled to affiliate themselves to the Post Office Workers' International and the Civil Service International?" The answer is: "If these organisations are political organisations, or if their prime object is to influence or affect the remuneration and conditions of service of the members of their constituent element, the answer is that affiliation would not be allowed. Each case must be judged on its merits."

Now I come to the last question of which the hon. Gentleman has given me notice. It is in these terms: "Can Civil Service associations affiliate to the Workers' Educational Trade Union Committee?" The answer is: "If the objects of this body are simply educational, there is nothing in Clause 5 to prevent affiliation. If the Committee referred to is a political organisation, or if its prime object is to influence or affect the remuneration and conditions of service of its members the answer is that affiliation would not be allowed."

There remains the thirteenth question which the hon. Gentleman asked me, namely, whether a body of civil servants would be entitled to hand themselves together to subscribe for the maintenance of a Member of Parliament, or more than one Member of Parliament? Of course, it is no part of my business to explain any loopholes that there may be in the Government legislation on this point. Our legislation must conform to the following principles: First, that civil servants must not take collective political action. Secondly, we hold very strongly to the view that a Member of Parliament ought to represent a constituency. If the House of Commons is to preserve its historic character, and meet the many dangers that menace it and that menace all Parliamentary institutions, I am sure that the less we have of Members representing particular interests, or particular groups, and the more we have of Members who come here to represent the Commons of Britain, the better, more efficient and more respected our Parliamentary institutions will be. Subject to those general observations, nothing in Clause 5 prevents any Civil Service union from having a secretary chosen from outside the Civil Service, and from paying to that secretary any salary that they think fit. Nothing prevents that secretary spending that salary in any way he likes, and if he chooses to devote a part of it to obtaining the privileges and pleasures of Membership of this House, nothing in Clause 5 will in the slightest degree obstruct his ambition.

I have now dealt with all the questions which were asked me by the hon. Member, and I will only address myself, before sitting down, to the somewhat controversial topic of why this Clause should he included in the present Bill. I am asked why it is necessary to make a change by legislation in the rules which have hitherto governed the Civil Service. A great many things have changed within the last few years, and there is no doubt whatever that on general principles the Civil Service trade unions ought not to be affiliated to outside unions. Nevertheless, for a great many years this has continued, and has not been much troubled about; but the increasing politicalisation of the trade unions and their increasing intermixture with controversial party politics, has emphasised the position, and for some years there has been a great deal of anxiety not only outside the Civil Service but amongst very powerful sections inside the Civil Service at the increasing extent to which civil servants seem to be associated with controversial party politics, and identify themselves with the fortunes of one particular political party. Those civil servants have an absolute right to be identified as such in their individual capacity as citizens, but we cannot allow the Civil Service of this country to be drawn into the party arena, because that would be fatal to the Civil Service.

Among my advisers are men of the highest ability who may be Socialists in their opinions, or Conservative, or Liberal in their private opinions, and they are men about whom in this connection their departmental chief would never think of inquiring, because he knows they will faithfully discharge their duty to the Government in office or the Government which comes into office. But if we are going to have party politics introduced into the Civil Service and organised action deliberately taken by civil servants, not to push their own particular interests, but to sway national and political issues, then you will introduce that sort of poison that has discredited the Civil Service of some important countries—I am not going to mention names, but some of them are very unpopular amongst hon. Members opposite, and some of them are very popular. The result of such a policy would be that those who got into power would employ around them agents who share their own political and party views, and that would be absolutely fatal to the whole traditions of the Civil Service.

I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member opposite about the Civil Service and the general strike, and I would like to point out that out of 220,000 established civil servants, I think only 40 were guilty of actively participating in the strike. Therefore, we are not dealing with evils which have yet come into the field of practical politics to any great extent. Nevertheless, we are legislating in good time before that impartial loyalty which is now given to all parties has been perverted and a situation created where each party has its own friends and favourites and enemies in the Civil Service. We are legislating in good time, but it is high time. We have been told what occurred a year ago. There is no doubt whatever that the fact that these Civil Service associations were affiliated to the Trade Unions Congress was used by the leaders to influence the civil servants. It was used in the sense of saying, "We must be mindful of our obligations towards the Trade Unions Congress." It is quite true that they were not actually called upon to strike, and it is pretty clear that if they had been, that call would have been refused by an overwhelming majority. Nevertheless, we do not know what is in store for us. We do know that, according to a circular issued on the 4th May last year by the Association of officers of Taxes, at a session of the Trade Unions Congress held on Saturday, 1st May, the general secretaries of all affiliated trade unions were called upon to give public replies to two questions. The first was, whether the association was prepared to place the power in the hands of the General Council as regards calling a strike of its members; and, secondly, financial aid. The reply given on behalf of the Association of Officers of Taxes was to the effect that the Association had no provision in its constitution for the withdrawal of labour, but that a sub-committee of the executive committee was prepared to recommend the executive committee to give financial assistance, not to relieve the people suffering distress, but to give assistance to the trade union committee in actually fighting the strike.

The circular of the Association of Officers of Taxes goes on to state that the Civil Service Clerical Association, the Association of Civil Service Sorting Assistants and the Union of Post Office Workers gave an affirmative reply to both those questions. I agree that they did not in fact join in the strike, but what a position the State would have been placed in if they had been called upon to carry out the obligations into which they had entered. Here they had their obligations to the Trade Unions Congress, and civil servants ought not to be put into a position of divided allegiance, or into a position in which they can be asked questions of the kind which were put to them a year ago. It is perfectly clear that, while you would endanger the Civil Service if it became affected with the virus of partly politics, it would also endanger the State to an extent which you can hardly measure if it were to be suggested that the established permanent pensionable civil servants, on whom we rely for the maintenance of the public services, could suddenly have their loyalty perverted or allegiance withdrawn. We could not tolerate that, and it is far better for the civil servant, before any lamentable incident has occurred and before any disaster has occurred to the Civil Service of this country, to make it perfectly clear that the obligations of an established civil servant in his capacity as a civil servant is whole-heartedly to the State, and that no outside interference can be tolerated.

I will read a quotation from a speech to show the Committee, not what civil servants had assented to, but the kind of temptation and evil counsels to which they might be subjected. I will quote from a speech which was made by one of the leaders of the Civil Service Trade Unions, Mr. Brown. It is only fair, before I give this quotation, that I should say, when I quoted it to Mr. Brown in his presence, he said it was a garbled report, but he did not furnish any alternative version of what lie said, and we all know how trouble sometimes arises between public speakers and reporters, and there is a general feeling that the public speaker is not always in the right in these matters. At any rate, this, or something like it, is what he is reported to have said by the "Manchester Guardian," which, I am sure, would be the last paper to misrepresent his views. This is what Mr. Brown said at Woolwich on the 20th February, 1927:— Whether the last general strike was an industrial failure or not, it was an enormous political success, and had brought appreciably nearer the time when the weapon of the general strike would he used to prevent war. The Government, he thought, realised this, and feared the incidence of a general strike in the military Departments in the event of another war.


Surely you know that is true.


I am justifying the Government for inserting Clause 5 in this Bill. Here you have a most dangerous claim put forward by a man who is very prominent and active in the counsels of the Civil Service Trade Unions. Here is a claim that an extensive number of persons of no representative responsibility have a right to gather together in committees or conclaves and decide over the head of Parliament, and apart from the Government of the day and the House of Commons on which it rests, whether in fact this or that great act of policy should be done. It is a deliberate attempt to substitute the power of external bodies, wholly without competence, for the representative authority of this House, and of the Government responsible to it. For instance, according to this doctrine which Mr. Brown put forward, if he had his way with the unions of civil servants, he and his friends would have been entitled to have formed their own opinion in regard to the sending of troops to Shanghai, as to whether or not the necessary order should be transmitted from the Government and as to whether that order should be carried out. [Interruption.]


Bead the "Sunday Times."


It is very unusual for the hon. Gentleman to take refuge in obscurity.


The right hon. Gentleman has no right to charge me with cowardice or with doing things in obscurity. I ask him to read the late Sir Henry Wilson's biography in the "Sunday Times" which has proved that military men have shown the workers exactly where their devoted allegiance will lead them. [Interruption.]


The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave way to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and I must ask hon. Members to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed with his argument.


Our interruptions are perfectly in order, and Members opposite have no right to shout "Order, order!" My point is that our interruptions are perfectly Parliamentary, and people have no right to shout "Order" at us when we rise.


I would point out to the hon. Member that continuous interruption—


They were not continuous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] But they can be continuous if there is any more of that.


I was about to point out to the hon. Member that no interruption is Parliamentary if it is so continuous as to prevent the hon. Member who is in possession from delivering his argument.


I had practically finished my argument.


You never began an argument yet on this question.


I never charged the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) with being cowardly. On the contrary, I said it was very unusual to see him taking refuge in obscurity, when his natural bent is to seek publicity in its most extravagant form.


We accept the apology.


To conclude the observations which I venture to address to the Committee on this matter and to sum them up, I would say that we are acting so as to prevent a change taking place in the character of our Civil Service which would be detrimental to all parties and to every party. We are doing so, I believe, in such a way as not to injure or inconvenience the mass of civil servants or to deprive them in any way of the real means of representing grievances on which they rely, or of the protection of Parliament which is their greatest assurance. We are doing this in order to safeguard their reputation, to prevent them from being put into a position of divided loyalty and to make sure, at all events, that the Government can take effective action in any crisis at home or abroad which it may feel necessary for the safety of the country and for which it has the plenary authority of Parliament.


No one will deny that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with the principle underlying this Clause in a very full and a very lively manner. The right hon. Gentleman, it seemed to me, east aside the Amendment under discussion in a somewhat cavalier manner. I am not concerned with the fortunes of this Amendment, but I was distressed to see it so light-heartedly dealt with, lest that should be a premonition of what is to happen to my own Amendment which appears later on the Order Paper. The Amendment which we are now discussing is, we are told by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), designed to exclude industrial workers from the ambit of this Clause. I think it does much more than that, but the Amendment which I have on the Paper is confined to the exclusion of industrial workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently misunderstands the whole position with regard to industrial workers. I am not for the moment contesting the general principle of this Bill, but this Clause makes it impossible for an established civil servant to belong to any outside trade union. The right hon. Gentleman says that that proposal is not revolutionary; but it is revolutionary as far as the industrial workers are concerned, and while the principle of the Clause might be justified in their case, it cannot be justified unless certain other things are done.

I would invite the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the position of industrial workers under this Clause. They do not come into the Civil Service, like ordinary civil servants, as the result of an examination at the age of 21. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, having been First Lord of the Admiralty, they are established after they have been a certain time in the Civil Service. They are engaged from outside. They are skilled men who in many cases have been employed in other shipyards, and they come into the Civil Service belonging to a trade union to which they have subscribed for certain benefits. According to this Clause, they can remain in that union until they are established. Then they have to forsake all the benefits for which they have subscribed during many years. But they do not even get security when they are established. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had established a great many men during his regime at the Admiralty in order to be able to command their loyalty, but this very month a large number of established men have been discharged from His Majesty's dockyards. What is to be the position of those men under the Clause? Every benefit for which they have subscribed is to be taken away from them. They will not be able to obtain further employment because it is customary to confine employment in the outside shipyards to men belonging to trade unions. As the representative of a dockyard constituency, I am entitled to ask the Government to consider the position of these men.

I am prepared to admit, as I have said, that the principle underlying the Clause may be justifiable. I do not wish to argue that. But you cannot apply it haphazard to a body of men whom it may seriously prejudice in regard to their after employment. It is not fair or just to them. What arrangements are the Government going to make for these men whom they are refusing to allow to belong to trade unions? These men are loyal servants of the State, but they have no security of tenure. They complain of the opportunities now afforded them for the redress of their grievances. They have no corresponding advantage in return for the undivided allegiance which the Government exact from them. I do not expect that the Committee as a whole is interested in these men. (HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The Committee as a whole is interested in this general principle as applied to the Civil Service as a whole. I ask its pardon for putting before it the particular case of these men. I hope the next speaker on the Government side will be able to give them a little more satisfaction than the Chancellor of the Exchequer did. He spoke of them as loyal servants of the State and of their establishment as being a security. I say they are loyal servants of the State but they have no security, and I want to know what the Government are going to do about them, because they are being placed in a difficult position. The Government are expelling them; when they go out into the labour market they will not have any trade union card, and they will not be able to get any more work.

I ask the Chancel of the Exchequer or somebody else on the other side to let these men know what is the intention concerning them. Naturally, they are watching the position with great anxiety as to their future. They are to be treated under this Clause as civil servants. Civil servants have certain privileges such as regular holidays in the course of the year. These men have no holidays. You say to them in this Clause that they are civil servants, but when they demand any privileges or rights as such, you say they are not civil servants I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's reference to his regime at the Admiralty. He said he established a great many more men than had ever been established before. I think he was entirely right and that the percentage should be still further increased. These servants of the State ought to be established, and, having been established, they ought to know that they have permanent employment. I do not say it in any partisan spirit, but this is the first Government that has actually discharged established men. These men always regarded their position as permanent and made a great many sacrifices in order to obtain that permanency. It is not valid for the Government to say, "In return for the permanency and security which we give, we demand undivided allegiance from you and the right to prevent you getting any benefit for which you may have subscribed to an outside trade union, and to prevent you getting any employment should you leave the established service." There should be security of tenure in the Civil Service, particularly in the case of these industrial servants who are so badly needed in time of war. I need not make my point any more firmly than that, but I hope the Government will consider the position of these men. It is only right and just that they should do so.


The first point made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) is one which deserves the serious consideration of the Government. The hon. Member asked the next speaker from the Government side to reply on behalf of the Government. I am bound to confess that that is not within my province, and I would sooner avail myself of this opportunity to address myself to the general discussion. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), at the commencement of the Debate, invited the Committee to face the facts. That is an invitation which I hope I readily accept. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon)—in a speech which I am sure the Committee will agree was moderate and restrained—sought to convey the impression to the Committee that this Clause deprived civil servants of certain fundamental rights and privileges which they had hitherto enjoyed, and without which they would become as serfs and slaves. I hope in as few words as possible to indicate to the Committee how very far removed from the truth is this estimate of the situation in which civil servants will find themselves, when and if this Clause passes to the Statute Book.

Let us investigate perfectly dispassionately the exact extent of the limitations which this Clause sets upon the hitherto perfectly legitimate activities of associated civil servants. It does not deprive civil servants of the right to form trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining, and if this Clause fails to establish that right, in perfectly clear and unequivocal terms, I and some of my hon. Friends on this side who are associated with me have set down an Amendment which I hope makes this point unambiguous. When I say "unambiguous" I mean as far as the draftsman is concerned; and I think it is as unambiguous as the draft of an Amendment could be. Manifestly, this Clause cannot deprive civil servants of the right to strike. It does not deprive them of that weapon, because the most vigorous opponents of the Clause have protested that that weapon was never included in their armoury. You cannot deprive somebody of something which he never possessed. In the next place, it does not deprive civil servants of the right of appeal from tribunals within the Civil Service, for the very good reason that that right of appeal does not now exist. I shall refer to that point later, because I am aware that this) question is the subject matter of a grievance which is very widely maintained in the ranks of the Civil Service.

What advantage then does this Clause confiscate? It deprives Civil Service associations of the right to go to the assistance of trade unions outside the Civil Service. I should have thought that that was not, a very formidable grievance, because I feel that the trade unions outside the Civil Service are perfectly capable of looking after their own affairs without the assistance of the Civil Service, and, further, such a proceeding on the part of the Civil Service must be very undesirable from every point of view. But there is one so-called privilege which this Clause does sweep away, the privilege of contributing to the election expenses of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), who I am very sorry to see is not in his place, and sorrier still for the reason, and of other gentlemen outside the House who were not so successful in their appeal to the electorate. It may come as a shock to the nerves of those hon. Members whom I have named when I inform them that there is a very considerable section of the Civil Service who would most happily surrender that privilege, who are strongly opposed to this form of political levy, and do not regard those hon. Members as representatives of themselves as individuals or as civil servants in any way whatsoever.


Do they subscribe to the political funds?


I should prefer to continue my argument in my own way. Is it an asset to the Civil Service that they should be directly represented in this House? The Chancellor of the Exchequer just touched on that point, and I should like to enlarge upon it. When officials of the Civil Service say, "We send representatives to Parliament," they are losing their hold on the facts. They do nothing of the kind. It is not the Civil Service that sends those hon. Members to Parliament. They submit themselves as candidates to their constituencies, and it is up to the constituencies to elect or reject them. The hon. Member for North Camberwell and many of those who sit with him are of the opinion that it is necessary for the salvation of the Civil Service that the interests of the Civil Service should be protected and safeguarded exclusively by Socialist Members. If that view be very generally held in the Civil Service, and I am not by any manner of means saying that it is, it is quite safe to say that that opinion will veer round so soon as the Socialist party try their hands at government. It is always the Opposition who can do things far more expeditiously and efficiently, if only they had the power; but each Government in turn invariably discovers that the redress of grievances is not so easy a matter as it appeared to be when viewed from the Opposition benches. The point I wish to make, which I think is of supreme importance, is that if you are going to have direct representatives of the Civil Service in the House of Commons they will always be against the Government of the day; and when it is realised that the first duty of the Civil Service is to the Government of the day, this must obviously lead to a perfectly intolerable situation. Is it right and proper that sectional interests should be represented in this House? Except the Co-operative movement, I know of no other sectional interest which is avowedly and directly represented in this House.


The hon. Member has referred to the Co-operative movement, with which I am connected. If he will refer to the speech I made in connection with the First Reading of the Liberation of Co-operators Bill, he will find plenty of evidence that other interests are represented in the House.


That does not knock a hole in my argument at all, because I do not approve of direct representation in this House. If that system obtained on a large scale, imagine what effect it would have upon our deliberation, that is, if the House were composed of Members who exclusively represented particular individual interests. Besides, I am not sure that the specialist is always the best person to deal with the special subject in which he takes interest. Every political subject has to be viewed in relation to every other political subject, and it is just in that particular that specialists invariably fail.

I would like the Committee to consider for a moment one of the most important questions involved in this Clause, and that is whether the existing machinery for the redress of grievances within the Civil Service is adequate and efficient. I am obliged to say that I entirely disagree with the speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), who is not in his place at the moment. In a speech on the Second Reading of this Bill I said that Whitleyism had not perhaps fulfilled all the expectations of its supporters. I had not time then to elaborate that point, but I would like to say that I think Whitleyism has in a large measure succeeded, and where it has failed it has failed chiefly because there have been sinister influences at work against it. It is quite obvious that it is to the interest of those who are in support of affiliation with political organisations outside to see that Whitleyism does fail. But let us investigate the circumstances perfectly fairly. The main grievance felt-in this matter is that the National Whitley Council does not fulfil the functions of a court of appeal on questions of Departmental administration; but this grievance is in a fair way of being redressed at this moment. The staff side and the official side on the National Whitley Council have come to an agreement, and I would like to read the formula to the House. I see that the right hon. Member for Ealing is now in his place. I may tell him that I am trying to prove that the National Whitley Council has not been the failure he made it out to be. This is the formula: In any ease where it appears to either side of the Council that it is necessary or desirable to examine the outcome of any general arrangement to which the National Council is committed, the matter shall be referred to a special committee consisting of two or three members of the official and staff sides of the Council respectively, whose business it would he to provide the Council with an agreed statement of facts. In the light of this statement it would be open to the Council to consider what further steps, if any, should appropriately be taken either by way of a more precise definition of the existing scheme or by way of Amendment of the existing scheme to secure a mutually acceptable settlement of the matter. I think that proves that the National Whitley Council is not the effete body which the right hon. Gentleman made it out to be; but if the attack on the National Whitley Council has been biased and exaggerated, criticisms of the Court of Arbitration have been absolutely untrue. I have seen statements made over and over again in the course of the last few weeks by those who are opposed to this Clause that consent to go to arbitration is constantly refused. That is absolutely false. Permission to go to arbitration is very rarely withheld. I would ask hon. Members opposite what industry outside has machinery for the redress of grievances comparable to this Court of Arbitration whose decisions are binding?


Does not the hon. Member see that he is putting up a case and knocking it down? We do not deny that the Court of Arbitration exists, but we say its limitations are too narrow.


I think the hon. Member himself has said that consent to go to arbitration is frequently refused, but that is not the case.


I never said anything of the sort.


Many of those associated with the hon. Member have said it—at least outside.


I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to what was said in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why,?"] Because he is replying to something said here. I have made no such statement here or anywhere else.


I withdraw the statement as far as the hon. Member is concerned, but it has been said. It has been said by every deputation that has come to see Members here—that the Court of Arbitration is useless because consent is always withheld. That is not so. The terms of reference to the Court of Arbitration are very wide indeed. But when all this has been said, it is only right to admit that there is a large volume of moderate opinion in the Civil Service in support of the claim for some perfectly detached, impartial court of appeal within the Civil Service to which reference could be made from the existing machinery. I do not deny that for a single moment. Not to put too fine a point upon it, there are a large number of moderate-minded civil servants, not the dupes of any political machinator, and with no party political feeling, who believe they are at the mercy of the departmental authority. I do not say that that suspicion is altogether justified, but it is very widespread. I am quite familiar with the arguments that the Government should be the overriding authority in connection with the Civil Service, that nothing should be done to prejudice the responsibility of the head of the Department as such, but I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that now, when we are making a fresh start, there comes a unique opportunity to revise the machinery existing in the Civil Service. I should have put down an Amendment to that effect only I understood that it would be outside the scope of the Bill and therefore out of order, but I do not think it is out of order to point out to the Committee, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, that this Clause does not close the door on the revision of the existing machinery.

I would like to conclude by saying that I am perfectly well aware that the hon. Member for North Camberwell is sincere in his desire to reform conditions in the Civil Service, and that he and his colleagues have made it part of their life work to do so; but I ask him to give me credit for the same sincere solicitude for the welfare of the Civil Service; and I think I have this advantage over him. He, on his own confession, has an axe to grind. I have not. [Interruption.] I have no axe to grind in this matter whatsoever. I should like hon. Members to point out what advantage I gain from assisting the Civil Service to keep clear of party politics, and I would like the Committee to believe that I am only actuated by my solicitude for the fair name of the Civil Service. I dissociate myself altogether from all those attacks which have been made upon the efficiency of the Civil Service. We owe a great deal to the Civil Service, and my anxiety to save the Civil Service from being exploited by those who, under the plea of trying to improve Civil Service conditions, have a quite different purpose in view. It is for these reasons that I give my support to this Clause.

6.0 p.m.


I understood the hon. Member to say that civil servants, if represented in this House, would always tend to be opposed to the existing Government. If that statement be correct, it would seem he feels that civil servants would bring no independent mind to bear upon discussions in the House but would come here with the simple purpose of opposing whatever was brought forward by the Government of the day. That suggestion is entirely unwarranted and unjustifiable and is unworthy of the hon. Member. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to make clear certain difficulties in the Bill, for which the Committee as a whole were grateful to him, but there were certain things he left entirely obscure, and it is to those points that I desire to address myself. First of all, he said the civil servant would not under this Clause find himself conscious of any change. At least he would find himself in isolation from his fellow workers in the country. That is a point to which we on this side attach a great deal of importance, for it would appear not only is the Government acting as the Government of the day, ordering the general business of the nation, but as the employer of these people it is taking the harsh employers' view of the liberty of the men whom it employs. It is doing in a sense what the worst private employer did 20 or 25 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Bill was limited to established civil servants and that, on the whole, the privileges they gained as civil servants were very valuable. If that is so, civil servants have shown that they have valued these privileges by being perfectly loyal to the Government they undertook to serve, and I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) in asking for some specific declaration upon these points and one point in addition which I desire to place before the right hon. Gentleman.

If pension is to be the test as to whether they come under this Clause or not, am I to assume that the workers in His Majesty's Ordnance Factory are to be exempt from the Bill? That is to say, if a pension is the test, are those members of the ordnance factory who are working for the Government and yet are members of trade unions interfered with by the Bill or not if they do not receive a pension? The point put by the hon. Member for Devonport must really be met. If these men are established, they should be established from the time they begin their work and they should not be discharged. What happens in the ordnance factory and in the dockyards is that men serve loyally for years and after a period of years they are taken on what may be called the established strength. But, if it pleases the Government, after a time they are thrown out on the streets without any pension and with only a small gratuity. They have no trade union to back them up, they can draw no out-of-work pay from their union under the Clause and will be placed in an entirely false position.


I am informed that their position will not be affected by the Bill.


I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. I should like to ask with what bodies may the civil servants properly affiliate? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two, but I think the Committee ought to have more specific details as to I he kind of associations they may affiliate with if the Clause passes. Would they be allowed to affiliate with the W.E.A., for instance, and organisations of that character? There is no justification for throwing this discord into the Civil Service inasmuch as civil servants are not allowed to strike. They did not strike, and to put this Clause upon them in this way is to be provocative and to throw a doubt as to their loyalty to the Government. From our own experience as Members of the House who have had to deal with Government Departments, we can testify very sincerely our absolute belief in their impartiality. We believe that whatever Government is in power would be served loyally and efficiently by the best civil Service in the world, and this Clause puts on them a stigma which they in no way merit. The service is wise, efficient and incorruptible, and it should have been left to decide for itself what step was appropriate for it to take and what was not. A case might possibly be made out why the higher grade civil servants who have to shape national policy on behalf of the executive members of the Government should abstain from any semblance of political action, but in regard to these lower grade workers, who are routine workers, who just obey orders and carry out decisions made by other people, how can it possibly be suggested that political action of any kind is improper to them? Then if they may not send Members to this House, I wonder what the position is going to be of half-pay officers, whether of the Army or the Navy, who, while drawing pay from the Government, yet come to the House and serve the interest of one political party in the House. If this Clause he carried, that question will have to be looked into with some seriousness. I think the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that a member of the Civil Service might sit upon a municipal council without his being interfered with.


No. I said the existing practice would not be interfered with. Certain principles have grown up on which the different Departments of State act, and they will be carried out exactly the same in the future as they have been in the past.


I was going to ask that specific question. Then there are certain Members, belonging not to my own party but to the party opposite, who are members of borough councils and draw public funds, not necessarily from the Civil Service but in other capacities. I assume they would not he interfered with either in that respect. If it is right for one man to be able to take a political part while drawing public funds in any capacity, it ought not to be wrong for civil servants to send a Member to the House to take part in such political work as they may desire. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to place emphasis upon the fact that the conditions in the Civil Service were favourable, and that that should be taken into account when considering this question. There are at least 12,000 temporarily engaged clerks who have no kind of security at all in the Civil Service beyond that seven days' notice which they can obtain from any private employer, and there are 52,000 who are engaged only on part time. Therefore, those emoluments of the Civil Service have to be estimated in relation to those facts. It has been said the civil servant has also a generous superannuation. The actual facts are that there are 115,000 non-industrial employés who have no pension at all and might conceivably have come under this law, or be thought to come under it, before the right hon. Gentleman made his speech.

With regard to the Whitley Council, whilst this body exists, there are certain difficulties in regard to it. It is in a way a phantom security. The staff can only carry the procedure to a certain point, and after that point the Government may step in and nothing further can possibly be done. The right thing to do with the Civil Service in this matter is to leave it alone and not tamper with what is, after all, very nearly perfect. Trust begets loyalty; distrust may have a tendency to destroy it. If we want good will between employer and employé, we must give good will as well as ask for it. This setting aside of civil servants from the rest of the workers of the community is just Syndicalism of the most provocative and unnecessary kind. This is the first time in the history of the House that the Government have deliberately introduced the Syndicalist method into their legislation and they must take the responsibility of that action, though it is not to be wondered at from the first class-war Government the country has ever had. A wiser, saner, safer way would be to trust the Civil Service and leave them free to take their proper place in the counsels of the nation with their fellows, all of whom are wanting the good of the nation as well is of themselves.

Major GLYN

The speech we have just heard is extremely interesting to me because some of the hon. Member's constituents are rapidly moving down to my constituency, and my excuse for intruding in the Debate is to plead their cause with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to support what was said by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hors-Belisha) in regard to certain men in the industrial grades. The right hon. Gentleman told us, if I heard him correctly that there were 115,000 established civil servants. I put a question on the 9th instant and was informed that there are 220,000 established civil servants, 30,000 of whom are in industrial grades; 115,000 unestablished non-industrial civil servants. 52,000 being part-time; and 94,000 unestablished industrial civil servants, making a total of 429,000 employés in the service of the Crown. Some of us wonder what it is that has made civil servants join unions. I think the reason has been twofold. The first is because some of them feel that their personal case would not be able to get through the proper channels within their own Department, and, therefore, they wanted someone outside, with the powers of a trade union, to give it that necessary push to enable it to be brought to the attention of the proper authority. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) that one of the most important hints made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech to-day was that it might be possible, in the near future, to consider afresh how far the machinery of the Civil Service wants overhauling, especially in the way of enabling the Civil Service as a whole to be a trade union from the point of view of benefits and other things, and certainly to enable a man to have an appeal outside his Department, but within the Civil Service, so that his own particular case can be considered. I feel that Parliament, which is the employer of the Civil Service, is not fulfilling its duty properly. We have got to recognise that it has been at fault. Parliament has been at fault in not going more carefully into the conditions of labour of the employés of the Crown. I think there is no doubt at all, that if Parliament had been more on the spot in considering conditions of employment and pay, and all the rest of it, there never would have been any reason for civil servants to attach themselves to outside unions.

Although by this Bill we are imposing restrictions which I, personally, think are quite right—because an established civil servant cannot be torn asunder at times of crisis; he has got one allegiance, and that allegiance must be to the Crown—I feel strongly about the case put by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), and it is the case I have in my own constituency. If you draw into the service of the Crown draughtsmen from outside unions, you have no right suddenly to throw them on the street, having prevented them from continuing their service with the outside union. That is not fair. I think the State as an employer, whatever else it must be, must be fair. There is another point. In the Didcot depot and the Air Force depot at Milton, it is the common practice for men to serve perhaps 15 or 20 years as non-established civil employés. The time comes when they have to become assistant storekeepers. They are asked to accept this office. They are drawn from the non-established ranks. A man has the choice of saying either he will accept promotion and become established—and if he does that he has to sacrifice all the benefits for which he has been paying for 20 years—or remain in the non-established ranks. I do not think that is quite fair. The very fact that the Government have recognised it for present people by saying they shall continue to be members of a union if they have been members for six months seems to make it obvious to the Committee that they recognise the man's position of having something due to him from the point of view of benefits for which he has paid. Therefore, I ask Parliament to put those with 10 or 15 years' service in the same position. However, there is the position, that a non-established man in Government employment is offered promotion, and has got to take it and sacrifice his benefit, or refuse promotion and get his benefit.

It has to be remembered that in many cases the pension offered in the establishment would not be equal to the benefit that would be gained if there was within the Civil Service one great union, which I should like to see established, and which would be, perhaps, the strongest and biggest friendly society in this country and enable all Crown servants who belonged to it to obtain benefits which, in addition to their pension, would ensure them a very happy and prosperous old age. Incidentally, it might be the means of helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer to overcome some of those annual difficulties which confront him when they discharge men from Woolwich at an early age, and the question arises, "Now what about superannuation for these men? You cannot leave them with a gap until they are due for the Old Age Pension." Those of us who believe in friendly society work believe that the Government should encourage civil servants in all grades to stand together, be they established or non-established, from the point if view of a union giving them benefits. If you confine this Bill to established civil servants, you have to make it perfectly clear to all Crown servants in the country that you are going to put at end to all those extraordinary categories. You have the "P" class—those who are permanent. You have the temporary class, who, I undertand, are always greater in numbers after war than at any other time. They are the reserves from whom you, draw.

It was news to me to hear that large numbers of men of the established category had been discharged by the Government. I did not know that the numbers were large. I knew that reasons of economy were said to justify the turning off of the established men, but I did not know that there were such large numbers of them. If you have an established service which carries a pension, stick to it, otherwise you will not attract to the service of the State the very best men you desire to get. I would urge—I believe it cannot he argued in detail—that the whole position of the Civil Service, both as regards the right of appeal outside the Department and within the Civil Service as a whole, and the question of a union for the whole of the Civil Service, should form the subject of careful consideration by the Government. Some of us on this side of the Committee would welcome some steps being taken. While keeping the National Whitley Councils organisation, you should recognise that if you put restrictions upon the subjects of the Crown who are in the Crown's service, you have to be perfectly certain that the machinery of your Civil Service meets all the legitimate requirements that the people themselves have a right to demand.


I approach this subject from the point of view that civil servants, like all other grades of workmen, have certain fundamental political rights, rights of organisation and rights of association which are inalienable and should be granted to them in full. I would even allow them to give voice to their opinions from the tail end of a lorry, as the Chancellor of the Exdhequer put it. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman to-day why you cannot have these powers of political rights and of extended union association was that it was a most coveted service, that they had very great rights and that from two to three applied, on an average, for every vacancy. I do not see why, because you have a coveted and a most meritorious service as we have here, a service in which the highest positions are won by examination, you should take away with one hand what you have given with the other, and why you should say to a man of great merit, "You have won this position, but I wish to detract from your political agencies and associations and I wish to do it, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in the most kindly way." Further, we look to an extension of public services. We look to the time when the mines, railways and other public services may be under the Government, and the precedent now set might be used to rob large masses of men in this country of their political rights. The right hon. Gentleman hinted that there might be, if this were allowed, a measure of corruption; that they might play one party against another. We must have regard to the continued extension of the political sphere, and the large numbers that are interested in the political activities of the Government to-day from the point of view of their industrial interest.

The right hon. Gentleman pictured these civil servants swaying national and political positions, but, it seemed to me, he used no argument that might not be used equally well to-day, for example, against the agricultural labourers. That has become a political question with the passing of the Agricultural Boards Act. It might equally be used against the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, which have brought in a demand, in their own interests, For full-blooded Protection. I think that you cannot quite clearly and legitimately separate a man from his political sphere and his political opinions. A man may render efficiency in public service, he may give of his very best, and at the same time hold and express his political views. A man may render the best non-political service and still retain and exercise the fullest political rights. He may, as a civil servant, give the very best service. He may act as if he were serving the best of all possible governments in the best of all possible worlds, and yet be allowed to go out and say that we have the worst of all possible governments in the world, i.e., the worst for their policy. He can give wholehearted service.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that unless political action of this kind were impaired, the time would come when Governments would elect only those who were of their own political colour and their own political supporters to offices in the public State. To me, that does not seem to follow at all. I agree with what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell), that we cannot expect the separation and the segregation of one body of workers in this country from their comrades. There have been great struggles in this country to win the franchise. In my own district there are numerous monuments to those who suffered martyrdom. Baird and Maclaren and others suffered in the cause of the franchise. They did not fight for any particular kind of franchise, but for the franchise for the whole of the people. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Clause closed no doors that were now open. I should question that statement. There have been the right and practice of affiliation with outside bodies for some 30 years. Since 1900 there has been full recognition of the Postal Union's organisation, but, with the present Government, no civil right, however long established, will be safe. Property is safe. It cannot he taken away without confiscation, but those rights, even greater rights, that have been won by enormous sacrifice they take away without a qualm—the worst kind of all confiscation.

Protest has been made repeatedly by civil servants against the restrictions that are already placed upon them. They have made claims for the extension of their civil rights, but the right hon. Gentleman has certainly opened none of the doors that they desired to have opened. Instead of enfranchisement, he has given us repression; instead of going forward, he has gone backward in this Clause, as in the Bill. I sometimes think of that reference in Shakespeare's "Hamlet" to the Danish dogs that followed a sound but always in the wrong direction, running back when they should be running forward. That is what has happened to the Government. In their quest for industrial peace, in this Clause as in this Measure, they are running back when they should be going forward.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not conceal the fact that this Clause is a kind of penalty for what happened during the general strike. He quoted a passage from a statement by Mr. Brown, that these associations might lead the way to combined effort by a general strike and the laying down of tools to prevent a great war. I would go the length of saying that if by workmen laying down tools in this and other lands they could prevent any big war, it would not he the least meritorious service that they could render to the world. This severance of political activity from non-political activity is really impossible. 'The Attorney-General said in his speech on the Second Reading that it could he done, and must be done. He said: In exchange for those great advantages we think it only fair to insist that the Civil Service organisation shall be kept free from party or political associations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1927; col. 1339, Vol. 205.] Others have said that they do not wish party strife introduced into the Civil Service; but when you seek to hinder a body of men from political action, you really drive them into what you are trying to prevent them from doing by this Measure. We might ask what are politics. We might take up the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day and ask, what is a prominent part in politics? What is a political association? The right hon. Gentleman said that each case would be judged on its merits. He said that if an international body was concerned with remuneration, it might come under the ban as being an illegal association. The fact is that we may be most political when we think we are the least political. To support a strike is accounted an industrial and political action, but to break a strike is faithful service to the State in its hour of need. Those were the words which we had this afternoon from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To break a strike is duty; it is patriotism: it is service to the constituency and to the nation, and not to a section of the community. Those who speak about dissociation from party are often those who are the keenest of party men.

There used to be in this House long ago a party called the party of no-party men. John Wesley said that no Minister could take part in politics, but that it was not politics as long as you were supporting the King's power. In 1880, the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon received a letter reproaching him for taking part in "the filthy mire of politics," and he wrote in reply to his anonymous correspondent: I am glad to know that you take no part in politics, for if you did, I am morally certain that you would support the Tory party. But I think you do take part in politics so much that you cannot refrain to writing to me. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) protested that he had no axe to grind. People do not usually see the axe which is over their own head when they are wielding it. It is more easy to see the axe that others are wielding, that is, the axe of their opponents. Those who say that they stand for the constituency, are often the most sectional of politicians. When the Federation of British Industries came forward with their axe for the head of the Government, to prevent the ongoing with the Factories Bill, we were asked to believe that they were not working for any section but for the welfare of the, constituencies. In one of the Debates on this question, the hon. Member for Finchley used an historic illustration. He said that members of associations of civil servants should take up the attitude that was taken up by Mr. Speaker Lenthal, in the oft-quoted words: May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, save as this House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here. The hon. Member for Finchley said that civil servants should be in the position that they have neither eyes to see nor tongues to speak, save as a Government Department directs. I think that we shall all agree that Speaker Lenthal was not only a most impartial Speaker, but a great historical figure. But even he could not say that he was beyond the realm of politics, because he was casting his shield over one of the greatest movements for liberty and progress in his day. When we go into the corridor and we see that historic incident depicted, we find that that scene was raised on the Republican and non-conformist, and not on the Royalist side of the House.

I would refer to the fourth principle enunciated by the Attorney-General in his introduction of this Measure, namely, that any person entering the established Civil Service must give his undivided allegiance to the State. Certainly. He must give his most loyal service, but you cannot beat men into loyalty. You can win loyalty, but you cannot compel it. Loyalty is a spirit, a tradition; it is won by trust, it is won by equal treatment, it is won by full confidence. We have heard that these men must give undivided allegiance and loyalty to the State. I remember that when the War broke out a book by Bernhardi was sent broadcast throughout the country which stated that the State was everything and the individual nothing, and we were asked to reprobate that doctrine and wage war upon it. You are now seeking to establish in time of peace that heresy, as we believe it was. You are seeking to establish in peace the evil principle against which we were asked to fight in the days of war. I was taught in the country from which I come that we cannot recognise an unquestioned and unqualified loyalty to any State whatever, but that there are higher loyalties and higher calls, and claims of the higher conscience. May I quote words from Russell Lowell, which I think express the attitude which we should take, and the attitude which I am seeking to emphasise: We owe allegiance to the State but deeper, truer more To the sympathies which God hath set within our spirit's core. Our country claims our fealty; we grant it so, but then Before men made us citizens, great Nature made us men. It is just because in this Clause you are striking at the full manhood and full political rights of a body of our people, that I support the Amendment. I believe that this Clause is due to the steady, onward march of Labour, and the part that has been taken in it by bodies such as those we are debating to-day. It has been said that the Civil Service unions are helping the Labour party. It has been declared to-day that they are allied to one political party. Therefore, the Government come along with this Clause to prevent that great onward, forward movement.

I will not liken the Government to King Canute sitting on the shore, because his attitude was passive; nor will I liken them to the excellent Mrs. Partington, who sat with her apron seeking to stop the waves of the Atlantic—[HON. MEMBERS: "With her mop!"] We call it "apron" in Scotland. I believe that the incident happened at Sidmouth, in 1824. Be it a mop or an apron, the fact is that her spirit was up, but the spirit of the Atlantic also was up, and it proved a very unequal contest. I will use a more modern illustration. We have seen lately the accounts of the rising of the Mississippi floods. At one stage, about a month or so ago, it was decided to open the banks and to flood the farmers' fields, but the farmers were indignant, and they came out with their guns on the banks to show their indignation that their fields were to be flooded. So, to-day, before the advancing flood of democracy, we can see nothing better than this Measure and this Clause; in other words, the Government are out with their guns in the vain hope of preventing the onrushing flood. The Attorney-General came out with his four-barrelled gun on the Introduction of the Bill. I have seen Lord Birkenhead out with the old breech-loader which did him service in Ulster days. I have seen the Prime Minister with his breechloader, which caused him to be credited with always going straight; but something now is just a little bent. The Government are out to shoot at Niagara, but I can see them quelled and lost in the floods when they seek to stay the advancing tide.


The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) will not expect me to comment on the interesting history which he has given to us. It has been very interesting and very eloquently put, but I want to get back to the point that has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) and other hon. Members, and that is the position of the established civil servant in the dockyard. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in talking about the increase of the Establishment, said that during his time as First Lord of the Admiralty he increased the number of established men, and that he wanted "a solid body of men in whom he could trust." I shall be glad to be corrected, but as far as I can see, if this Clause is passed into law, the whole operation of the Whitley Councils, as affecting the dockyards, must go. The whole system of the Whitley Council representation as regards the dockyards, is built up through the trade unions. The only representatives eligible for election are the men selected from the trade union branches. I have always held that any man who is eligible for service in any position in a dockyard, whether he is union or non-union, has an equal right to representation in matters which affect him, and I. entirely disagree with the position which now exists. The present position will be entirely altered as far as the established men in the dockyards are concerned, if this Bill be passed in its present form. I hope it will be passed, but what I want to ask is this: if the Government will allow the Dockyards Established Men's Association to have some representation on the Whitley Council, as I suggest that this kind of association roust be taken into account in the rearrangement which will have to follow as the result of this legislation. That is my main point.

At the present time the established men are in every branch of the dockyards, and from them are chosen certain representatives to serve on the Whitley Councils; but they are all chosen under the trade union aegis and a non-union man, as such, has no representation at all. I think the Government will have to go a little further than the provisions of this Clause, and will have to consider the position of every man serving in the dockyards. I bring this matter to the notice of the Government, hoping that they will give some consideration to it. In his speech to-day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we were not dealing with the Whitley Councils. That is quite right, but immediately this Bill comes into operation the Whitley Councils. which as regards the dockyards have been a failure, will he still more of a failure; they will be entirely ineffective. Therefore, the matter must come under review at an early date.


I am not sure that I quite understand the point of the hon. and gallant Member. I take it that he wants the Government to say that they will make definite provision in the future for representation of nonunion men on the Whitley Councils?


What I am asking the Government to consider is the whole basis of representation in the dockyards, under which any man who is qualified to be taken on there shall have some share in the management of dockyard matters such as come under the Whitley Council. If a non-union man is a fit person to be taken into the service of the Government, he should have the same right in any matters affecting the dockyards as a union man.


What, then, becomes of the principle of the Whitley Councils, that of effective collective bargaining? If a man does not belong to his organisation, how can he represent a majority of his fellows?


It is perfectly easy for non-union men to select their representatives, in the same way as union men select theirs. I do not know whether I shall be in order in pursuing this subject, but I can give an illustration where non-union men have effectively done what union men would not do.


On the Whitley Councils?


I am challenged to say how non-union men can effectively do what union men cannot do. What is known as payment-by-results work in the dockyards was started entirely by non-union men. Union men refused to take it up. Non-union men did so, and worked it successfully for a year or so before union men came in. As a result of their doing so, they were ejected from their unions, as in the ease of the Boilermakers' Union, and did the work for the Admiralty as non-union men. They, and not the union men, made it a success, and it is now in operation in the dockyards. That is an instance in which non-union men were able to achieve successful results by effective collective bargaining. But this is getting right away from my main point. I want to call the attention of the Government to the fact that they must take into account the future composition of Whitley Councils in dealing with the established civil servants in the dockyards. You cannot leave an hiatus under which a large body of representative workmen in the dockyards will be absolutely unrepresented. I suggest that the Government should consider, or the Admiralty should consider, the establishment in each dockyard of an association which should be recognised, under whatever regulations may be made, on any matters affecting the conditions of the men in the dockyards in the future.


The hon and gallant Member for Faversham (Sir G. Wheler) has raised a point which shows that the Clause is not so simple as is supposed. He has shown that it will upset the present arrangements and will require new machinery in order to meet the Whitley Council's procedure. I should like to point out to the Government that this Bill, and this Clause as I understand it, drives a, wedge through the civil servants in the same occupation, because it separates established civil servants from non-established civil servants, and forces them to work in two separate and distinct organisations. This is certainly a change which is not apparent on the face of the Bill, but is a necessary consequence of the provisions of this Clause. I have not risen for the purpose of making a detailed speech on the general provisions of this Clause. My object is to deal with one particular point, but before I come to that I should like to say a few words on the larger issue. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in defence of this provision seemed to me to cover a good deal of ground, and it might be taken, in some points, to be watertight. But it failed altogether to take account of one very important human factor, that is psychology. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that during the general strike the Post Office servants and all the rest of the civil servants behaved in an exemplary manner. He said that he had no fault to find, but that it was just as well, in view of the possibility of something happening again of a similar kind, they should lock the door before the horse was stolen. The quality which the Chancellor of the Exchequer omitted, that of human psychology, is really the base of the whole thing.

I will put it in a way which, I think, hon. Members opposite will fully appreciate. Suppose there is some employeé they have in mind; it may be the secretary of a club, who is faced with a very difficult situation, but in spite of a temptation to be disloyal he stands fair and square for the club and nothing else, and he carries through all his duties perfectly correctly. When he has done that you say to him, "It is true you behaved right this time, but if similar circumstances happen again you may behave all wrong, and we are going to take away from you the possibility of your making a mistake in the future." What is going to be the effect of that upon the secretary? It will be to make him say, "It is quite clear that my employers do not appreciate my action and, since they have seen fit to treat my loyalty in this way, I shall hold myself a little more loosely in regard to their interests in the future than I have in the past." Take an illustration from a man in more humble circumstances, because some of these civil servants are in very humble circumstances. Take the case of a domestic servant. The employer has been in the habit of leaving valuables about in the house and giving the domestic servant considerable control of the household. The time of temptation comes, and the servant proves thoroughly worthy of the trust imposed in him or her by the master or mistress. Then the master or mistress says, "You may be subject to a similar temptation again, and I shall lock up all my valuables and all my wines so that you shall not be subject to the same temptation." Human psychology is such that that is the worst thing one could do. The domestic servant is likely in these circumstances, and by a repetition of such insults, to be forced into dishonesty and break a trust which, openly and honestly given, the servant would keep.

One more word on that point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to defend his action by quoting from a speech made by Mr. Brown. I have not read that speech, but I suggest that the words which the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted do not justify his action. Had Mr. Brown said this, "I think a general strike in certain circumstances is an excellent thing, and the next time there is a general strike I shall call upon my employeés in my own union to come out in sympathy," then I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have had a case for quoting that speech. Mr. Brown was expressing a personal opinion, it may have been a wise or unwise statement, but it really had nothing whatever to do with this particular Clause and ought not to be introduced into this argument. This Clause is an example, like all the rest of the Bill, of the kind of loose thinking to which we have been accustomed in the last few days. There are two general ideas, first, that the higher civil servants should not take part in party politics. That is a principle to which we shall all subscribe. Secondly, there is the idea that the public service of the State ought not to be subject to the same industrial turmoil to which other sections of the community may be subject; and there again we shall all be in substantial agreement. But this Clause goes infinitely further than this idea. Just as the whole Bill goes much beyond the principles on which it has been founded, so this Clause also goes much beyond the idea on which it is founded.

7.0 p.m.

The fact is that this Bill seeks to put a limit to the actions of people who are very different from the high officials of the Civil Service, and seeks to limit them very much beyond refusing them a right to take part in a strike. As a matter of fact, it has been said over and over again in this Debate that members of the Civil Service, and even Post Office officials and others who are not considered generally to be real civil servants, not only have not taken part in a strike but have nothing in their own rules which allows them to take part in one. Therefore, the idea that this Clause is necessary in order to prevent civil servants from striking is an entire delusion. They do not strike, and they do not want to strike, and they have put into their rules nothing to enable them to strike. This Clause, really, as far as a strike is concerned, attempts to stop that which has not arisen and is not likely to arise.

I want to put one question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I should like Him to answer. As I read this Clause—and I am quite sure the Chancellor will agree with me that these 150 words without a semi-colon are not very easy to follow—civil servants are forbidden from being members of an organisation which can do one of three things. It must not he affiliated to another wage organisation which is independent of the Civil Service. That is the first prohibition. The second prohibition for a Civil Service organisation is that its objects should not include political objects; and the third prohibition is that it should not be associated, directly or indirectly, with any political party or organisation. It is on the last point that I want to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is provided in this Clause that the trade unions of the Civil Service must not be associated directly or indirectly with any political organisation. The question which has been put to me by a women's Civil Service organisation is this. They are at present affiliated to two women's organisations, one of which is the National Council of Women and the other the National Society for Equal Citizenship. It is quite true that these are not party political organisations, but they are political organisations. Their objects are to obtain alterations in the law. This National Society for Equal Citizenship is desirous of obtaining votes for women. It may be said that this is to be consummated, and that as far as that is considered it will be finished with, but it has not been consummated yet, and there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip. Beyond mere enfranchisement, there are other matters of political equality as between men and women which this society is seeking to promote. Therefore quite clearly this is a political organisation though not a political party organisation. I think the same is true of the National Council of Women which, meeting yearly, carries resolutions seeking by various means to carry out political objects. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer this question. Does this Clause prohibit the affiliation of a body of women civil servants to these two political organisations, because it is a matter on which many civil servants feel very keenly, and they would like to know the answer.


If the hon. Member would like me to do so, I will answer it now, as far as the Government is concerned. These questions must be dealt with on their merits, and each case must be considered separately and individually. If the Clause does not apply, of course, that must be judged as to whether these bodies have political objects or party objects, or whether these political aspects play such a small part in their organisation as to be negligible. The matter is not one which lends itself to any general definition, but must be judged case by case. I must not prejudge the case of these bodies, but I am advised that the matter will require very careful consideration to see on which side of the line they fall.


The Chancellor has given a somewhat noncommittal reply, and, therefore, I put this to him. He says the case must be judged. I think it is for this House to judge as to the principle, and not, as I understand him, for himself to judge, or for whatever member of the Government would be forming these Regulations to decide whether they had been carried out. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, that what he is aiming at should be, at any rate, party poltical organisations rather than political organisations. I suggest to him that such organisations as I have described are legitimate objects of affiliation for Civil Service organisations, and, therefore, that he should introduce some words which would make it perfectly clear that legitimate political organisation of that kind should not be debarred from being the subject of affiliation by service organisations. If he does not do that, I think he is striking a blow at the freedom of Civil Service bodies, which I do not think his party or the people of the country as a whole fully realise. I know it will be bitterly resented not merely by persons in the Civil Service but by many persons outside, to whom such action will appear thoroughly unfair.


I happen to have spent several years past in a semi-official position in Government Departments, first of all at the Post Office and then at the Ministry of Labour, and I have been able to associate in that way, not as the Chancellor of the Exchequer does when he meets the Treasury experts round the Treasury table but on terms of equality, with the civil servants in the various Government Departments. I confess, going there with 20 years' City experience and, possibly, with a little bit of prejudice against what I imagined were red-tape methods, I came away with the greatest admiration for the civil servants with whom it has been my pleasure to work. I do not in the least agree with certain sections of the Press who never miss a chance of crying down the Civil Service—a most unfair thing. With long business experience, after this association with the Postmaster-General's Department, I thought it an exceedingly well-run show.

I also came to another conclusion—and I am sure that my opinion is that of practically all the civil servants with whom it was my good fortune to work—that the more the Civil Service is kept out of politics the better it is for the Civil Service and for the nation That is why I was very sorry, indeed, at the necessity for this Clause coming in, but I quite agree, in view of what happened just over a year ago, that there is an absolute necessity for Clause 5. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), in the excellent speech he made, spoke as if we Conservatives were going to throw the Civil Service into the arms of the trade unions. That has not been the case at all. They voluntarily entered that embrace of their own accord. It is in order to get some small measure of divorce that Clause 5 has been introduced. We are not the aggressors. It has been the Association of Civil Servants, in view of the action they took a year ago. It is said that it is very unfair to sever two bodies such as the Trade Unions Congress and the Civil Service Association, which have been working together for 25 years. My reply is that when the Trade Unions Congress was originally formed, as I understand it, its objects were more of an industrial nature. It certainly was not contemplated that it should do as it did just over a year ago, namely, set itself up as an alternative Government, and when the Trade Unions Congress proceeds to take on political ends of that kind, to all intents and purposes, it is time enough to say definitely that no longer can civil servants be affiliated to the Trade Unions Congress. That is the main purpose of this Bill.

The hon. Member for North Camberwell talked as if it were on behalf of the whole of the civil servants of the country. I have in my hand the May number of a paper called the "Live Wire," which, I understand, speaks for a very large number of civil servants, totalling some 10,000 or 15,000, and they say: The National Executive of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants welcomes the terms of Clause 5, and reaffirms its already expressed view that associations of civil servants should be self-contained and not associated with either outside trade unions or political parties. Those are the lines on which I should like to see the Civil Service run, and there is evidently one organisation, as shown by the "Live Wire," which takes that view. The hon. Member for North Camberwell is quite in error when he thinks he speaks for the majority, or a very large proportion, of civil servants. I always think it is a great pity, in regard to this question of civil servants' affiliation, that civil servants should not do what the National Union of Teachers has done. The National Union of Teachers has followed the policy that they wanted representatives in all parties of the House. I have certainly known a Conservative Member of the National Union of Teachers and a Labour Member, and I think there have been Liberal Members. I think it would be very much better it their own interests—though it may be too late now to put back the clock to that extent—if at the outset they had taken the line of non-affiliation and had representatives in each part of the House. Surely there are civil servants who would be glad to come in here. I understand from the hon. Member for North Camberwell that the Post Office Union, for which he speaks, have now definitely withdrawn from having a strike policy.


It never has had, and has not got a strike policy.


With regard to it never having had one, may I quote from the "Post," the official organ, dated 21st August, 1920: The members of the Union of Post Office Workers will stand by the decision of the Council of Action whatever it he and amongst the first to down tools if necessary will be the postal workers. On 3rd April, 1920, the same paper says that in return for the help which the unions of the Triple Alliance would give to the Union of Post Office Workers: Our members would, for instance, have to undertake a strike, if necessary, in support of the wages claims of other bodies. Those are two quotations from the "Post." That was over seven years ago, just before Black Friday, and they, apparently, had a strike policy in the past, although I accept the statement of the hon. Member that they have not got one to-day.


The question of a strike policy came under consideration, and was submitted to a plebiscite, and the members turned it down.


I was only quoting from the "Post." Apparently they have reversed their policy since then. May I, in conclusion, call attention to a rather interesting parallel which happened some years ago in Australia, where they had had a considerable measure of social and legislative experience? The railways in Victoria are nationalised, and in 1903 the then Government of Victoria decided that the railway unions must withdraw their affiliation from the trades boards, that is to say, what we consider the Civil Service should do here now. There was a general strike on the railways which lasted a week and then collapsed, and the Government of that day in Australia introduced a measure in the shape of a legislative experiment which I do not think is generally known, and which is not without interest on this point, when great political pressure is brought to bear on State servants. They deliberately disfranchised the railway workers and all State workers in all constituencies of the State of Victoria, and they gave them representatives, two of the railway workers and one of the other civil servants. They placed the whole of the railway service for three years under a Commissioner who was entirely free from political influence. That shows how they found, in Australia, that I will not say political corruption, but political pressure, can be brought to bear on members to such an extent as to make it necessary to disfranchise and to give separate representatives to civil servants. I commend that instance to hon. Members opposite. If their policy of general measures of nationalisation is carried out, we shall find an overwhelming weight of political pressure brought to bear on Members of this House. They are leading straight on to a time when there will be a representation of the Civil Service or State service as such.


The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the Committee to understand that on the whole this Clause was popular in the country and popular even among civil servants or a large number of them, and yet, that it was not really making any very great change in the existing arrangements. He gave us the idea that it was popular and harmless. But I noticed that certain hon. Members opposite seem to have been feeling certain misgivings as to its effects. The right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) and the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) in particular seemed to have been subject to a little political influence in the interval between the introduction of the Bill and the present time. I believe that that pressure will go on. I was interested to find that the hon. Member who represents East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) seemed to fear that that political pressure in future might become a serious mater, and he suggested that it might he necessary to disfranchise civil servants.


I did not suggest it, but said that the pressure might lead to it.


We are interested to hear how the minds of hon. Members opposite are already turning towards arrangements of that kind, and I hope we shall have some further discussion of the subject later. So far as the political side of these proposals is concerned, I submit that there is some confusion in the suggestion that the same degree of discretion is reasonably required of all sections of the Civil Service. We clearly understand that the more highly paid officials are required to be discreet who have to advise on matters of policy, but I see no reason for maintaining that that degree of discretion should be required of the great body of those affected; I see no reason for demanding it of the postal worker; I see no reason why the postal worker or any of the less well paid clerical civil servants should not take their full part in political activity in the same way as any person not in the service of the State. No doubt my own view and that of many of my friends would be that at the present time the political rights of civil servants—I leave out the higher paid grades—are already far too scanty, and the sweeping away of them to so great an extent as is proposed seems to be wholly unjustifiable.

We have heard a great deal about divided loyalty, about the necessity for preventing divided allegiance. I submit that a very clear distinction should be drawn between the Government's right to expect that the civil servant shall perform the duty for which he is paid during the time he is at work, and the Government's right to interfere with what that civil servant shall do out of working hours in his own leisure. The Government is perfectly entitled to demand faithful service of civil servants in so far as that is covered by their contract of service and performed within their hours of labour, but it is not entitled to lay it down that in their leisure civil servants shall not take part in political activities, any more than it is entitled to lay it down that they shall not take part in any form of sport or recreation that happens to appeal to them—football or philosophy or painting or any other pursuit to which the human mind is prone. To prevent civil servants from engaging in political activity is a gross form of tyranny which will have its reaction in great resentment in the minds of those affected.


What is the difference between the case which the hon. Member is defending and the case of a leading member of a political party or Government who is not allowed to occupy his spare time in writing articles for the Press?


If one is a member of a Government one is engaged first of all in a very laborious occupation, I am given to understand, that absorbs all the energies that can reasonably he spared for intellectual pursuits, so that the resulting by-products in the way of journalism are liable to be of low quality. In the second place, of course, journalist work by a Minister of the Crown on subjects which bear upon his departmental work are obviously very undesirable, in so far as he is projecting his political activity in an undesirable direction; but I understand that it has recently been ruled by the Prime Minister that the articles by Lord Birkenhead on purely non-political topics are not to be opposed, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still permitted to write upon subjects not closely concerned with the work of his Department. In view of the message which was sent last week by the Prime Minister to the Bosworth Division, in the course of which he said that every vote for the Labour candidate was, among other things, a vote in favour of a partisan Civil Service, we have been led to believe that it was the opinion of the party opposite that we had a partisan Civil Service now, because the attitude of the Labour party is merely that of desiring to leave things as they are in the Civil Service. In view of that I was very glad to hear the kind words that have been spoken of civil servants by hon. Members opposite.

We should, of course, resent, and we did resent, the terms of the message to Bosworth. We do not think it will have any effect except to leave the Conservative at the bottom of the poll; and we are very glad to think that either the spirit of the message is not shared by the Prime Minister's followers or that it has been seriously misphrased by some person who drew it up and handed it to the Prime Minister for signature. It is, of course, a gross libel to say that civil servants up to now have been partisans in any sense which would prevent a proper fulfilment of their duties. I was very glad to find that that charge has not been repeated this afternoon. With regard to the industrial side of the matter, the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) and others have referred to the arbitration arrangements of the Civil Service, and they seemed to suggest that such arrangements, although capable of slight improvement, are pretty satisfactory now. I think it was argued that the Whitley Councils and the provision for arbitration in certain cases constituted on the whole a very satisfactory arrangement.


In a great many cases. I said there was very little to complain of, but a very widespread feeling that it was not satisfactory.


But that feeling was mistaken?


Up to a point.


It is not a satisfactory arrangement in many respects, because, as I understand the matter, except on questions of pay and hours and leave, the Industrial Court cannot deal with questions affecting the economic interests of civil servants. In particular it cannot deal with questions of grading and classification, to which great importance is attached. In view of the limits imposed on the operations of the Whitley Council it appears to me that there is still less case to be made for cutting off civil servants as organised bodies from contact and co-operation with industrial organisations outside the Service, particularly in view of the fact of fundamental importance that the decisions on rates of pay and conditions and so on are frequently determined, at any rate in part, by comparisons with outside standards. It appears to me that both on the political and the industrial side this Clause is completely unjustifiable. Hon. Members imagine that this Bill is popular with a large number of people up and down the country, and with civil servants. I am convinced that they are wrong. The future will judge between us. In their attempt to take civil servants out of politics they will certainly not succeed, and for this reason: We who oppose this Bill Clause by Clause have already announced, through the Leader of the Opposition, that we shall repeal the Bill, including this Clause, as soon as we get an opportunity of doing so.

Hon. Members opposite may think it will he a long while before that comes to pass. If that is their imagination, however far off that day may be, the further off it is the longer will be the period during which civil servants will be effectively in politics, because until this Bill has been repealed there will be at every election a clear issue for civil servants to vote either for the party which has deprived them of some of the few liberties that they now enjoy, or for the party which would restore to them the liberties taken from them. That being the situation, it is clear that civil servants will in future be in politics. I would, however, remind the Committee that the unanimous decision of the party to which I belong is that we propose in the future, in the first place, to restore to those who faithfully serve the State the liberties which are being trampled upon in this Clause, and, further than that, to add to those liberties when our opportunity comes.

Captain BOURNE

The hon. Member who has just spoken described this Clause as though it took away all the political rights of civil servants. It seems to me that that is over-stating the case. The Clause does not deprive any civil servant of the right to use his vote at any election of a, Member of this House. That is the real political right of the subject. Apparently, hon. Members opposite think it is a necessary part of political life that all people should be able or, if necessary, compelled to support the peculiar creed of their party. Such a claim can only be stigmatised, in my opinion, as fantastic. There are certain occupations in regard to which it is very undesirable that those who perform them should take an active part in party politics. There are, for instance, those who are employés of the State; there are those who take Holy Orders, and, thirdly, there are those who undertake the duty of teaching the young. I would put it on general grounds that these people have to deal with members of the public who may have very divergent views, and it is highly desirable that anybody who has to stand vis-á-vis the public in that situation should not be known to be extreme political partisans. Nobody is obliged to go into the Civil Service. There is no compulsion on any man or woman in this country to accept the service of the Crown. If they accept it, and that they are keen to do so, it shows that it is a very valuable privilege, and they must be willing to accept it with its drawbacks and limitations at the same time as they are only too willing to accept its emoluments.

Having said so much on the general question, I will come to the particular point that I wish to put before the Committee, and that is the position of the unestablished civil servant, who, in the course of years and after the passing of this Bill, becomes an established civil servant. As I read this Clause, a man who is now on the establishment is permitted to remain a member of a trade union provided that he has been a member of it for more than six months before the passing of the Bill, and, secondly, if under the rules of that union he is entitled to certain payments by way of superannuation and so on. His position is safeguarded, but, as I read the Clause—I may be wrong, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will correct me if so—that applies only to the man who is an established civil servant at the moment this Bill becomes law. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider, between now and the Report stage, the case of a man who has put in 10 or 12 years of good work in one of His Majesty's industrial establishments, who is offered and accepts promotion and comes on the establishment, and who has for 10 or 12 years contributed towards the funds of a trade union, largely for the benefits which it promises him, but which he will lose if he accepts a position on the establishment. I feel sure that this case has not been considered fully, because I think he ought to have at any rate some of the consideration which is given to the established man who is at present a member of a trade union and is going to be allowed to remain so. I put his claim no higher than that.

Some hon. Friends and I put down an Amendment, which is not now likely to be reached, giving an unestablished man who becomes established before 1933—we put down that date because it must be five years after the passage of this Bill—a chance of remaining in his union on the same terms as a present established civil servant. I do not wish to tie myself down to the date, but I throw it out as a suggestion. I put it down in the hope that there will come into being some larger organisation which deals with established and unestablished civil servants, and in the hope that in the course of the five years there will be a chance of unestablished civil servants joining such an organisation and thereby securing these benefits. If it were not for the fact that a trade union is a non-legal body, there would be no necessity to raise this question at all, but as no member of a trade union can sue it or has any legal rights against it, he cannot ask for the repayment of funds which he has subscribed. In that position the trade unionist is much worse off than a member of any other association in this country, and it is because of this very peculiar position in which trade unionists find themselves that I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this point between now and the Report stage.


It is of interest to notice that though the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who has just spoken, started with a strong benediction on the Bill, he had not gone very far before he was pointing out something which caused him considerable uneasiness. We have noticed that in the case of several Government speakers to-day. We did not notice it in the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however. He seemed to be perfectly satisfied with the Bill and with this Clause, and he succeeded in diffusing around him an atmosphere which suggested that he was a most reasonable person and that the Conservative Government was a very reasonable Government, but that the Labour party were really the unreasonable people who refused to see the surpassing merits of this Bill, and especially of this Clause. It is perfectly obvious, from the criticisms that we have had from the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) and others, that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction, and justifiable dissatisfaction, in the Civil Service over questions of Whitley Councils and of arbitration. These conditions and feelings in the Civil Service are surely much more important than anything which Ts being affected by this Bill, but these have not been touched.

Important changes in the, Civil Service before have always been the subject of a Royal Commission. Is not that a better way, and is it not very undesirable that serious changes in the Service should be introduced as controversial material in a stormy Bill of this kind? We all desire, I am sure, to keep the discussion of the Civil Service non-party, and it seems a pity that in the middle of a passion-rousing Bill like this, a Clause should be sandwiched dealing with matters which are not necessary and which are certainly not urgent, and which would have been more properly dealt with as part of a general scheme of inquiry into the Civil Service by a suitable judicial body. Why has this definite and lowering change in the status of the Civil Service been made? We, on this side, believe that it has been made simply in line with the main purpose of this Bill as a blow at the Labour party. The Government have here, as they have done in other connections, attacked the Labour party without thinking of the effect which it is going to have—in this case—on the Civil Service. The Civil Service, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been becoming increasingly identified with the fortunes of one political party. That is the real reason for this Clause. There are those who would say that this attitude on the part of civil servants is an evidence of the increased intelligence of the Service, a proposition which I do not think we, on these benches, would be inclined to dispute. Whatever changes, however, there may have been in that direction, they certainly have never affected and would never affect the loyalty of civil servants, and one of the things many of us regret most in this Clause is the spirit of distrust of civil servants which is shown. That spirit was evidenced in several instances by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-day.

Undoubtedly this Clause definitely restricts the freedom of civil servants, and many in the Service who are not in sympathy with our party resent the implication which such restriction makes. In the recent Scottish Universities election, I know of at least one case of a prominent civil servant graduate in Edinburgh who had always voted Conservative. On this occasion he took the first opportunity which was available to him to vote against the Government on account of this Clause in this Bill. Had that election been confined to graduates in the Civil Service, I am afraid we would not have had the pleasure of having the hon. Member who now represents the Scottish Universities with us to-day. We want the best type of person in the Civil Service, and we believe that we have had heretofore the best type. Would the best type of person be the person who was willing to be tied hand and foot and have no liberty and no discretion, and to be hedged round with restrictions showing serious mistrust The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day paid a great tribute to the discretion which the Civil Service has always shown. We were very glad to hear that, but it makes one suspicious that this is mere lip-service when we know that that discretion is proposed to be taken away by this Bill.

It seems to me that this talk of divided loyalty is a mere red herring. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it is possible at least that in the Board of Trade there are ardent Free Traders who are at present administering conscientiously the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Personally, I feel sure that if the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) were, say, a clerk in the War Office, he would carry out his duties with exemplary loyalty. I do not think there is any real risk at all of a lack of loyalty in the Civil Service. If there is, it will come from lack of trust. I understand that the best leading articles in the Tory Press are written by secret Socialists who are driven to an alien loyalty by economic necessity. As long as we have honourable men and women in the Civil Service, they will do their jobs well and loyally apart altogether from what they think of the particular Government in power. But I think it is quite clear that they must have liberty to fight fairly for better conditions of service.

There is a common impression that Civil Servants are well paid and have very easy conditions. The figures have been given, but I do not think they can be given too often, namely, that 150,000 civil servants have less than £3 a week and that 250,000 have less than £4 a week. Surely then it is important that they should have a chance to fight for better conditions, and that they should be allowed to unite with their fellows outside the Service who are equally affected and who rise and fall with them. We have, as a matter of fact, witnessed in recent years quite definite attacks on the already indifferent position of civil servants because they were said to be a sheltered industry. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd), who is an expert on sheltered and unsheltered industries, in his place. As a matter of fact, one of the things which led up to the so-called general strike was the fact that deputations were being sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by chambers of commerce and by various industrialists throughout the country asking for a lowering of salaries in the Civil Service and in other sheltered industries, so that they could more successfully attack the wages of those working in so-called unsheltered industries. There is no doubt that this movement was one of the reasons that caused the working classes of the country to believe that there was going to be a determined and serious attack on the standard of life of the whole of the people. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for the civil servants to be able to defend their position and to struggle for a better position. It is quite certain that the Treasury have at present power to block the procedure and decisions of Whitley Councils and other tribunals which are set up to deal with wages and conditions. The Treasury have the final word.

It seems to me that it is a mean and petty method which is taken in this Bill, even if that is not the real motive, which prevents civil servants fighting freely for a better standard of life and marching forward with their fellows outside in what, after all, is the same struggle. While we cannot hope that the Government will change their attitude, we are glad to have again the assurance of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) that if a Labour Government comes into office they will reverse this policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the courage which is characteristic of him, said he did not believe there should be Members in this House who were representing interests other than their immediate constituents, and he turned round to hon. Members behind him for the applause which he duly got. We know there are Members in this House, on the Government side, who represent many other interests than their constituents, and who yet criticise those who represent civil servants. Those Service representatives have not only given good service to their own immediate constituencies but have well represented the Civil Service, and have given valuable help and information to the House in regard to these matters.


I think it might be convenient now if the Committee were to come to a decision on this point.[HON. MEMBERS: "NO !"] Of course, if the Committee wishes to continue the discussion, the Government will not put any obstacle in the way. There are only two or three points which I wish to put to the Committee, which have arisen in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. HoreBelisha) raised the question of the established men who had been discharged from the dockyard. One of the most important foundations of my argument in this case was that we were justified in requiring a special standard from established men because they were established and permanent in their employment. That foundation would be undermined if it could be shown that there were free discharges of the established men. I have made inquiries, and I am now in possession of the facts. It appears that some time ago the Admiralty were making discharges from the dockyards, and altogether about 2,000 men were discharged and they were taken from the unestablished men. It was, however, thought right to ask whether any of the established men wished to be retired, and 65 men voluntarily adopted the option to retire with their pensions. In addition, 25 men were retired who were below average efficiency, it being thought that when so many unestablished men were being discharged, who were efficient, it was impossible to justify the retention of men who were markedly below the normal standard of efficiency. Every case was gone into, and 25 established men were so retired. These 25 men were, of course, retired on pensions, although not, perhaps, so large a pension as they would have had if they had served up to their fulltime limit. Therefore, what I have said previously on this point about permanency and being pensionable holds perfectly good, and in practice the permanency and the pensions are effectively secured.

I have been asked from several quarters of the Committee questions about the provisos to the clause. The second of them has been drafted with the intention of meeting the case of a civil servant who works during the day-time in his office at his Civil Service employment, and who is a member of, for example, a musical trade union, perhaps playing in an orchestra in a subsidiary position. It has been thought right to provide for a case of that kind. The first proviso deals with the difficult case of the civil servant who, hitherto, has been a member of an outside union, and has contributed to the funds of the union in respect of which certain benefit rights are gradually maturing. We save this man's position in the proviso by providing that if he has been for six months a member of a trade union when the Act is passed, and he is on the establishment, he is permitted both to remain on the establishment and continue his membership in order not to lose his benefits.

But we cannot allow the proviso to apply to unions inside the service which are of a political character. If a man belongs to a union outside the service, he can continue, if an existing established man, without losing his benefit rights. Unions inside the service which have political affiliations may also have benefit funds, but they will merely have to alter their rules, which it will be quite easy to do. The object of the Government Amendments which have been put down to Clause 5, on page 6, lines 6 and 9, is accordingly to modify the proviso to the extent of making it clear that the saving Clause only applies to unions outside the Civil Service.

The point has, however, been raised that although the proviso protects the established men who are existing members of trade unions, there is also the ease of those men who are existing members of outside trade unions and are not yet established, but hope to become established, and probably will become established, in the course of a few years. They belong to outside unions, and the day will come in five or 10 years when they will be offered establishment. What is to happen to them?

The answer which I have to give on that point, and it is a solid one, is that the unestablished man, who may have the opportunity of becoming established, will be very glad to be established and looks forward to it. A man who is already established has no option, and would but for the proviso have to give up his benefits, but a man who is not established would have an option. If he had the option he would be no doubt glad to become an established man. We felt that a line should be drawn between the two. I am not sure that it is not possible to make some more careful arrangement in this regard, and before the Report stage I shall certainly consider very carefully whether it is possible—I am not making a definite pledge—without injury to the general structure of the Bill, to insert some provision dealing with existing men who belong to outside trade unions prior to establishment, and, while so belonging, have acquired certain rights. If this is not done, it will not be for want of trying to see whether it can be done without damage to the structure of the Clause.


Will it come out of their own funds?


I see no reason why the outside unions should not say to these men, "Come along and join the union, and if you get on to the establishment we will make an arrangement to give you some consideration for any accrued benefits which may be due to you."

8.0 p.m.


This discussion serves the purpose of giving the Committee an opportunity of going into the details of this Clause. As we proceed with it, we seem to get more engrossed in a large number of details, and there is a danger that we may find that the great principles and assumptions underlying this Clause will not receive adequate discussion. For a very brief time, I want to direct the attention of the Committee to several assumptions which underlie this Clause. The first is that the Tory Government is the State, that that State is a just State, and a State ready to confer benefits upon all civil servants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone back to the period of last year. He has said, "Certain things happened. They may happen in the future. We see certain tendencies which were clearly shown in the events of last year by 40 men in the Civil Service having got into trouble as far as the Government are concerned. "On the basis of 40 men out of some hundreds of thousands having got into trouble, the Government come forward and ask us to pass legislation on the assumption that the Tory Government are the State, and on the assumption, further, that the Trade Unions Congress is the enemy of society. The Government also assumes, not merely that the Trade Unions Congress is the enemy of society, and that the civil servants must not be mixed up with it, but they assume by this Clause that one single trade union, let alone the Trade Unions Congress, is evil and is an enemy of society. Therefore, this Clause lays down that the civil servant must not mix either with the Trade Unions Congress or with any individual trade union.

I am not going to discuss that part of the Clause which refers to political rights. My hon. Friends on this side have discussed it, and probably will discuss it, but I have noticed that, in the Debate so far, there has been very much emphasis placed upon the fact that the civil servants, through their organisation, must not join any other organisation for the purpose of improving their wages. This is not only the repression of the Civil Service in the political sphere, but it is the repression of the Civil Service as far as their ordinary industrial and wage conditions are concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Ah, but the State comes along and it accepts arbitration." I listened very carefully to him throughout, and I think he said that the State accepts the principle of arbitration, but reserves to itself the right, in individual cases, not to accept the machinery and the actual practice of arbitration. I say that if the State is going to cripple the civil servants in this way, the State must be prepared in its full entirety to accept the principle of arbitration. What do I notice going on with the Post Office people at the present time? Day after day the representative of the Post Office gets up at the Industrial Court and uses dozens and dozens of illustrations of workers outside the Post Office in order to show that the civil servants in the Post Office are getting better wages and conditions than people outside whose work can be compared with the work of the Post Office employés. If that be so, surely, as a matter of elementary right of defence, and of industrial and economic necessity, it is essential that the Post Office workers, these men who are employed by the Post Office, should have the right to affiliate with organisations outside.

I, myself, do not believe that there is any sincerity in all this talk of the Tory party about the purity and the liberty of the Civil Service. The great bulk of the members of the Civil Service get wages amounting to about £3 a week, and they need affiliation and contact with outside organisations in order to maintain their economic independence, their civil liberty and their freedom for action in every way. I, therefore, believe that the intention of the Government in this respect is to get civil servants free from all contact and all experience and all touch with the workers outside so that they can be used by them as strike-breakers; used as the Tory Government desired them to be used in the last affair in order to defeat the aims of other workers. When the general strike and the miners' lock-out were on, the Government took the side of the coal-owners. Right through those disputes it was quite evident that the Government were on the side of the coalowners. Are the Government, having taken an attitude of that kind, going to deny civil servants the right to express their views on the attitude of the Government If they are, then they are going to turn these men into the enemies of the other workers in the State, and I, for one, will resist a Clause of this character.


The Government, in introducing this Clause, have shown something of the doubt which they feel regarding the other Clauses of the Bill, and particularly the principal Clause with reference to the general strike. One would have thought, if there had been any value in that main Clause of the Bill, which is aimed to prevent participation in a general strike, there would have been no particularisation, especially in so far as the special unions of civil servants are concerned. The very fact that the Government has had to make additional special provisions to deal with the Civil Service, and to deal with it on this very issue of the general strike and general industrial action, goes to show that the Government have very little confidence indeed in the efficacy of the other parts of the Bill. The Government have made much during the discussion that we have had in the Committee stage of this Bill of the reason why things to-day are so different from what they were two years ago, when political issues had been raised by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). The reason given for the Government's changing their attitude is that the general strike has intervened, and that the attitude adopted by various unions in regard to the general strike has compelled the Government to bring in this Measure that we are now discussing. At any rate, by all the admissions from the Front Bench of the Government with regard to the Civil Service, with regard to the postal service in particular, the general strike made no difference whatever to those industrial workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that out of the many thousands, indeed, hundreds of thousands, of civil servants, there were only 40 cases where complaint could be made. As he has been reminded more than once to-night, the Civil Service generally acted in such a way that they merited the highest thanks of the Government. So there is nothing in the general strike which gave an excuse to the Government for introducing this particular Clause. It is for that reason, perhaps more than any other reason, that I find the inclusion of this Clause so unsatisfactory. I observe that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing with that issue he suggested that, on the whole, the Civil Service would find no great disability. Ninety per cent., he suggested, of the civil servants would feel when this Bill was passed that there was nothing different from what there was before the Bill was passed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg)

Ninety-nine per cent.


I am glad to be corrected. I wonder whether there are any political privileges for anyone. Do political privileges count for nothing at all? Is it merely a matter of theory, a matter of satisfying some academic belief, that makes certain people in the community talk about the political privileges and the possession of those political privileges? I am reminded of the history of the long working-class struggle that goes back to the days of Peterloo, when men fought and struggled and died for political privileges, believing in the long run they would influence finally the conditions of poverty, and climb out of that poverty, if political privileges were allowed to them. But now we are told that 99 per cent. of the civil servants who are confronted by political problems—and many of those civil servants are poor, at any rate, reckoned on the basis of the standard of life which the people now desire to possess—that the possession of these political privileges stand for nothing at all, and that civil servants, when they are robbed of them, will feel that they are suffering from no practical disadvantage. If there be anything in that argument at all, then there is no value in the political privileges that any of the citizens of the community possess. The logical conclusion of this Clause, if pushed to extremes, means that the Government have begun with one set of citizens, not intending to stop with that set, and there will be no end to this progress that the Government are now embarking upon until many other types of citizens have been robbed of their political liberties also.

I would ask the Government, "What ground is there, if you withdraw political liberties from the postmen, or the other ranks of the Civil Service, to leave political liberties to other working men and to allow them to become part of the wider political organisation that to-day is possessed by the teachers or the doctors?" It may be said, "Oh, but the teachers' organisations have not trodden the same path as the postmen, nor have the doctors done so," but it is not at all unlikely that, in the development of their needs, they may find the necessity of doing exactly what the postmen and other trade unions have done. What case can there be in the future for the maintenance for the teachers or the doctors of the right to organise politically when you have taken away from the postmen this right that they have so long enjoyed? I will go one step further. It is within the bounds of possibility that, before many years have gone by, many workers who are now regarded as private citizens, will become civil servants, if not in an absolute degree, at least in some degree. What are the miners going to be if ever the mines are nationalised? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that the mines never will be nationalised, but I suppose that once on a day they said that the electrical system of this country would never be nationalised, but under the Tory Government it has been nationalised for all practical purposes. I see possibilities, even though we may not come for a year of two into power, in the economic development of the times in which we are now living that many of the services will come under the control of the State to the extent that those who work in those services can be classified as civil servants. When that happens, taking this Bill and this particular Clause of the Bill as a precedent, are we to insist that the miners or the railwaymen or whatever servants may be in that State shall be deprived of political rights in the same way that you propose now to deny them to the Civil Service?

The path the Government is now treading in its proposals in this Clause is a path that leads ultimately to the servile State, in which a comparatively small section of the community will possess civil liberties while the mass of the people—the workers upon whom the State is dependant for its life—will be denied full civil rights. I was interested to observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to admit that workers in ordnance factories would not come under this Clause. The main point which the Chancellor made as justification for this Clause was that the workers to whom it applied were those upon whom the State was especially dependant. Is the State not specially dependant on the work of ordnance factories? I imagine that in war time, or in periods leading up to war time, ordnance workers are needed by the State as much as any other class of workers. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his admission that those workers would have to be excepted from this Clause indicates the impossibility of applying this Clause even on the basis which he himself suggested for its application.

I suggest that the more experience the workers have of the operation of this Clause, if it becomes law, the more will it arouse protests, anger and irritation and develop bad feeling within the Civil Service. It will create a position exactly the opposite to that at which it aims. I suppose it is too late to ask the Government to reconsider their attitude? They have ploughed their way through all these Clauses, making slight modifications here and there, but steadily pursuing their main purpose of crippling the workers. The only means of bringing the Government to their senses are the same means as have always been applied to politicians. When the Government realise the indignation among civil servants and postal servants in particular, caused by this Clause and the political consequences of that indignation to themselves, they may change their view. I have spoken with postmen in my own division who have told me with anger that when they became postmen and entered into a contract with the State to serve the community they had little idea that they would be treated as this Clause proposes to treat them. These men prize their political liberties even if they have not used those political liberties for their own advantage. They prize those liberties which they realise have come down to them as the result of a century of struggle by their fathers. They feel that the Government are placing a special stigma upon them; and they will never rest content, and we on these benches can never rest content until we have undone the consequences of this Clause.


I do not propose to take up any part of the short period which remains to the Committee for dealing with this Clause, by discussing its general merits. I rise now because it may be my only opportunity of asking the Government between now and the Report stage, to consider three points which I submit to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. First, I desire to suggest that the first Government Amendment on the Paper to-day—in page 6, line 6, after "organisation" to insert the words "not composed wholly or mainly of persons employed by or under the Crown"—should also be brought in at the beginning of the Clause against the word "organisation" in line 37. The Attorney-General will recognise the difference between remaining a member and becoming a member of an association under certain conditions. I suggest that it would produce no harm, and would get rid of many difficulties if that Government Amendment were brought in at the point which I have indicated. Next I would raise the question of the retired civil servant who is excluded by this Bill from continuing in membership of an association within the limits of the Civil Service. I suggest he should be allowed to continue in such membership. I do not think it can have been the intention of those who drafted the Bill that he should be compelled to retire. Those who are left in the association would still benefit by his guidance and experience and there would appear to be no just disqualification in the case of such a man from continuance in membership of the union.

My third point is the special wording of Sub-section (2). As I read it, if a man knowingly contravenes any part of the Act, no matter in what degree or to what extent, whether it be slightly or seriously, he is ipso facto disqualified from continuing to be a member of the Civil Service. There is no locus penitentiæ for him at all. I do not think the wording can be intended to cut him off from all possible remedy and we should see to it that, if a man commits only a very slight contravention, he should not therefore cease to be a member of the Civil Service without any discretionary power to deal with his case being given to the Treasury or to anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not improve it!"] I am sorry to hear that observation, because, technically, in Committee everybody is supposed to be trying to improve the Bill. I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the position of the established dockyard men. I endorse every word of what he says, and I believe in the wisdom and justice of the appeal which he made. I do not propose at this stage to refer to the rights of affiliation, because if we are fortunate enough to get rid of this first Amendment on the Paper, I have an Amendment dealing with that subject. I suggest respectfully to the Committee that we can most usefully occupy the little time which remains to us, by trying to get consideration for some of the further Amendments on the Paper.


The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in speaking on this Clause, made two statements which rather amazed me. Like all the other Clauses of this Bill there is a great deal of confusion as to what this Clause means and, not being a lawyer, I do not propose to attempt to explain it and thereby to add still further to the confusion. The amazing thing in the Chancellor's speech was the reason which he gave for this Clause. His reason boiled down to the suggestion that members of the civil service might take part in a general strike. I ask the Attorney-General if, under the Clauses of the Bill which we have already passed, it would be possible for any branch of the Civil Service to take part in a general strike or a sympathetic strike of any kind? Take the case of the Post Office—in which I am specially interested, one of the largest postal depots being in my constituency. How can postal servants come out on strike under the first Clause of the Bill? If it were a general strike and, therefore, an illegal strike, it would be quite impossible. It would also be impossible for them to come out in support of the parties to any kind of industrial dispute, because it would at once appear that they were coercing the Government. In suggesting that one of the reasons for introducing the Clause is the fear of a general strike, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not realised what is done by the earlier part of the Bill. If they want to strike illegally they can do so now and the Bill will be of no value. They cannot have a legal strike and I shall be interested to hear what explanation the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to offer on that point.

It has been said that a great principle is involved in this Clause. The general principle is that every man ought to have the right to unite with those of his own trade in order to improve the position of that trade, or of his class, or if he so desires to take political action. Even the Government do not challenge that main principle in regard to trade. The fallacy of this Clause is that the Government in it are suggesting that any body of men who are in the public service should be in a different position to men employed by private firms or municipalities. I can understand the plea that the Army, Navy or the police cannot be linked up with other trade unions, but when you get away from those executive forces there is no reason why every person who, accidentally or otherwise, happens to be in the public service, should be forbidden to join with his fellows in this way. Take the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). According to this Bill men in the dockyard service are not to become members of trade unions. But there are men in exactly the same position doing exactly the same class of work who will not come under this Clause at all, yet the work of those men in a national emergency would be as important as the work of the dockyard hands. If they came out on strike on the construction of a battleship were delayed, it would have exactly the same effect on the State as a strike of men in the dockyard service. Why should men in the dockyard service be treated differently from those in private shipyards? The Chancellor says it is to the advantage of the State to have men under certain conditions, and the real outcome of the Chancellor's speech would be that all dockyards should be owned by the State and the men employed by the State.

It happens that in this country the postal service is under Government, but not so many years ago the telephones, an important part of the service, were in private hands. If the telephones had been in the hands of private enterprise to-day, they would not have come under this Clause; although the effect upon the State of a strike in the telephone service would have been exactly the same. If we are to argue in the way the Chancellor is arguing we are going to say that it is a protection to the State to have these people in their employ, because they can be prevented from striking, and that would provide an argument for the nationalisation of the railways. If all strikes could be prevented in that way, it might be to the advantage of the community that the railways should come under the control of the State. Really, the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no bottom in it at all. I challenge the Attorney-General to give me a single instance in which the postal service could take part in a legal strike, having regard to the provisions of Clause 1.

What are the principal claims made on behalf of this Clause as it affects the postal service? First, there is the effect it will have on the political levy and on the sending of certain members to this House. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), and the Chancellor virtually indicated to him how the law might be got round, as far as I understood him. The Chancellor is not a lawyer, and I should not like to be too confident; if my hon. Friend took his advice and tried to get round the law in that way it might be found, when he got to the Courts, that the Chancellor was a very bad lawyer. However, the Chancellor seems to hold out the hope that the law may be got round; perhaps when the lawyers get to work on this Bill the trade unions may find there are many other ways in which the law can be got round. At any rate, the Chancellor has shown an excellent example of being willing to show how to avoid a law when once it has been passed. As far as I can see the only gain the Government will get from this Clause is that postal servants will not be able to join up with the trade unions and that, it is hoped, the political levy will come to an end. It seems a poor justification for taking away the privileges of a large body of men. I have been approached by those who are members of the postal service, and there is no doubt what their view is of the Clause. They are strongly opposed in every way to their rights being taken from them.

If we are to prevent postmen from having political rights, what about the position of the employés of the great municipalities? There are some undertakings controlled by the London County Council the stoppage of which would have a far greater influence upon the life of this city than the stoppage of the postal service. We can all do without our letters for a day or two; perhaps some of us here would be only too glad to be rid of the whole of them for a week or two; but why should this Clause be brought into operation against the postal service and not against the tramwaymen in the employ of the London County Council? We have heard a great deal about loyalty and so forth. It comes very badly from the benches opposite. It is rather unfortunate, as indicated earlier in the Debate, that we have had Wilson's revelations just at this time; and though that point does not affect the position of the Chancellor, because he at any rate had no part or lot in those things, yet if there is to be talk about loyalty it would be well that it should come from people who have not played with high treason. In this Clause an attack is being made on a fundamental principle. To a limited extent, we are willing to agree, it might apply to executive services. Head officials cannot very well take part in politics, that would be impossible; but, broadly speaking, the great mass of the Civil Service could discharge their political rights and take part in political disputes and discussions without any injury being inflicted on the State, and it is far better that we should have them serving us contentedly than that, by taking away their rights and liberties, we should plant the seeds for further trouble when the full harvest of this Measure comes to be reaped by the nation.


I am one of those who think this Clause is fully justified in principle. The last speaker gave us two analogies. He gave us first the analogy of the telephones before they were nationalised, and said that if they had not been nationalised this Clause would not apply to the telephone service. This Clause does not forbid strikes. It has no bearing upon strikes in the direct sense, though if an established civil servant goes on strike, as things are to-day I imagine he would lose his established position. If the telephones had remained under private enterprise and threats of interference with the telephone service had grown up, I imagine Parliament would have legislated in respect of telephones as it has done in regard to gas, electric light and water supply, whether controlled by public authorities or private companies. Therefore, that analogy does not seem of much value. In his second analogy he pointed out that this Clause would not apply to municipal servants. So far as I am aware, the evil in respect of municipal services has not arisen. I have still to learn that tramwaymen form organisations primarily for the purpose of running tramwaymen for the London County Council. That evil has not developed to a very acute extent so far.

There has been some talk about the position of civil servants and the problem of remedying their grievances. I would like to see fewer civil servants and those who were left better paid. I know it is the practice for all in this House who have served in high office to pay high tribute to civil servants for their loyalty and the faithfulness with which they discharge their duties, and I believe they are faithful and that they work hard, but at the same time I think our Civil Service, like the Civil Service of every country in the world, in all ages, is far less efficient than it might be. That is not the fault of the individuals in the service. I think it is very largely the fault of this House. It might be worth while to experiment with the setting up of several constituents for civil servants—taking them entirely outside our geographical areas, but giving them their own representation, and withdrawing them from the ordinary constituencies, where their presence sometimes operates in a rather curious way. Whether that suggestion is worth considering or not I do not know, but I am quite satisfied that it is a great evil for those in the public service to play an active part in politics. The Liberal party will probably claim that they have done something, perhaps more than the other parties, to purify the public service of this country, that they have fought harder to eliminate the evils of nomination, and to take appointments in the Civil Service away from party politicians; and in this country to-day we have a Civil Service which is probably purer and cleaner than that in any other country in the world at any time. I am very anxious that we should keep it so, but from the moment the Civil Service enters into politics politicians will start to take an undesirable interest in the Civil Service, and I am quite satisfied that in the long run corruption lies that way.

I think I am entitled to express some view on this matter, because 20 years ago, when I had an opportunity of entering the Civil Service under very favourable terms to myself, I decided not to do so, as I wanted to take part in politics. Those who desire the security of the Civil Service—and there is a measure of security far greater than that in any other occupation—and who are given that security in order to avoid corruption, do it with the full knowledge that they limit their activities as ordinary citizens. If that is the case, I think the very reason which induced me not to enter the Civil Service is the reason why those who did enter it, knowing what The conditions were, should abstain from any marked activity in party politics. I regard that as a fundamental justification for the greater part of the Clause, but I want to plead with the Financial Secretary to remember that there are persons serving in the Civil Service who have no desire to take part in politics as civil servants, and no desire to go on strike, but who do desire to belong to organisations for the purpose of safeguarding their legitimate rights as employés of the State. I am thinking of people like chemists and physicists; it may apply to doctors, it may apply to legal gentlemen—I am not sure—but it certainly applies to engineers, for whom at the moment there is, in my opinion, no appropriate organisation within the Civil Service. Those people belong to outside organisations and, if the Clause passes in its present form, they will cease to belong to those outside organisations. So far as I am aware, there is no appropriate organisation that they can enter.

If I am right in my facts and in my interpretation of the Clause, it means that you will be saying to this class of civil servant, "You must not join any trade union whatsoever." I think trade unions ought to exist. People whose occupation is such that collective bargaining is desirable are unwise if they do not join a trade union. Here are people whose conditions of service from time to time will require discussion collectively, and I think they ought to be permitted to retain their existing memberships, and new members of the Civil Service in a like position should be allowed to join similar organisations subject to this condition, that those organisations have no strike policy and no political power. We are in this Clause directing ourselves to two things, the political activity of civil servants and the possibility of the Civil Service being called upon to engage in a sympathetic strike of a national character. If the organisations to which they belong are by their rules clearly debarred from other activities I think we might meet the difficulty that has arisen in their case—and there may be similar cases—by passing the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I fear I shall probably not have the chance of moving. There is no conflict between the fundamental principle of the Clause and the appeal I am making that the Front Bench should consider the Amendment which stands in my name. I believe the fundamental principle of the Clause is right, and when the time comes I shall support it with the very greatest pleasure.


The hon. Member uttered a rather keen and cutting commentary upon capitalist organisations when he declared that in order to get security in modern society one must give up political rights and civil liberties and try to sink one's identity and one's ambition to serve one's country otherwise than in a sheltered industry and secure occupation. It is peculiar to note that we on these benches are often charged with desiring to set up an organisation of society which must lead to a servile state, which would lead to the elimination of personal liberties, which would cut out individuality, and that we are defending those very principles, and these things are being destroyed by the party who charge us in the way they do, because that is what is being clone. I do not admit that democracy consists of merely casting votes. The democratic theory admits that it is right for any person who so desires to serve the country in an administrative capacity, to serve his locality, to serve his community under all the forms that democracy confers, and it seems to me this Bill destroys a very vital part of the whole of democratic theory and democratic constitution. It is rather remarkable that we should get this point of view. I should like to know why a differentiation is made between a civil servant of the State occupying a position in the peace organisation and one occupying a position in the military organisation. I want to know why it is to be laid down, as it is, that a man in a Government Department may not take part in political activity with the same freedom that an officer in the Army or the Navy may.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL

No naval officer can take part in politics when on the active list.


They are only half retired. They are in a sense on active service, because when they are on half pay they may serve. I cannot find any real justification for that differentiation.


There is no such system as half pay in the Civil Service. If there were it would apply.


I did not say there was. The hon. Member seems to be casting about to find explanations which are not at all analogous. I find the explanation in this fact. The Conservative party has never proved itself a friend of democratic theory. The Conservative theory is not a democratic theory at all. It is essentially autocratic. It is an old tradition of the Conservative party that they control the political activities of those who are under their control. It is a tradition that lingers still in a good many agricultural districts that because agricultural labourers happen to work for the landlord they must vote as the landlord thinks fit. Whether that is practised absolutely or not it is an idea that lingers in the mind of thousands of men who are frightened to avow then political convictions and dare not avow their connection with a political party that is outside the colour of the person for whom they work. That is a fact we are well aware of and it has practically admitted during the Debates on this Bill, because it has been said that in the past there was a certain amount of political intimidation on the part of employers. Everyone knows that is so. I remember my old grandfather who was connected with the land.


I do not see how the hon. Member connects his argument with the rights of civil servants.


I want to show what is at the bottom of the principle underlying the Clause and the whole Bill. My grandfather used to argue that men who worked with him had a right to vote—


I must ask the hon. Member to show how this is related to the rights of civil servants.


I was coming to that. I was going to show that the principle the Conservatives held in their private capacity as employers they now employ in their capacity as the Government. They go back to Louis, and when they are asked, "Who is the State?" they say, "We are the State and these people are our employés and they must do as we wish. They must keep out of politics, in which we are engaged." It is because of that that I oppose this Clause—in fact, I oppose the whole Bill. There is a reason, it seems to me, why this Clause ought not to be passed. We are constantly hearing criticisms upon the question of sheltered and unsheltered trades. The Post Office, of course, is regarded as a sheltered trade and it is said those persons occupying sheltered trades are receiving wages at the expense of those in unsheltered trades. That is not a new argument. We have heard it many times. There is a case being tried now before the Industrial Court in which postal servants' interests are being discussed, and it is being argued in favour of reducing their wages that they are paid more than workmen doing work of a similar kind outside. If that be correct, the postman, whose wages depend upon the wages of workmen outside the Post Office, surely ought to be allowed to engage in organisation for the purpose of improving, not his own wages, but the wages of those outside in order to maintain his own. That seems to be the logic of the argument. If you constantly argue the case of the sheltered as against the unsheltered trades, it seems to me to be a denial of the elementary right that a man should be allowed to do the best he can to sell his labour in the best possible market. Because of these reasons, I shall very heartily vote against this Clause.


As I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, I was amazed at the many inaccuracies to which we had to sit and listen. [Interruption.] If you like to think of them as untruth, you can do so. One of the statements he made was that this Clause will make no difference, and yet he was compelled to admit at a later stage that when men are established it is his intention that they shall have no hand or part in membership of a trade union. If that last statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer be true—and I suppose he claims to be a truthful man—[Interruption]—I do not accept his claim; I shall wait for the proof. I have not yet seen in his career—and I have observed him in many positions in the Cabinet in the past—much to warrant my accepting the statement from Members that he is so virtuous as they are inclined to show by their cheers. He stated that it would make no difference to these established men, and yet at the present time the established men employed in His Majesty's dockyards and shipyards are represented by the trade unions. He cannot have it both ways. To-day they are represented through their trade unions, and yet he says it is his intention that they shall not, in the future, be represented by the trades unions covering their particular industry, craft, calling, occupation or whatever you like to term it. I think I am quite justified in calling attention to the inaccuracies of the Chancellor in putting forward this Clause.

9.0 p.m.

I am not surprised at it being put forward. Those who represent the men and women employed to-day in the dockyards, in the War Department and in the Air Force establishments have been pressing the Government vigorously for some considerable time with regard to wages. They have pointed out that the Government are just as bad as some of the worst employers in the country. They realised that by their organisations inside the Civil Service it was impossible to secure anything at all from any Government that we have had, either of the complexion of those Members who sit on my left or of the members of the Conservative party. It was impossible to secure improvement. They were, in those days, compelled to present a petition humbly praying "My Lords," or the Army Council or some other body of that kind, to give them an advance of 2s. a week or make some slight alteration in their conditions. Then, "My Lords" sat upon the petition for 12 months, and at the end of that time presented the old answers to petitions. There was a whole series of printed answers: "Your request not acceded to." When these people saw that it was impossible to bring about improvement in their conditions by any Civil Service organisation, they did the sensible thing and joined the organisations of their fellows engaged in comparable industries and occupations outside. As a result of that, they were able to secure some improvement.

It is for that reason, much more than for the political side, that the Government are pressing this Clause. They know full well that they cannot hold back the civil servants from taking their part in the political field. I think civil servants, the men and women I know, are not so namby-pamby, as might be inferred from speeches of Members on the Government side, that they are inclined to step out of their place in the life of this country as far as political affairs are concerned. I have wondered why it is that the Government have treated the Civil Service much worse than they are treating the armed forces. I know of men in His Majesty's Army, I know of men in the Navy—I think the gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne (Sir R. Hall) knows it—and I know of men in the Air Force who are members of the various trade unions of this country at the present time. Is there no harm then in the soldier, the sailor and the airman being a member of a trade union, and yet it is a crime on the part of the civil servant to be a member of a trade union. [Interruption.] Someone interjects "the charwoman." I suppose that if a charwoman happens to belong to one of the unions that has members engaged in the outside world there may be some danger to the State; that if an established messenger, who opens the door to you in one of the Departments belongs to a union which has members who are employed by the London County Council there is an offence committed against the State, that it will be likely to cause some danger, and even to bring about insurrection.


Did the hon. Member say that there are soldiers who belong to a trade union?


I did. I said soldiers of His Majesty's Army, serving soldiers. Not only that, but there are men on His Majesty's ships in various parts of the world who are active members of trade unions. There are men in the Air Force of this country who are active members of trade unions. I do not expect the Government to know what is going on. I only know that they receive their instructions from a conference at Scarborough or else from the confederation of employers, and they have to go forward on the instructions of those particular bodies. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am afraid that it seemed to satisfy some of my colleagues, that the ordnance workers would not be affected. In answer to the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell), who asked whether the men in the ordnance factories would be affected, the right hon. Gentleman, out of his knowledge—I do not know whether he had consulted anybody—said that this would not affect the ordnance factories. I hope that whoever is in charge will make further inquiries, because I have here a document, and I am told that it is a Cabinet document—[Interruption]. It is not from the Secret Service, I can assure you, Mr. Hope. There is no difficulty in getting anything from the Secret Service that you want to get, because anyone who is engaged in that sort of Secret Service would be prepared to work on either side. This document was issued last September to the men employed in the Army Ordnance at Woolwich, Didcot, and other places. In paragraph 5, the condition laid down is: That on Establishment, the clerks and writers concerned must sever all connection with any trade union. That was issued last September by this Government—I know it is an anti-trade union Government—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us to-day that there will be no difficulties imposed upon those engaged at the ordnance factories, or on the ordnance side.

I wonder what there is about the civil servant that demands that he must be separated from the rest of his fellows. When I heard the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) suggesting that when people went into the Civil Service they should sacrifice all part or lot in the public life of this country, I was waiting for his next suggestion which, surely, should have been that the moment people entered the Civil Service, the Government should build barracks for them in order to keep them away from the rest of the community. It is amazing to see this proposal coming at this time. Even Members on the Government side have realised the difficulties of it. I was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) speak on behalf of some of my members, some of the people whose interests I am representing before the War Department. I am glad that he is much concerned about this Bill and what it will do. I am glad that he is much concerned about people who can well look after themselves, and who will look after themselves even when this Bill is passed through. It shows what a Clause like this can do when hon. Members on the other side are asking for alterations because of the hardship it will impose upon certain people with whom they have come into touch. It is a pity that they have not come into greater touch with the men and women in the Civil Service, both on its industrial and administrative side.

We have been told that there must be some provision made for arbitration. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite will be satisfied with the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government have agreed to compulsory arbitration. I wish they would act up to what they have agreed to. I know that in the cases referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon, those men have been waiting for nearly four years to secure the, hearing of their case. Those are the people who are now told that they must not be members of trade unions. What is the intention of the Government in regard to the Whitley Councils? I am not going to make any appeal to the Government to improve this Measure. They could have passed it through just as it was in its rough, crude state when it first came before the House. I do not appreciate what they call the improvements that have been put into it.


It has been made worse.


I agree that it has been made worse. I would remind the Government that they have had a great deal to say about the Whitley Councils and the method of negotiation. We have been told that negotiation and better understanding would be helpful in putting us on our feet as far as our industries are concerned. One of the rules of the Whitley Councils is that only representatives of trade unions were to sit on the staff side of the Whitley Councils. Are we to understand that a trade union that may be set up for engineers inside the dockyards and for engineers inside the Arsenal will have representation on that body, and at the same time that the engineering unions, who have members outside as well as inside His Majesty's establishments, will also be allowed to sit on the Whitley Councils? There are the Engineering Trade General Council, the Shipbuilding Trade General Council, the Admiralty Departmental Council and others well known to the Government. Although they are not to be allowed to be in the same unions, will you permit them to sit together with separate representation on the Whitley Councils which deal with these particular Departments? If that be so, it shows the fallacy of the whole position taken up by the Government, and what little sincerity there is in their proposal that they can separate those who are in Government employ from those who are working for private employers. Go on with the Measure. As far as I am concerned, as one who has worked with these men and women for a considerable time, I am not troubled about the Bill. One thing is certain; we shall continue to fight for the improved conditions we have been unable to get from the Government, but which we shall get from a Government which has a greater regard for proper conditions than the Government now in power in dealing with the various Departments.


Hear, hear!


I am glad that the hon. Member for Royton cheers that. It comes well from him, after his suggestion on Friday that it would be a dangerous thing to allow trade union officers to visit Members in their homes, for fear they would intimidate them.


Hear, hear!


The civil servants have realised something out of trade unionism. Whatever they have secured during recent years has been secured by collective action, in which they have been joined by the trade unions. In every case, whether through the Whitley Councils or by collective bargaining which has gone on in the various Departments, they have realised advantage out of the trade union movement, and I am sure that they will be delighted when the opportunity comes for a Labour Government to wipe this Statute off the Book, if ever it happens to be put on to the Statute Book.


Hon. Members opposite have been tearing passion to tatters over this Clause. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) tells us that, no matter what happens to this Bill, he will go on in the same direction of achieving the highest ideals of civil and political liberty for his people. Where is the opposition of the Civil Service to this Bill? Has there been any real manifestation on the part of the Civil Service itself that it is not prepared to accept the provisions of this Clause? It is true that an official in the Civil Service, a gentleman who has been directing the activities of a certain brand of Civil Service organisation, has been vigorously expressing an opinion against this Clause, but from the Civil Service itself—and I associate myself entirely with every compliment that has been paid to its efficiency—there has been no real manifestation of any opposition of any sort or kind to this Clause since it was introduced. All the communications we have had, and they have been fairly reaonable in volume, have come from officials of the various organisations connected with the Civil Service, who during the last five or six years have become closely identified with trade union organisations outside and now desire to maintain that association.

We have heard a great deal this afternoon about robbing the Civil Service of its political liberty. What particular brand of liberty is it of which we propose to rob the Civil Service? Is it the political liberty preached by Mr. Brown, one of the advocates of Civil Service trade unions in this country? Mr. Brown, subtle, discursive, is one of the most remarkable products of Socialism in this country. On the platform he is one of the most ardent advocates of whole hog red blood revolution. We have had the very precise and unchallenged statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, a quotation from a speech delivered by Mr. Brown. We have had a speech which he delivered when he contested a recent by-election, but when Mr. Brown comes to address the Members of this House never was there a more mild, mellow and kindly philosopher as to Civil Service requirements. He was a very gentlemanly, genial, and helpful advocate of all that was best in the Civil Service. When he talks to the public outside, when he is in contact with his fellow trade unionists whom he desires to carry with him, then all the fury and the fire of revolution is preached. The real object and value of this Clause is to detach the Civil Service, holus bolus, from gentlemen of the opinions of Mr. Brown.

I have had the opportunity of sitting opposite to Mr. Brown for a number of years on the national Whitley Council for the Civil Service. I have heard Mr. Brown put forward their case from time to time, but all the speeches we have had from the representatives of the staff side on the various subjects discussed, instead of approaching the subject in a thoughtful way with a view to improving the conditions, mainly consist in a flood of dialectics on all kinds of subtle disquisitions on this point and that point, and rarely arrived at any constructive proposition. I have never known a body of gentlemen who were more anxious to receive practical suggestions from the staff side than the members of the official side of the Whitley Council. But, instead of arriving at agreement on a matter affecting the welfare of the Civil Service, we were always involved in a whole morass of stupid arguments which led us nowhere. If this Clause is inserted and leads to a more competent body of ladies and gentlemen on the staff side it will be a distinct gain to the Civil Service as far as the Whitley Council is concerned. All the attempts that have been made to ally the Civil Service with trade union organisations outside have been very damaging in their effect on the moral of the service. If the truth were known, many meetings were held before the general strike, and during the progress of the general strike, at which suggestions were made of a grossly improper character as to the attitude which Civil Servants should take up in the crisis through which the country then passed.

I hope this Committee will do all it possibly can to keep the Civil Service above party. When Civil Service examinations are announced any number of candidates are prepared to come forward to compete for the places. Every young man and woman who thinks that they possess qualifications which will enable them to secure these places enter for the examinations. Quite properly they are sought for with great energy and anxiety by a large number of candidates, and they enter the Service on the distinct understanding that they discharge their duties without fear, favour or affection, and unrelated to any political organisation in the country. Why do hon. Members opposite desire to maintain some kind of control by the Labour party over the Civil Service of this country? The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has paid a high tribute to the work of the Civil Service, and in the face of that expression of opinion why do the party opposite challenge the provision which is now made to secure the Civil Service from any attack by party political intrigue upon its detachment from all political influences in the future? I hope the Clause will be passed, with one or two important modifications which my hon. Friends have placed on the Order Paper, and which I think will add substantially to its value. I hope that all the nonsense that has been talked by hon. Members opposite will be appreciated at its exact value by members of the Civil Service. One can quite imagine the kind of Civil Service we should have if the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and hon. Members associated with him, had their way. This Committee is acting wisely and well, and the Government deserve the commendation of the whole country for putting this Clause in the Bill.


I rise to ask the Minister, on behalf of the established men in the dockyards, if the explanation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Clause this afternoon means that tens of thousands of men will be ultimately forced out from the dockyards under the Bill. I understand that, under the Bill, established men who are entitled to benefits and who have six months' membership of any society may remain in the society, and also that non-established men, who may become established men, come under a new provision which the Chancellor has suggested this afternoon but to which he has not given any definite shape. The inference from both those answers is that men who are not entitled to benefits and who may become established or who may remain unestablished will not be able to remain members of their union. If that is the real position it is a most serious matter for tens of thousands of men who are in societies now or may want to become members later on. The implication is that there will be a gradual elimination of members of the societies now and that in the future men who want to join the outside societies will be prevented from doing so.

If that is the position, then we ought to have a definite declaration this afternoon that that is the Government's intention, because it is the only implication we can put upon it after hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer three times this afternoon. If it is the intention of the Government, what is to become of established and non-established men in the dockyards who are paid off? We have heard from the Liberal benches and also from the Conservative benches about the 600 discharges from His Majesty's dockyards and we know they are clearing out established and unestablished men at Rosyth. Does this mean that the Government intend that men who follow a trade and who serve their apprenticeship in the Royal dockyards are to be confined to the Royal dockyards alone and are not to be entitled to go out into other parts of the country and work? If it is the real intention of the Government to prevent men joining their respective craft unions and to force them into a union in the dockyards, then we can see a return to dockyard conditions as they were previously to 1917. In my society there are tens of thousands of men in the Royal Dockyards whom we got raised to the status of outside firms in 1917. They were men who were classed as unskilled labourers in the dockyards but all over the world were classed as craftsmen. We got these men lifted up, but, if younger men are not to be allowed to join outside societies, we may see a forcing back to the old bad status which they had in 1917, when men who were receiving 37s. a week outside as craftsmen were only receiving 24s. a week in the dockyards. I can see a time when union membership is eliminated and there will be a return to the old status. That is the intention of His Majesty's Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 201.

Division No. 158.] AYES. [9.30 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Grundy, T. W. Rose, Frank H.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Ammon, Charles George Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Scrymgeour, E.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Scurr, John
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hardie, George D. Sexton, James
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hayes, John Henry Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Batey, Joseph Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Sinclair, Major Sir A.(Caithness)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, G. H. Snell, Harry
Bromley, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Stephen, Campbell
Buchanan, G. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Strauss, E. A.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sullivan, Joseph
Charleton, H. C. John, William (Rhondda, West) Sutton, J. E.
Clowes, S. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Cluse, W. S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Clynes, Right Hon. John R. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Connolly, M. Kelly, W. T. Thurtle, Ernest
Cove, W. G. Kirkwood, D. Tinker, John Joseph
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lansbury, George Townend, A. E.
Dalton, Hugh Lawson, John James Viant, S. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lindley, F. W. Wallhead, Richard C.
Day, Colonel Harry Lowth, T. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dennison, R. Lunn, William Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Duckworth, John Mackinder, W. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Duncan, C. March, S Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Dunnico, H. Maxton, James Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Morris, R. H. Wellock, Wilfred
England, Colonel A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Whiteley, W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Oliver, George Harold Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Fenby, T. D. Palin, John Henry Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Forrest, W. Paling, W. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Gardner, J. P. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gibbins, Joseph Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gillett, George M. Ponsonby, Arthur
Gosling, Harry Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Ritson, J. Barnes.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cobb, Sir Cyril Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Albery, Irving James Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Hammersley, S. S.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Conway, Sir W. Martin Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Cope, Major William Harland, A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Courtauld, Major J. S. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Balniel, Lord Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Curzon, Captain Viscount Hawke, John Anthony
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.H. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Berry, Sir George Davies, Dr. Vernon Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Bethel, A. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Betterton, Henry B. Dean, Arthur Wellesley Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Drewe, C. Hills, Major John Waller
Blundell, F. N. Edmondson, Major A. J. Hilton, Cecil
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Elveden, Viscount Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Holt, Captain H. P.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Brass, Captain W. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Hopkins, J. W. W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Falle, Sir Bertram G. Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Fielden, E. B. Hume, Sir G. H.
Briggs, J. Harold Ford, Sir P. J. Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Briscoe, Richard George Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir. Aylmer
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Foster, Sir Harry S. Hurd, Percy A.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Fraser, Captain Ian Hurst, Gerald B.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Gates, Percy Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Burman, J. B. Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Glyn, Major R. G. C. Jacob, A. E.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Goff, Sir Park Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Campbell, E. T. Grace, John Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Chapman, Sir S. Greene, W. P. Crawford Lamb, J. Q.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Granfell, Edward C. (City of London) Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Clarry, Reginald George Grotrian, H. Brent Looker, Herbert William
Clayton, G. C. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Lougher, Lewis
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Price, Major C. W. M. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Raine, W. Thomson, F. C (Aberdeen, South)
Lynn, Sir Robert J. Ramsden, E. Tinne, J. A.
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen Rawson, Sir Cooper Waddington, R.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Reid, D. D. (County Down) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Macintyre, Ian Remnant, Sir James Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
McLean, Major A. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Rice, Sir Frederick Warrender, Sir Victor
McNoill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Malone, Major P. B. Rye, F. G. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Margesson, Captain D. Salmon, Major I. Watts, Dr. T.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wells, S. R.
Merriman, F. B. Sandeman, N. Stewart Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Sanders, Sir Robert A. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Sanderson, Sir Frank Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Savery, S. S. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Moreing, Captain A. H. Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds.Central)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Nelson, Sir Frank Shepperson, E. W. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Neville, R. J. Smithers, Waldron Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl
Oakley, T. Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Wise, Sir Fredric
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford. Luton) Sprot, Sir Alexander Wither, John James
Pennefather, Sir John Steel, Major Samuel Strang Wolmer, Viscount
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Streatfelld, Captain S. R. Womersley, W. J.
Perring, Sir William George Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Styles, Captain H. W. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Pilcher, G. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip Tasker, H. Inigo. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Pownall, Sir Assheton Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Captain Lord Stanley and Mr.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)

Colonel Wedgwood.


On the distinct understanding that the next Labour Government intends to repeal this Bill, I do not propose to seek to amend it, and therefore I shall not move the Amendment which stands in my name [in page 5, line 32, after "organisation'' to insert the words "including any organisation of any persons engaged in the professions of medicine or the law"].


I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, to leave out from the word "and," to the end of line 2, page 6, and to insert instead thereof the words the rules of which preclude its members from taking part in a strike and also preclude its affiliation to any political organisation. The object of the Amendment put shortly is this—first of all, while preventing associations in the Civil Service from having any strike policy and from being affiliated to political organisations, yet to leave them free to maintain contact with officials in outside industries. There are three or four outside associations which I will mention. One is the National Federation of Professional Workers, to which many Civil Service associations are affiliated. That federation consists wholly of supervisory and technical officials of the railway, engineering, electrical, banking and building services. The federation has no strike or political policy. It has dealt with such questions as Income Tax in its relation to professional people, the sanitary condition of offices, and the effect of the alteration of railway rates upon professional men. They are all matters which, from the point of view of the Bill and that which the Bill desires to end, are not only harmless bat beneficial. The federation also acts as a clearing house for information on questions of salary and conditions of service.

With regard to the last named function, I might mention that in many Civil Service cases before the Industrial Court the Government draws comparison between the remuneration and conditions of service of civil servants and those of comparable employés in other industries. I am told that in a recent case it was sought to modify the existing differentiation being paid in London and the Provinces, and the Treasury representatives quite properly brought before the Court detailed schedules showing the rates of pay in outside services such as schools, railways, banks, printing, electric undertakings, tramways and so on. In the same way when the Government desired to reduce the cost-of-living bonus to the higher officials of the Civil Service they did so by analogy with the position of officers in outside trades and undertakings. My suggestion for the consideration of the Government is that they have unrivalled facilities for obtaining full information, and it is reasonable, therefore, that the members of the Civil Service staff should have the means of obtaining similar outside information.

There are other federations which would be excluded by the operation of the Clause as it stands, and with which I suggest the Civil Service should be allowed to keep in contact, without in the slightest degree interfering with what I consider the very wise policy of the Bill. There are certain international federations which, without the Amendment, the Civil Service associations could not remain affiliated with. It can be stated quite definitely that these consist of State servants and other professional and intellectual workers. Neither of these international federations is linked in any way with political bodies. They act as a link between the British Civil Service and the International Labour organisation set up by the Treaty of Versailles. Under the Bill as drafted organisations of civil servants would be cut off entirely from this official body, although I am informed that notice has recently been received from Geneva that it is the intention of the International Labour Office to institute an inquiry concerning the organisation and situation of civil servants in various countries. Indeed, I have a copy in my hand of the letter sent out from Geneva on this point. What I suggest to my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill is that this Amendment would give very great satisfaction to a large body of thoroughly loyal civil servants, about whose loyalty and service to the country there can be no question, and the very wording of the Amendment, framed and introduced by me at their desire, shows on its face that their sympathies are with the objects which the Government are hoping to attain by this Bill. They are not seeking association with any union with strike endeavours, but their one object is to strengthen their own position and only to have such outside associations as will help them in their work.


We could not accept this Amendment. It virtually invites us to remodel the Clause. It asks us to sacrifice a well-conceived scheme for another, a very laborious and rather ineffective method. It is quite true that we do not think that Civil Service trade unions ought to bring the idea of a strike into their purview. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is a mistake to strike against the State, as every good Socialist knows. It is mutiny. If we were to concede this point, it would be quite possible for Civil Service trade unions to do all sorts of things which they had much better not do. It does not follow at all that the mere renunciation of the right to strike is a sufficient profession to secure salvation. I am not going to plunge into any extremely legal discussion as to the right to strike in the Civil Service. Broadly speaking, the right to strike in the Civil Service is governed to a very large extent by the very obvious fact that any man who goes on strike jeopardises his position, and in the established Civil Service, where years of pensionable service are in question, and where permanent employment, or what is called an everlasting job, is assured—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not like yours"]. I quite agree, but I have no intention of going on strike! In the Civil Service, it would certainly not be sufficient for a mere profession of unwillingness to allow a strike at all in the rules under which any union is bound to be sufficient to exclude that union from the ambit of this Bill. It would be possible, for instance, under the proposals of my hon. Friend for a union to preclude itself from taking part in a strike or from affiliation to political organisations, and yet to enjoy the facility of enrolling in its membership persons who are not civil servants; secondly, of affiliating itself to outside industrial bodies; and, thirdly, of pursuing political objects, and possibly—I only say possibly—of alliance with a political party. All of these objects are contrary to the purposes and principles of Clause 5, and are absolutely antagonistic to the general proposals we have put before Parliament, and I am quite sure that it would be a great mistake for us, for the sake of indulging the philanthropic and benevolent desires of my hon. Friend, to weaken seriously, and possibly fatally, the general structure of this Clause.

Amendment negatived.


I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, to leave out from the word "securing" to the word "that" in line 43.

I had anticipated that this Amendment would not be called, but its purpose is to raise once more the question of the affiliation of Civil Service organisations with outside bodies. I have already, in an earlier speech, expressed certain views which I hold, and I do not propose to repeat them now. The effect of this Amendment would be to permit the continued affiliation of trade union associations in the Civil Service with outside bodies.


I do not think it will be necessary for me to take up a great deal of time, because the point of this Amendment is one which has been discussed very fully in the

earlier and wider discussion which we have already had. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it possible for civil servants to belong to associations which are affiliated with outside organisations whose primary object is to influence the remuneration or conditions of employment of their members. That is the very thing which we have already indicated we regard as undesirable, and for which reason, among others, we have brought in this Clause. To accept the Amendment would really be to negative the principle which underlies the Clause, and the hon. Member will, therefore, not be surprised that we find ourselves unable to accept it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 92.

Division No. 159.] AYES. [9.55 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Drewe, C. Holt, Captain H. P.
Albery, Irving James Duckworth, John Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Edmondson, Major A. J. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Elveden, Viscount Hopkins, J. W. W.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. England, Colonel A. Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M) Hume, Sir G. H.
Balnlel, Lord Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Fairfax, Captain J. G. Hurd, Percy A.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Hurst, Gerald B.
Berry, Sir George Fenby, T. D. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Bethel, A. Fielden, E. B. Ilifte, Sir Edward M.
Betterton, Henry B. Ford, Sir P. J. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Blundell, F. N. Forrest, W. Jacob, A E.
Boothby, R. J. G. Foster, Sir Harry S. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Bourne. Captain Robert Croft Fraser, Captain Ian Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Kindersley, Major G. M.
Brass, Captain W. Ganzonl, Sir John King, Captain Henry Douglas
Brassey, Sir Leonard Gates, Percy Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Lamb, J. Q.
Briggs, J. Harold Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Briscoe, Richard George Glyn, Major R. G. C. Looker, Herbert William
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Goff, Sir Park Lougher, Lewis
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Grace, John Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Burman, J. B. Greene, W. P. Crawford Lynn, sir R. J.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Grotrian, H. Brent McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Campbell, E. T. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Maclntyre, Ian
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) McLean, Major A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Chapman, Sir S. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hammersley, S. S. Malone, Major P. B.
Clarry, Reginald George Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Margesson, Captain D.
Clayton, G. C. Harland, A. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Merriman, F. B.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Meyer, Sir Frank
Conway, Sir W. Martin Hawke, John Anthony Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Cope, Major William Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Curzon, Captain Viscount Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Moreing, Captain A. H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Morris, R. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hills, Major John Waller Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Davies, Dr. Vernon Hilton, Cecil Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Nelson, Sir Frank
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Neville, R. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Sanderson, Sir Frank Warrender, Sir Victor
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Savery, S. S. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Oakley, T. Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Pennefather, Sir John Shapperson, E. W. Watts, Dr. T.
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Wells, S. R.
Perring, Sir William George Smithers, Waldron Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Pilcher, G. Sprot, Sir Alexander Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Pliditch, Sir Philip Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Pownall, Sir Assheton Steel, Major Samuel Strang Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Price, Major C. W. M. Strauss, E. A. Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Raine, W. Streatfelld, Captain S. R. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Ramsden, E. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Rawson, Sir Cooper Styles, Captain H. W. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Reid, D. D. (County Down) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Wise, Sir Fredric
Remnant, Sir James Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Withers, John James
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Tasker, R. Inigo. Wolmer, Viscount
Rice, Sir Frederick Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Womersley, W. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Rye, F. G. Tinne, J. A. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Salmon, Major I. Waddington, R. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Sandeman, N. Stewart Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Sanders, Sir Robert A. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hardie, George D. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hayes, John Henry Scrymgeour, E.
Ammon, Charles George Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Scurr, John
Attlee, Clement Richard Hirst, G. H. Sexton, James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Snell, Harry
Barnes, A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Batey, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West) Stephen, Campbell
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sullivan, J.
Bromley, J. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sutton, J. E.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Kelly, W. T. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Buchanan, G. Kirkwood, D. Thurtle, Ernest
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Lansbury, George Tinker, John Joseph
Charleton, H. C. Lawson, John James Townend, A. E.
Cluse, W. S. Lindley, F. W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lowth, T. Viant, S. P.
Connolly, M. Lunn, William Wallhead, Richard C.
Cove, W. G. Mackinder, W. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Crawfurd, H. E. March, S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Dalton, Hugh Maxton, James Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Day, Colonel Harry Oliver, George Harold Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Dennison, R. Palin, John Henry Wellock, Wilfred
Duncan, C. Paling, W. Whiteley, W.
Gardner, J. P. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gibbins, Joseph Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Gillett, George M. Ponsonby, Arthur Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Potts, John S. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Grundy, T. W. Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rose, Frank H. Henderson.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, leave out from the word "organizations" to the word "and," in line 1, page 6.

This is a subject which has been referred to in the earlier part of the Debate, but it brings up once again the central question of how far the reason for this Clause is really based on a dislike to political connections. When I was speaking earlier this evening I recorded the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really given us only one reason for refusing to allow the postal men to retain the privileges which they have to-day. I pointed out, although no answer has been given, that the main argument was really no argument at all because any right which they had previously of supporting another trade union by a sympathetic strike is already taken away by the first Clause of this Measure. If that is so, the point I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is why he objects to the principle of the postal service still continuing to have the privilege of being connected with organisations which may have a political object in view.

There are two things for which a trade union is entitled to exist. One is what is called an industrial object, but it is quite impossible nowadays to divorce the industrial side of industry from the political side. To try to prevent a body of employés, like the workers in the Post Office, from having the same political rights as bodies of employés in any other trade union seems to be perfectly futile. They have to use the same means of influencing their employers, and I cannot see that it makes any difference to them that these employers happen to be the State. What difference does it make to a man who is receiving a wage of about £3 a week, in the agitation which he carries on, whether the people who pay him are the State, or the municipality or a large private combine? In any case, the method of agitation, of coming to a final solution of what the wage is to be, must be very much on the same lines. Yet the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that, because these people are civil servants, certain rights are to be taken away from them. It is very doubtful how far the present system of arranging their wages is satisfactory. I heard of a case only recently where those employed in one of the Government offices had brought a certain matter before the Whitley Council. The Whitley Council had asked that the officials should consider it and give a definite answer, but months elapsed, and still no answer had been given as to what was the case for the Government in regard to the question raised by the employés. When we consider that these men have ultimately no other means of ascertaining their position except that possessed by men in the employment of other bodies, I cannot see that the Government are justified in the proposals they are making.


I do not anticipate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give way on this question, but I want to bring out clearly what is, apparently, I will not say the real object of the Clause, but the real reason this Clause was drafted in an extremely confused way, ringing the changes, as it were, on the industrial action of civil servants and the political action of civil servants. Underlying a great deal of the discussion which has taken place on this point has been a feeling among hon. Members opposite that the Civil Service should not engage in politics at all. I do not understand why hon. Members, having that view, should support the Clause, because the Bill contains nothing to prevent civil servants, high or low, from engaging in politics, and in party politics, as much as they like. When I was in the Civil Service, I could not find that there was any prohibition of civil servants engaging in party politics and I did engage in party politics. Do hon. Members opposite know of any such prohibition, or suggest that it exists, or that it ought to exist? There is no proposal to prohibit or interfere with that practice. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the only qualification which could be made, or which should be made, in that statement, is that a tactful person would exercise a certain reserve in the manner of his participation in party politics.

When I was a civil servant, I was far too humble a person for anyone to know my name or to connect me with any of the offices in which I was engaged and, therefore, I could venture to take as prominent a part in polities as I chose. But even if it had been my fate to rise to the top of the office, my participation in politics would only have been subjected to a greater reserve. Nevertheless, I have a clear recollection that, when I exercised my rights in a certain direction, I stimulated the permanent head of the office to exercise his rights so as to counteract me.

This Bill does not in any way prohibit civil servants as individuals from engaging in party politics. It does not prevent the civil servant from being in a. civil servants' trade union; what it does is to prevent that civil servants' trade union from engaging in politics. The individual may do it, and civil servants may combine together for trade union purposes, but, when they so combine, they are to have one less right than any other trade unions; they must not do collectively what they may do individually. I hope I am not being uncharitable if I suggest that, if the trade unions of civil servants engaged in politics, if they had done so, on the Conservative side, there would not have been any objection to that from hon. Members on the other side of the House.

I believe hon. Members opposite think that the Post Office Union is connected with the Labour party under the inspiration of the Russian revolution. The Post Office Union has been in politics ever since its formation 20 years ago and has been affiliated with the Labour party since there has been a Labour party. Its affiliation has no relation to any recent events. There has not been any recent development calling for any interference. It so happens that those Civil Service trade unions which do engage in politics collectively, are of the humbler ranks of the Civil Service—those hundreds of thousands of civil servants whose wages are under £3 or £4 a week. They engage in politics, and quite reasonably so. Is it because they have engaged in politics on one of the three sides and not on another, or perhaps not on two of the three sides, that the right hon. Gentleman now comes forward and says it is improper for them collectively to engage in politics while he says it is quite proper for them individually to engage in politics? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Gentleman said it was quite proper for the civil servant to exercise his political rights, subject to a certain reserve, which depended on his position and his office, as to the manner in which he did so.

I suggest it is better that civil servants should engage in politics collectively through an organisation. There is something to be said against a rural postmaster in a little village becoming known as a prominent politician. He occupies a position in which there might be objection to his taking a prominent part in any current party or political discussion; but for that very reason it is better that he should be urged to exercise his opinions through an organisation rather than that he should be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the real head of the Civil Service, that civil servants may exercise political rights and may engage in politics, and that there is no objection to their joining political organisations as long as they do it individually. Of course, the vast mass of civil servants are members of political organisations—in the upper ranks mostly of Conservative or Liberal organisations but a certain number are also members of Labour organizations—and there is no objection to that. There is no proposal to prohibit that. The proposal is to prohibit the unions of the humbler ranks of the Civil Service from collectively joining the Labour party. As I say, if they had collectively joined the Conservative party there would probably be no objection at all by hon. Members opposite.

We in England have been accustomed to people holding by this or that or the other political party and serving their superior officers loyally and faithfully, whatever difference of opinion there may be. When I was in the Civil Service I served under half a dozen Ministers of as great a variety of political opinions as was at that date possible. It did not make the shadow of a difference to the work which the office did. The work was done well or ill or indifferently, equally under one Minister as under another. What would be objectionable would be to bring in the system, which unfortunately has been led to in the United States, of clearing out an office on every change of Government and bringing in a new set of people with the correct political label. That would be very serious although there has been, fortunately, no sign of it whatever in this country in connection with any political party. Is it not a little mean of a great historic party like the Conservative party to introduce a proposal of this kind, because the Post Office people have thought fit to join the Labour party? I do not think it is anything of which a political party need be proud, and whether it is mean or not, it seems disadvantageous to the Civil Service. By it you are doing something which these trade unions very seriously resent. They may be foolish to resent it, but they will very seriously resent this prevention of people joining the Labour party collectively while they are told that in doing so individually they are merely exercising their privilege as citizens.

That is the extraordinary thing—they are being advised to do their political work in their own names and persons and in the places where they are, known, rather than anonymolsly and collectively through their organisations. It would be far better that they should exercise their political rights collectively That would be to use that degree of reserve which the right hon. Gentleman very properly said was required in the case of certain offices. As a matter of fact, the Post Office long resisted the notion that postal people should exercise any political functions whatever. Was it not the Customs and Excise who were not allowed to have votes for a long time? The whole trend of the top ranks of the Civil Service has been in the direction of trying to prevent the lower ranks of the Civil Service from exercising any political rights at all. That is not now defended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no sympathy with that view. He does not want to prevent civil servants from taking part in politics. He tells civil servants they may take part in politics individually. He holds it up to them as an example of the way in which Englishmen exercise their political rights, and we are going to advise civil servants that they had better exercise their rights individually, publicly and effectively, and, therefore, without being able quite to exercise all the reserve which I think it would be better that they should exercise in the circumstances, that henceforth individual political action is to be preferred to collective political action. In fact, by the action of the Government, collective political action by the civil servant is to be debarred. [Interruption.] Has it not been put under a ban? Collective political action by the Civil Service has been put under a ban. The very words of the right hon. Gentleman himself were that they must not be associated, directly or indirectly, with any political party or organisation. Is not that putting collective political action under a ban?


I have no wish to curtail the speech of the right hon. Member—


I forgot. I thought the discussion was going on until eleven o'clock.


I have only a word or two to say, and only a few minutes in which to say them. The right hon. Gentleman is a great authority on all these matters, and I am sure he will agree that we ought not to discuss them from the point of view of what is to the advantage of any political party. The idea that we should look at whether this or that group of civil servants support the Tory party or the Liberal party or the Labour party ought not to be put forward. [Interruption.] We ought to refer to general principles and settle the matter in accordance with what are thought to be the broad interests of the State. The right hon. Gentleman told us something about his early career in the Civil Service, and has explained how under, I think, six Ministers he was perpetually pursuing subversive ideals while he was a civil servant. All I can say is that it was extremely lucky for the right hon. Gentleman that he did not continue his distinguished career in the Civil Service up to the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who is now sitting next to him, became Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley was asked on 14th February, 1924, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the following question by a Member of Parliament: whether he gives support to the traditional custom that employés of the established Civil Service should take no overt part in public political affairs. To this the right hon. Member for Colne Valley replied—and I hope it will not make the right hon. Gentleman's blood run cold when he hears it— The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1924; col. 1018–9, Vol. 169.] Is not that the whole point I have been making this afternoon? I used the word "prominent." My predecessor used the the word "overt." As to the differences of value between those two words, I really do not think there is enough for a division between two great political parties. This particular Amendment does not deal with the action of individuals. It deals with the action of associations. It is agreed that political activities are permissible to civil servants as individuals as long as they are not prominent or overt; but that it not to say that associations of civil servants should take collective action in party politics. For good or for ill, that is the main principle of our proposals under Clause 5, and the Amendment which has been moved destroys the whole core and substance of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down delivered a speech which in parts was a strong eulogy and support of the Bill, as far as I could make out, especially in what he said about trying to keep the Civil Service clear of anything like the spoils' system which prevailed at one time in America and at one time in Italy and at the present time in Russia. [Interruption.] Inspired by what he has said, I am certain the Committeee will feel that

the Government are entirely justified in rejecting the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 115.

Division No. 160.] AYES. [10.30 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Elveden, Viscount King, Captain Henry Douglas
Albery, Irving James England, Colonel A. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Lamb, J. Q.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Little, Dr. E. Graham
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Apsley, Lord Falle, Sir Bertram G. Looker, Herbert William
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W. Fenby, T. D. Lougher, Lewis
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Fermoy, Lord Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Baifour, George (Hampstead) Flelden, E. B. Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Balniel, Lord Ford, Sir P. J. Lynn, Sir R. J.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Forestier-Walker, Sir L. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Forrest, W. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Foster, Sir Harry S. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Foxcroft, Captain C. T. MacIntyre, Ian
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Fraser, Captain Ian McLean, Major A.
Bennett, A. J. Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Berry, Sir George Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony McNeill. Rt. Hon Ronald John
Bethel, A. Ganzoni, Sir John Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Betterton, Henry B. Gates, Percy Malone, Major P. B.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Margesson, Captain D.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Blundell, F. N. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Merriman, F. B.
Boothby, R. J. G. Goff, Sir Park Meyer, Sir Frank
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Grace, John Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Greene, W. P. Crawford Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Brass, Captain W. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Brassey, Sir Leonard Grotrian, H. Brent Moreing, Captain A. H.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) Morris, R. H.
Briggs, J. Harold Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Briscoe, Richard George Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Nelson, Sir Frank
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Neville, R. J.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Buchan, John Hammersley, S. S. Oakley, T.
Burman, J. B. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Harland, A. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Harrison, G. J. C. Pennefather, Sir John
Campbell, E. T. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Penny, Frederick George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) Hawke, John Anthony Perring, Sir William George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Chapman, Sir S. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Plicher, G.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Pilditch, Sir Philip
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hills, Major John Waller Pownall, Sir Assheton
Clarry, Reginald George Hilton, Cecil Price, Major C. W. M.
Clayton, G. C. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Radford, E. A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Ralne, W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Ramsden, E.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Holt, Captain H. P. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Cooper, A. Duff Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Rees, Sir Beddoe
Cope, Major William Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hopkins, J. W. W. Remnant, Sir James
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Howard-Bury, Lieut-Colonel C. K. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Hume, Sir G. H Rice, Sir Frederick
Crawfurd, H. E. Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hurd, Percy A Ropner, Major L.
Dalkeith, Earl of Hurst, Gerald B. Rye, F. G.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montross) Salmon, Major I.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Illffe, Sir Edward M. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H Sandeman, N. Stewart
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Jacob, A. E. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Drewe, C. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Sandon, Lord
Duckworth, John Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Kindersley, Major G. M. Savery, S. S.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie Tasker, R. Inigo. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Shepperson, E. W. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Tinne, J. A. Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Smithers, Waldron Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) Waddington, R. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Wallace, Captain D. E. Wise, Sir Fredric
Sprot, Sir Alexander Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) Withers, John James
Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Wolmer, Viscount
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Warrender, Sir Victor Womersley, W. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)
Strauss, E. A. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Watts, Dr. T. Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wells, S. R. Woodcock, Colonel H. C
Styles, Captain H. W. Wheler, Major sir Granville C. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Wiggins, William Martin Captain Viscount Curzon and Major
Sir George Hennessy.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Saklatvala, Shapurji
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hardie, George D. Scrymgeour, E.
Ammon, Charles George Hayes, John Henry Scurr, John
Attlee, Clement Richard Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Sexton, James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hirst, G. H. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Barnes, A. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Snell, Harry
Barr, J. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Batey, Joseph Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Stephen, Campbell
Beckett, John (Gateshead) John, William (Rhondda, West) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sullivan, J.
Briant, Frank Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sutton, J. E.
Bromley, J. Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Buchanan, G. Kirkwood, D. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Lansbury, George Thurtle, Ernest
Charleton, H. C. Lawrence, Susan Tinker, John Joseph
Clowes, S. Lawson, John James Townend, A. E.
Cluse, W. S. Lindley, F. W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lowth, T. Viant, S. P.
Connolly, M. Lunn, William Wallhead, Richard C.
Cove, W. G. Mackinder, W. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dalton, Hugh MacLaren, Andrew Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) March, S. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Maxton, James Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Day, Colonel Harry Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Dennison, R. Murnin, H. Wellock, Wilfred
Duncan, C. Naylor, T. E. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Dunnico, H. Oliver, George Harold Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gardner, J. P. Palin, John Henry Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Paling, W. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Gibbins, Joseph Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gosling, Harry Ponsonby, Arthur Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Potts, John S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ritson, J. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Groves, T. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Whiteley
Grundy, T. W. Rose, Frank H.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th May, successively, to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 6, after the word "organisation," insert the words: not composed wholly or mainly of persons employed by or under the Crown."—[The Attorney-General.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 116.

Division No. 161.] AYES. [10.40 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Fraser, Captain Ian Merriman, F. B.
Albery, Irving James Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Meyer, Sir Frank
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Ganzonl, Sir John Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Gates, Percy Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waldin)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Apsley, Lord Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Moreing, Captain A. H.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Morris, R. H
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Goff, Sir Park Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Grace, John Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Balniel, Lord Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Nelson, Sir Frank
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Greene, W. P. Crawford Neville, R. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Grotrian, H. Brent Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) Oakley, T.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Bennett, A. J. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Berry, Sir George Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Pennefather, Sir John
Bethel, A. Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Penny, Frederick George
Betterton, Henry B. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Perring, Sir William George
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Hammersley, S. S. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Blundell, F. N. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Boothby, R. J. G. Harland, A. Pilcher, G.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Pilditch, Sir Philip
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Harrison, G. J. C. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Brass, Captain W. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Price, Major C. W. M.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Radford, E. A.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hawke, John Anthony Raine, W.
Briggs, J. Harold Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Ramsden, E.
Briscoe, Richard George Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Remnant, Sir James
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hills, Major John Waller Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Buchan, John Hilton, Cecil Rice, Sir Frederick
Burman, J. S. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Ropner, Major L.
Campbell, E. T. Holt, Capt. H. P. Rye, F. G.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Salmon, Major I.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hopkins, J. W. W. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Chapman, Sir S. Hume, Sir G. H. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Sandon, Lord
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Clarry, Reginald George Hurd, Percy A. Savery, S. S.
Clayton, G. C. Hurst, Gerald B. Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Illffe, Sir Edward M. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Conway, Sir W. Martin Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Shepperson, E. W.
Cooper, A. Duff Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Cope, Major William Jacob, A. E. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Smithers, Waldron
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Kindersley, Major G. M. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) King, Captain Henry Douglas Sprot, Sir Alexander
Dalkeith, Earl of Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Lamb, J. Q Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Davies, Dr. Vernon Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Strauss, E. A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Little, Dr. E. Graham Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Duckworth, John Looker, Herbert William Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lougher, Lewis Styles, Captain H. W.
Elveden, Viscount Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
England, Colonel A. Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Lynn, Sir R. J. Tasker, R. Inigo.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. MacIntyre, Ian Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Fenby, T. D. McLean, Major A. Tinne, J. A.
Fermoy, Lord Macmillan, Captain H. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Flelden, E. B. Macnaghten, Hon. sir Malcolm Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Ford, Sir P. J. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Waddington, R.
Forester-Walker, Sir L. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Wallace, Captain D. E.
Forrest, W. Malone, Major P. B. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Foster, Sir Harry S. Margesson, Captain D. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn Y. Warrender, Sir Victor
Waterhouse, Captain Charles Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) Womersley, W. J.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Williams, Herbert G (Reading) Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) Wood, E. (Chester, Statyb'ge & Hyde)
Watts, Dr. T. Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Wells, S. R. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wiggins, William Martin Wise, Sir Fredric TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Withers, John James Captain Viscount Curzon and
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) Wolmer, Viscount Captain Bowyer.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grurdy, T. W. Rose, Frank H.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Saklatvala, Shapurji
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Amman, Charles George Hardie, George D. Scrymgeour, E.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayes, John Henry Scurr, John
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Sexton, James
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barr, J. Hirst, G. H. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Batey, Joseph Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Snell, Harry
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Stephen, Campbell
Briant, Frank John, William (Rhondda, West) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Bromley, J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sullivan, Joseph
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sutton, J. E.
Buchanan, G. Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. A.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Charleton, H. C. Kirkwood, D. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Clowes, S. Lansbury, George Thurtle, Ernest
Cluse, W. S. Lawrence, Susan Tinker, John Joseph
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lawson, John James Townend, A. E.
Connolly, M. Lindley, F. W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Cove, W. G. Lowth, T. Viant, S. P.
Crawfurd, H. E. Lunn, William Wallhead, Richard C.
Dalton, Hugh Mackinder, W. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Maclaren, Andrew Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) March, S. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Day, Colonel Harry Maxton, James Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Dennison, R. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Duncan, C. Murnin, H. Wellock, Wilfred
Dunnico, H. Naylor, T. E. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Oliver, George Harold Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gardner, J. P. Palin, John Henry Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Paling, W. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Gibbins, Joseph Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gosling, Harry Ponsonby, Arthur Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Potts, John S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ritson, J. Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.
Groves, T. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 9, leave out from the word "thereof" to the word "payment" in line 10, and insert instead thereof the words: there had on the fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, accrued

or begun to accrue to him a right to any future."—[The Attorney-General.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 114.

Division No. 162.] AYES. [10.49 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Berry, Sir George Buchan, John
Ainsworth, Major Charles Bethel, A. Burman, J. B.
Albery, Irving James Betterton, Henry B. Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Bird, E. R. (York, W. R., Skipton) Campbell, E. T.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Blundell, F. N. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Boothby, R. J. G. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Apsley, Lord Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Brass, Captain W. Chapman, Sir S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Brassey, Sir Leonard Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Balniel, Lord Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Briggs, J. Harold Clarry, Reginald George
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Briscoe, Richard George Clayton, G. C.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Brocklebank, C. E. R. Cobb, Sir Cyril
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Conway, Sir W. Martin
Bennett, A. J. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Cooper, A. Duff
Cope, Major William Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hume, Sir G. H. Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Ropner, Major L.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Hurd, Percy A. Rye, F. G.
Crawfurd, H. E. Hurst, Gerald B. Salmon, Major I.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montross) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Crookshank, Col, C. de W. (Berwick) Iliffe, Sir Edward N Sandeman, N. Stewart
Dalkeith, Earl of Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sanderson, Sir Frank
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Jacob, A. E. Sandon, Lord
Davies, Dr. Vernon Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Savery, S. S.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Duckworth, John Kindersley, Major G. M. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Edmonson, Major A. J. King, Captain Henry Douglas Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Shepperson, E. W.
Elveden, Viscount Lamb, J. Q. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
England, Colonel A. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Smithers, Waldron
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Little, Dr. E. Graham Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Looker, Herbert William Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Lougher, Lewis Sprot, Sir Alexander
Fenby, T. D. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Fermoy, Lord Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Fielden, E. B. Lynn, Sir Robert J. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Ford, Sir P. J. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Strauss, E. A.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Forrest, W. Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Foster, Sir Harry S. MacIntyre, Ian Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. McLean, Major A. Styles, Captain H. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian Macmillan, Captain H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony McNeil, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Tasker, R. Inigo.
Ganzonl, Sir John Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel- Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Gates, Percy Makins, Brigadier-General E. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Malone, Major P. B. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Margesson, Captain D. Tinne, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Goff, Sir Park Merriman, F. B. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Grace, John Meyer, Sir Frank Waddington, R.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Wallace, Captain D. E.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Grotrian, H. Brent Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Warrender, Sir Victor
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) Moreing, Captain A. H. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Murchison, Sir Kenneth Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Nelson, Sir Frank Watts, Dr. T.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Neville, R. J. Wells, S. R.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hammersley, S. S. Nicholson, O. (Westminster) White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Oakley, T. Wiggins, William Martin
Harland, A. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Harrison, G. J. C. Pennefather, Sir John Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Penny, Frederick George Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Hawke, John Anthony Perring, Sir William George Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richard)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Plicher, G. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Pilditch, Sir Philip Wise, Sir Fredric
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Pownall, Sir Assheton Withers, John James
Hills, Major John Waller Price, Major C. W. M. Wolmer, Viscount
Hilton, Cecil Radford, E. A. Womersley, W. J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Raine, W. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Ramsden, E. Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Rawson, Sir Cooper Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Holt, Capt. H. P. Rees, Sir Beddoe Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.) Reid, D. D. (County Down) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Remnant, Sir James
Hopkins, J. W. W. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Rice, Sir Frederick Captain Viscount Curzon and
Captain Bowyer.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Barnes, A. Buchanan, G.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Barr, J. Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Batey, Joseph Charleton, H. C.
Ammon, Charles George Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Clowes, S.
Attlee, Clement Richard Briant, Frank Cluse, W. S.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Bromley, J. Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Connolly, M.
Dalton, Hugh Kirkwood, D. Smith, H. B. Less- (Keighley)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lansbury, George Snell, Harry
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawrence, Susan Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Day, Colonel Harry Lawson, John James Stephen, Campbell
Dennison, R. Lindley, F. W. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Duncan, C. Lowth, T. Sullivan, J.
Dunnico, H. Lunn, William Sutton, J. E.
Gardner, J. P. Mackinder, W. Taylor, R. A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. MacLaren, Andrew Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Gibbins, Joseph March, S. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Gillett, George M. Maxton, James Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Gosling, Harry Morris, R. H. Thurtle, Ernest
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin. Cent.) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Tinker, John Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Murnin, H. Townend, A. E.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Naylor, T. E. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Groves, T. Oliver, George Harold Viant, S. P.
Grundy, T. W. Palin, John Henry Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Paling, W. Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Hardie, George D. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Hayes, John Henry Ponsonby, Arthur Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Potts, John S. Wellock, Wilfred
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Hirst, G. H. Ritson, J. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Hudson J. H. (Huddersfield) Rose, Frank H. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Linelly)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Saklatvala, Shapurji Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
John William (Rhondda, West) Salter, Dr. Alfred Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Scrymgeour, E. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Scurr, John
Kelly, W. T. Sexton, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 32, at the end, and the words:

"; and (b) the expression conditions of employment' means in relation to person other than persons employed by or under the Crown the conditions of employment of persons

employed under a contract of service."—[The Attorney-General.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 112.

Division No. 163.] AYES. [10.59 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Butler, Sir Geoffrey Fermoy, Lord
Alnsworth, Major Charles Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Fielden, E. B.
Albery, Irving James Campbell, E. T. Ford, Sir P. J.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Forrester-Walker, Sir L.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Forrest, W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. C. M. S. Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Foster, Sir Harry S.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Apsley, Lord Chapman, Sir S. Fraser, Captain Ian
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Clarry, Reginald George Ganzonl, Sir John
Balniel, Lord Clayton, G. C. Gates, Percy
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Cobb, Sir Cyril Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Conway, Sir W. Martin Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Cooper, A. Duff Goff, Sir Park
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Courtauld, Major J. S. Grace, John
Bennett, A. J. Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Berry, Sir George Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bethel, A. Crawfurd, H. E. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Betterton, Henry B. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Grotrian, H. Brent
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Dalkeith, Earl of Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Blundell, F. N. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Davies, Dr. Vernon Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Brass, Captain W. Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hammersley, S. S.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Duckworth, John Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Edmondson, Major A. J. Harland, A.
Briggs, J. Harold Elveden, Viscount Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Briscoe, Richard George England, Colonel A. Harrison, G. J. C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Hawke, John Anthony
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Fairfax, Captain J. G. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Buchan, John Falle, Sir Bertram G. Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Burman, J. B. Fenny, T. D. Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Sprot, Sir Alexander
Hills, Major John Waller Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Hilton, Cecil Moreing, Captain A. H. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Murchison, Sir Kenneth Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Strauss, E. A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Nelson, Sir Frank Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Holt, Captain H. P. Neville, R. J. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Styles, Captain H. Walter
Hopkins, J. W. W. Oakley, T. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Tasker, R. Inigo.
Hume, Sir G. H. Pennefather, Sir John Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Penny, Frederick George Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Hurd, Percy A. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Perring, Sir William George Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Tinne, J. A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Pilcher, G. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Jacob, A. E. Pilditch, Sir Philip Waddington, R.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Pownall, Sir Assheton Wallace, Captain D. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Price, Major C. W. M. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Radford, E. A. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W
Kindersley, Major Guy M. Raine, W. Warrender, Sir Victor
King, Captain Henry Douglas Ramsden, E. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Rawson, Sir Cooper Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Lamb, J. Q. Rees, Sir Beddoe Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Reid, D. D. (County Down) Watts, Dr. T.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Remnant, Sir James Wells, S. R.
Little, Dr. E. Graham Rentoul, G. S. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Looker, Herbert William Rice, Sir Frederick Wiggins, William Martin
Lougher, Lewis Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Ropner, Major L. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Lynn, Sir R. J. Rye, F. G. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Salmon, Major I. Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Rlchm'd)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Sandeman, N. Stewart Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
MacIntyre, Ian Sanders, Sir Robert A. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
McLean, Major A. Sanderson, Sir Frank Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Macmillan, Captain H. Sandon, Lord Wise, Sir Fredric
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Withers, John James
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Savery, S. S. Wolmer, Viscount
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Scott, Rt. Hon. Leslie Womersley, W. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)
Malone, Major P. B. Sheffield, Sir Berkely Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Margesson, Captain D. Shepperson, E. W. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Merriman, F. B. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank Smithers, Waldron
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Samerville, A. A. (Windsor) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) Major Cope and Captain Viscount
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Duncan, C. Kirkwood, D.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock) Dunnico, H. Lansbury, George
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lawrence, Susan
Ammon, Charles George Gardner, J. P. Lawson, John James
Attlee, Clement Richard Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Lindley, F. W.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Gibbins, Joseph Lowth, T.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Gillett, George M. Lunn, William
Barnes, A. Gosling, Harry Mackinder, W.
Barr, J. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) MacLaren, Andrew
Batey, Joseph Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) March, S.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Maxton, James
Briant, Frank Groves, T. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Bromley, J. Grundy, T. W. Murnin, H.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Naylor, T. E.
Buchanan, G. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Oliver, George Harold
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Hardie, George D. Palin, John Henry
Charleton, H. C. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Paling, W.
Clowes, S. Hirst, G. H. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Cluse, W. S. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hudson, J. H. (Hudderfield) Ponsonby, Arthur
Connolly, M. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Potts, John S.
Dalton, Hugh John, William (Rhondda, West) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Ritson, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Day, Colonel Harry Kelly, W. T. Rose, Frank H.
Dennison, R. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Saklatvala, Shapurji
salter, Dr. Alfred Taylor, R. A. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Scrymgeour, E. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middiesbro. W.) Wellock, Wilfred
Scurr, John Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Sexton, James Thurtle, Ernest Whiteley, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond Tinker, John Joseph Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghiey) Townend, A. E. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Sneil, Harry Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillip Viant, S. P. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Stephen, Campbell Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Watson, W. M, (Dunfermline) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Sullivan, Joseph Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Sutton, J, E. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 113.

Division No. 164.] AYES. [11.9 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Davison, sir W. H. (Kensington, s.) Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ainsworth, Major Charles Dean, Arthur Wellesley Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Albery, Irving James Duckworth, John Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Edmondson, Major A. J. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Elveden, Viscount Jacob, A. E.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. England, Colonel A. Jones, G. W, H. (Stoke Newington)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Apsley, Lord Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W. Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Fairfax, Captain J. G. King, Captain Henry Douglas
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Falle, Sir Bertram G. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Balnlel, Lord Fenby, T. D. Lamb, J. Q.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Fermoy, Lord Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Flelden, E. B. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Barnett, Major sir Richard Forester-Walker, Sir L. Little, Dr. E. Graham
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Forrest, W. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Foster, Sir Harry S. Looker, Herbert William
Bennett, A. J. Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Lougher, Lewis
Berry, Sir George Fraser, Captain Ian Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Bethel, A. Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Luce, MaJ.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Betterton, Henry B. Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Lynn, Sir R. J.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Ganzonl, Sir John MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Gates, Percy Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Blundell, F. N. Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Boothby R. J. G. Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Maclntyre, Ian
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Glyn, Major R. G. C. McLean, Major A.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Golf, Sir Park Macmillan; Captain H.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Grace, John Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Brass, Captain W. Greene, W. P. Crawford McNeill Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Brassey, Sir Leonard Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Grotrian, H. Brent Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Briggs, J. Harold Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) Malone, Major P. B.
Briscoe, Richard George Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Margesson, Captain D.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Merriman, F. B.
Brown-Lindsay, Major H. Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Meyer, Sir Frank.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'yl Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Buchan, John Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Burman, J. B. Hammersley, S. S. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Harland, A. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Campbell, E. T. Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Moreing, Captain A. H.
Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City) Harrison, G. J. C. Morris, R. H.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hawke, John Anthony Nelson, Sir Frank
Chapman, Sir S. Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Neville, R. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Clarry, Reginald George Hennessy, Major sir G. R. J. Oakley, T.
Clayton, G. C. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) O' Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hills, Major John Waller Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hilton, Cecil Pennefather, Sir John
Cooper, A. Duff Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Penny, Frederick George
Cope, Major William Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Perring, Sir William George
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Isilngton, N.) Holt, Captain H. P. peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar) Plicher, G.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hopkins, J. W. W. Pilditch, Sir Philip
Dalkeith, Earl of Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Pownall, Sir Assbeton
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Howard Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Price, Major C. W. M.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil Hume, Sir G.H. Radford, E. A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Hurd, Percy A. Raine, W.
Ramsden, E. Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Wells, S. R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper Sprot, Sir Alexander Wheler, Major sir Granville C. H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe Stanley, Lord (Fyide) White, Lieut. Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Reid, D. D.(County Down) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Wiggins, William Martin
Remnant, Sir James Steel, Major Samuel Strang Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)
Rentoul, G. S. Strauss, E. A. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Rice, Sir Frederick Stuart, Crichton, Lord C. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wilson Sir C. H.(Leeds Central)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford) Styles, Captain H. Walter Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Ropner, Major L. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Rye, F. G. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Salmon, Major I. Tasker, R. Inigo Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Wise, Sir Fredric
Sandeman, N. Stewart Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) withers, John James
Sanders, Sir Robert A. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Wolmer viscount
Sanderson, Sir Frank Tinne, J. A. Womersley W. J.
Sandon, Lord Tryon, R. T. Hon. George Clement Wood B. C. (somerset, Bridgewater)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Wood. E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Savery, S. S. Waddington, R. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwick, W.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie Wallace, captain D.E. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwick, W)
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) Wood, Sir S. Hill, (High Peak)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Warner, Brigadier-General W, W. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Shepperson, E. W. Warrender, Sir Victor
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Waterhouse, Captain Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Mr. P. C. Thomson and Captain
Smithers, Waldron Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Viscount Curzon.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Watts, Dr. T.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) Grundy, T. W. Saklatvala, Shapurji
Adamson W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Scrymgeour, E.
Ammon, Charles George Hurdle, George D. Scurr, John
Attlee, Clement Richard Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Sexton, James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hirst, G. H. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hirst, W. (Bradford. South) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Barnes, A. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Snell, Harry
Barr, J. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Batey, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West) Stephen, Campbell
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Briant, Frank Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sullivan, J.
Bromley, J. Kelly, W. T. Sutton, J. E.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Taylor, R. A.
Buchanan, G. Kirkwood, D. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro.,W.)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Lansbury, George Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)
Charleton, H. C. Lawrence, Susan Thurtle, Ernest
Clowes, S. Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lindley, F. W. Townend, A. E.
Connolly, M. Lowth, T. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P
Crawfurd, H. E. Lunn, William Viant, S. P.
Dalton, Hugh Mackinder, W. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacLaren, Andrew Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) March, S. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Day, Colonel Harry Maxton, James Webb, Bt. Hon. Sidney
Dennison, R. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Duncan, C. Murnin, H. Wellock, Wilfred
Dunnico, H. Naylor, T. E. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty) Oliver, George Harold Whiteley, W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Palin, John Henry Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gardner, J. P. Paling, W. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Gibbins, Joseph Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M. Ponsonby, Arthur Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gosling, Harry Potts, John S. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin.,Cent.) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W.R., Elland) Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.
Groves, T. Rose, Frank H.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow