Commons Sitting of 20 January 1931

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 19th December, 1930, for the Christmas Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
SPEAKER'S WARRANT FOR NEW WRIT.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had issued his Warrant during the Recess for a New Writ for the Borough of Bristol (East Division), in the room of Walter John Baker, esquire, deceased.
NEW WRIT.
For Borough of Liverpool (East Toxteth Division), in the room of Henry Ludwig Mond, esquire, commonly called the honourable Henry Ludwig Mond (Manor of Northstead).—(Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade
    2
    whether he is prepared to make a statement to the House in respect of the reorganisation of the iron and steel industry?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which was given on the 15th December to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith). I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy of that reply, to which I have nothing at present to add.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of our imports of iron and steel and manufactures thereof from Belgium, Luxemburg and Czechoslovakia, during the last completed 12 months as compared with the quantity imported in 1924?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The total quantity of iron and steel and manufactures thereof imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland and registered during 1930 as consigned from Belgium was 1,687,000 tons, from Luxemburg 63,000 tons, and from Czechoslovakia 15,000 tons. The corresponding figures for 1924 were 1,210,000 tons, 212,000 tons and 11,000 tons, respectively.

    TARIFF TRUCE.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade which

    3
    of the great Powers besides Great Britain has ratified the convention embodying the tariff truce?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: According to my information, the Commercial Convention has up to the present been ratified by the following States, besides the United Kingdom: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.
    Mr. LEWIS: May I ask which of these countries can be described as great Powers?
    Mr. HANNON: Is it a fact that every single country that has become a party to the truce has something to get out of this country, whereas we reap no corresponding advantage at all in return?

    EMPIRE TRADE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the value of exports from Great Britain to foreign countries fell from £593,000,000 in 1919 to £405,000,000 in 1929, whereas exports to the Empire rose in the same period from £205,000,000 to £324,000,000, and that the British Dominions are our largest customers, he will say what steps the Government are prepared to take to further consolidate and increase the import and export trade between Great Britain and the Dominions overseas?
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade details of the import and export of manufactured goods to and from the British Empire and foreign countries, respectively, for the year 1930; and if he is now prepared to make any further statement on the policy of the Government for the development of inter-Imperial trade?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Economic Section of the Imperial Conference will reassemble in Ottawa to discuss this matter, and preparations for that Conference are being actively pursued by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Particulars of the imports and exports of manufactured goods during 1930, distinguishing British Empire and foreign countries, will not be available until the latter part of the current year, when they will be published in the Annual Statement of Trade.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication, in view of the magnitude and seriousness of these figures, that the Government are going to take any steps at all to remedy the present trade situation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The Government are engaged in many steps which bear on the trade situation; and, while I do not make any promise, it may be that a statement regarding the preparations for Ottawa will be made at a later date.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government are actually taking at the present time?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That would require a very long reply. I will mention the efforts for the reorganisation of industry in order to help recapture the export trade, the trade missions, and a wide variety of other steps. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member means tariffs or any activities of that kind, we can promise nothing of that description.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that the Government had ample opportunity before the last Imperial Conference, and are they likely to be any more prepared for this Conference?

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of Russian wheat have been imported into this country during the months of November and December, 1930?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total quantity of wheat imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered during November and December, 1930, as consigned from the Soviet Union (Russia), was 5,500,000 cwts. and 6,587,000 cwts, respectively.
    Mr. ALBERY: In view of the constant increase of these imports, are we getting any corresponding benefits in exports to Russia?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The exports to Russia have, of course, increased during the past year very largely, in my view owing to the inclusion of Russia under the Export Credits Scheme.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: Are not Russian nationals being starved of wheat in order to permit of this export?
    Sir F. HALL: Is it a fact that Russian wheat is selling on the London Corn Exchange at 18s. 6d. per quarter c.i.f., and does the right hon. Gentleman think it possible for the British farmer to produce wheat at a profit at that price?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present amount of the trade balance in favour of the Russian Soviet Government in this country?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The figures for the first nine months of 1930 corresponding to those which I gave the hon. Member in reply to a similar question on the 1st April last, are as follow:

    £

    Imports from the Soviet Union (Russia)

    19,640,574

    Exports (including re-exports) to the Soviet Union

    6,977,906

    Similar particulars respecting the last quarter of 1930 will be published next month in the issue for January, 1931, of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why a country with such a very large trade balance in this country requires the benefit of a loan under the Export Credits guarantee in order to buy British goods?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The reply is surely that in the process of international trade the point cannot be stated in that way. It is quite impossible to link up two countries. These balances enter into many other international transactions. The short reply is that during the past year the exports to Russia had substantially increased.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is not the balance of trade credit belonging to Russia used by Russia to buy foreign goods, and not British goods?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It may be used as the basis for certain purchases elsewhere, but that is not necessarily to the disadvantage of this country.
    Mr. SAMUEL: If that be so, why do we not ask the Soviet Government to use its own credit rather than borrow on our guarantee?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Why are re-exports included in the estimated balance of trade?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I should require notice of that question, but I imagine, off-hand, that it is the normal practice in order to present a complete picture of the exports.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is not the balance in favour of the Soviet used for hostile propaganda against this country?
    Sir HERBERT NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the exports of manufactured goods from the United Kingdom to Soviet Russia during the last completed 12 months; and the values of similar exports from Germany, France, Belgium and the United States of America to Soviet Russia?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Comparable statistics of the exports of manufactured goods to the Soviet Union (Russia) from the countries mentioned are not available. The value of the imports of manufactured goods into the Soviet Union recorded in the official trade returns of that country as imported during the 12 months ended 30th June, 1930, from the United Kingdom was £3,311,000; from Germany, £15,471,000; from France, £1,268,000; from Belgium, £102,000; and from the United States, £21,454,000.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the United States have been able to send this enormous volume of goods to Russia without an export credits scheme such as we have here?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that raises a very large question. I could not reply, without notice, regarding the precise credit arrangements. But a very great deal could be said on this question.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is not the explanation of this volume of trade to be found in the fact that the United States have not recognised the Soviet Government?

    PRODUCTION COSTS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has at his disposal facilities for investigating the comparative cost of production of manufactured commodities in the United Kingdom and in countries abroad; and, if so, to what extent he avails himself of such facilities?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: No, Sir; it is as a rule extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure reliable particulars of cost of production abroad.
    Mr. WHITE: Has my right hon. Friend any means of ascertaining why an Austin Seven motor car can be sold for £97 in the United States
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Austin Seven which is sold in America is a different car from the Austin Seven which is sold here?

    EXPORT TRADE (RUSSIA AND NEW ZEALAND).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the volume and value of British exports to Russia and to New

    The following table shows the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom daring each of the undermentioned years, consigned from and to Russia and New Zealand respectively.

    —

    Merchandise consigned from and to Russia.

    Merchandise consigned from and to New Zealand.

    Total Imports.

    Exports.

    Total Imports.

    Exports.

    Produce and Manufactures of the U.K.

    Imported Merchandise.

    Produce and Manufactures of the U.K.

    Imported Merchandise.

    Million £.

    1913

    40·3

    18·1

    9·6

    20·3

    10·8

    1·0

    1914

    28·1

    14·4

    7·4

    23·0

    9·4

    1·0

    1915

    21·4

    13·4

    11·5

    30·4

    9·4

    0·7

    1916

    18·3

    25·0

    9·4

    31·6

    12·1

    0·8

    1917

    17·9

    48·7

    4·0

    29·1

    7·0

    0·4

    1918

    6·7

    0·3

    (a)

    24·5

    7·7

    0·3

    1919

    16·4

    13·0

    4·5

    52·7

    9·6

    0·3

    1920

    33·5

    12·0

    4·8

    47·5

    26·6

    1·4

    1921

    2·7

    2·2

    1·2

    48·7

    14·9

    0·6

    1922

    8·1

    3·6

    1·0

    48·5

    16·0

    0·8

    1923

    9·3

    2·5

    2·0

    43·0

    20·7

    1·0

    1924

    19·8

    3·9

    7.2

    47·0

    20·3

    1·0

    1925

    25·3

    6·2

    13·0

    51·3

    23·1

    1·1

    1926

    24·1

    5·9

    8·5

    46·8

    20·6

    0·8

    1927

    21·1

    4·5

    6·8

    46·5

    19·6

    0·8

    1928

    21·6

    2·7

    2·1

    47·3

    19·3

    0·8

    1929

    26·5

    3·7

    2·8

    47·7

    21·4

    0·8

    1930 (Jan.—Sept.)

    19·6

    5·0

    1·9

    38·4

    14·0

    0·6

    (a) Under £10,000.

    NOTES.

    1. The above particulars of the trade with Russia during the years 1913 to 1920 relate to the former Russian Empire and are not comparable with those for the years 1921 onwards, which relate to the Soviet Union (Russia).

    2. Prior to the 1st April, 1923, the above figures relate to the trade of Great Britain and the whole of Ireland, whereas from that date they relate to the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

    Zealand in the years 1913 to 1930; and what was the volume and value of imports into Great Britain from the same countries in the same years?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am unable to state the volume of our trade with Russia and New Zealand during the years 1913 to 1930. With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the value of the imports from, and exports to, these countries during the years 1913 to 1929 and the first nine months of 1930. Similar information for the whole year 1930 will be published in the issue for January, 1931, of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."
    Following are the particulars:

    MARKETING PROPAGANDA.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any steps have yet been taken by the Governments of the British Dominions to organise marketing propaganda similar to that carried on by the Empire Marketing Board in this country; if so, what has been done; and if not, what steps have been taken by his Department to expedite the organisation of such propaganda?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): So far as I am aware no definite step on the lines indicated has yet been taken by any Dominion Government. The decision in such a matter rests solely with the Government of the Dominion concerned, and no such steps as are suggested by the hon. Member have been or could properly be initiated by the Government here; but I need hardly say that should any proposals of such a kind be made by any Dominion Government, they would be most heartily welcomed, and we should be ready to co-operate by any means in our power.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a very sensible proceeding to intimate to the various Dominions that it would meet the great desire of this country if they took such steps?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have already explained to the House that I impressed upon the Dominion Premiers the importance of the work which the Empire. Marketing Board was doing in advertising their goods, and some of them indicated that they were prepared to do similar work in their Dominions. No doubt the hon. Member will realise the difficulties existing at the moment in all the Dominions, both financial and economic.

    ARGENTINA.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what steps his Department propose to take with a view to encouraging the following up of the British Empire Trade Exhibition at Buenos Aires by personal contact on the part of representatives of British industries, and are there any funds at his disposal which can be used for the purpose?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My Department regards the British Empire Trade Exhibition at Buenos Aires as one of a series of measures for developing our trade with the South American markets. Other measures with the same end in view have been the D'Abernon Mission and the investigation recently completed by the ex-Master Cutler of Sheffield on behalf of the lighter industries of Sheffield. I am now discussing with these and other important industries the measures which should be taken in order to derive the utmost benefit from the Exhibition. All possible financial assistance is afforded by the Department out of the funds at its disposal for the development of export trade.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to refer to the D'Abernon Mission, and, if so, will he tell us what details of the recommendations of that Mission he has yet to put into operation?
    Mr. GILLETT: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

  CUNARD (INSURANCE) AGREMENT ACT.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the Cunard Insurance construction risk has been placed in the market?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that no order in respect of insurance of the construction risk has yet been given by the builders, and it is not possible to say what portion of the risk, if any, will fall to be accepted by the Government under the Cunard (Insurance) Agreement Act.

  COASTGUARD SERVICE (INQUIRY).
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to give any information as to the details of the proposed Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the whole question of the Coastguard Service?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: As already announced in the Press, I have appointed a Committee to inquire into the efficiency and adequacy of the present organisa-

  11
  tion for carrying out the coast-watching duties of the Coastguard Service, and to report what modifications, if any, in the organisation are, in their opinion, desirable. Admiral Sir George P. W. Hope, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., will act as Chairman of the Committee, the other members of which are Mr. R. F. Bell, Sir Osborn G. Holmden, K.B.E. and Mr. James Milne, C. S. I.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: Will it be within the competence of the committee to consider, among other things, the wages and conditions of service in the Coastguard Service?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Off-hand, I should say not, as the inquiry is rather directed to the organisation of the Coastguard Service; but perhaps my hon. Friend will not take this as a final reply.
  Commander SOUTHBY: If I put down a question in a week's time, will the right hon. Gentleman state the exact scope of the terms of reference to the committee? Will it, for example, inquire into the question of smuggling?
  Mr. GRAHAM: It is difficult to reply now, but I could make inquiry and indicate to the hon. and gallant Member exactly what is covered by the terms of reference. He will observe that the reply relates to the organisation of the Coastguard Service. Everything within that would, I presume, be in order.

  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) ACT.
  Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make with regard to setting up a committee of inquiry into the working of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act?
  Major NATHANasked the President of the Board of Trade the steps taken or proposed to be taken for the setting up of an inquiry into the operation of the Dyestuffs Act?
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government proposes to make a full inquiry into the position of the dyestuffs industry before the end of 1931?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The subject has been fully explored already, and I see no advantage in instituting another inquiry.
  Mr. BROCKWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether an inquiry is not desirable with a view to safeguarding wages and prices and as to the national control of the industry?
  Mr. GRAHAM: That is rather a separate issue. I am dealing here with the point which was before the House on the last occasion, and certainly at the moment, having regard to the very full review of the statutory committee under the Act, I can promise no other inquiry.
  Mr. BROCKWAY: Were not the points which I have mentioned brought before the House in the debate?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir, that may be so; but I am dealing at the moment with the position under this Act of Parliament, and not with any other position.
  Sir DENNIS HERBERT: Is that reply intended to indicate that the Government do not see any prospect of getting any support for the policy which they pursued on this question a few weeks before Christmas?

  BRITISH ARMY (PERSONNEL).
  Mr. O. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for War how far the total number of all ranks of the Regular Army falls short of the establishment laid down?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The net shortage in the Regular Army, including the British Army in India, on 1st January, 1931, was approximately 380 officers and 9,700 other ranks.
  Mr. LEWIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of why there should be such difficulty in obtaining recruits at a time when there are so many able-bodied people unemployed?
  Mr. SHAW: I have already stated on several occasions that there is no difficulty in getting men to offer their services to the Army, but the unfortunate fact remains that less than half of them prove to be physically fit.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that there are more than 300 officers short?
  Mr. SHAW: I suppose there are many reasons, one of which is that there are not enough men prepared, from patriotic motives, to go into the Army in the rank of officers. There are other reasons as well, but I suppose I should take too long if I were to go into them.

  RIVER POLLUTION.
  Mr. BROOKEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Committee on River Pollution is still pursuing its work; what rivers they have reported on; and whether a report on the River Leven, Dumbartonshire, is expected?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A report has been received on the River Tweed and its tributaries, and it is understood that a report on the River Esk (Midlothian) will be submitted at an early date. As regards the last part of the question, I

  Position in regard to District Agreements as to Hours of Work, etc., in

  January, 1931.

  District.

  Hours (Underground) at present.

  Remarks.

  Weekdays.

  Saturdays.

  Per fortnight.

  Bristol

  8

  5

  90

  Wages unchanged. Day to day contracts. One pit continues to work on previous terms as recommended by Coal Mines National Industrial Board.

  Cannock Chase

  8

  5

  90

  Wages unchanged; arrangement made up to 31st March.

  Cumberland

  7hrs. 42 mins.

  6½

  90

  Wages unchanged; arrangement effective to 28th February, 1931.

  Lancashire and Cheshire

  7¾

  6

  894

  Surface workers manipulating coal reduced by quarter of time added in 1926. Wages and customs unchanged; arrangement effective to end of March, 1931.

  Leicester

  8

  5

  90

  Wages unchanged; day-to-day contracts.

  North Staffs.

  8

  5

  90

  Wages unchanged: day-to-day contracts. North Staffs. is appealing to National Board.

  Warwickshire

  7½

  5½

  86

  Minimum percentage addition for January, 47 per cent.; for February, 43 per cent.; and for March, 40 percent. Six per cent, addition to pieceworkers. Subsistence wage unchanged. Agreement to 3lst March 1931.

  am not in a position to say when the River Leven, Dumbartonshire, will be reported upon.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    DISTRICT' AGREEMENTS.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary for Mines what is the present position as to the working agreements in the coal-mining industry; and whether it is proposed to recommend Parliament to modify or suspend the operation of the hours of the Coal Mines. Act, 1930?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): As the answer to the first part of the question involves a long tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise his responsibility and the responsibility of his colleagues for the protracted strike that took place during the last few weeks?
    Following is the statement:

    District.

    Hours (Underground) at present.

    Remarks.

    Weekdays.

    Saturdays.

    Per fortnight.

    North Wales

    7 hrs. 42 mins.

    6½

    90

    Wages unchanged; arrangement effective to 31st March, 1931.

    Corresponding reduction for surface workers manipulating coal.

    N.B.—Excludes Llay Main Colliery which works 7½ hours per day as before.

    Somerset

    7½

    7½

    90

    Wages unchanged; agreement effective to end of January, 1931.

    Forest of Dean

    7½

    —

    —

    Wages unchanged; day-to-day contracts.

    Shropshire

    8

    5

    90

    Wages unchanged; day-to-day contracts.

    South Derbyshire

    8

    4 & 6 alternately.

    90

    Wages unchanged; arrangement to be effective to 30th April, 1931.

    South Staffs, and East Worcester.

    8

    5

    90

    Wages unchanged; day-to-day contracts.

    South Wales

    7½

    7½

    90

    Wages unchanged till 1st March, 1931 pending negotiation of a new agreement, with reference of points unsettled as to minimum percentage and subsistence wage, to an independent chairman if necessary.

    Durham

    Reduction of ½ hour per shift on ordinary week days for those workers previously on 8 hour shifts. Saturday shifts to remain as previously, 6½ hours or 7¼ hours bank to bank. Hewers and deputies previously on 7½ hour shifts.

    County standard basis wages for pieceworkers reduced pro rata according to reduction in hours; agreement effective to 28th February, 1931.

    Northumberland

    Decrease of ½ hour per shift (8 hours to 7½ hours), equivalent to 2¾ hours per week, on basis of eleven 7½ hour shifts per fortnight.

    County standard basis wages for fillers reduced by 4d. per shift (5s. 10d. to 5s. 6d.); agreement effective up to 28th February, 1931.

    Note.—Hewers were previously on 7½ hour shift. Certain classes work twelve shifts per fortnight. It was agreed that the management at individual collieries should have the right to send down hewers, fillers and transit hands as one shift.

    Scotland

    8 hours per day, 11 days per fortnight (no short Saturday).

    Wages unchanged; arrangement effective to end of February, 1931.

    HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Mines the names of the countries where holidays with pay are
    16
    granted to the workers in the coal-mining industry and the classes of colliery workers to which this applies?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that holidays with pay are granted to all colliery workers in Czechoslovakia. Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and the Saar, and to certain classes of workers in the Union of South Africa.
    Mr. ALBERY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this is not also the case in Russia?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I must ask the hon. Member to put down that question.
    Mr. ALBERY: But it is part of the question. Cannot we have an answer about Russia?

    SPREAD-OVER SYSTEM.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary for Mines in what districts the spread-over system has been worked in the coal mines during the Parliamentary Recess?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The answer involves a list of some length, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:
    Coal Mining Districts in which a "Spread-over" system has been worked during the Parliamentary Recess.

    Lancashire and Cheshire.

    Cannock Chase.

    Cumberland.

    North Wales.

    Warwickshire.

    Shropshire.

    North Staffordshire.

    Leicestershire.

    South Staffordshire.

    South Wales.

    Scotland.

    Bristol.

    South Derbyshire.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATISTICS.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed at the last convenient date and the number for approximately the same date in 1929?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): At 5th January, 1931, there were 2,617,770 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain
    18
    as compared with 1,452,619 at 7th January, 1929.

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons at present directly engaged on work on all schemes approved on or after 1st June, 1929, and the cost of same?
    Miss BONDFIELD: On schemes of a total value of approximately £77,000,000 sanctioned since 1st June, 1929, about 86,000 men were returned as directly employed on the various sites in Mid-December last. The total of £77,000,000 includes schemes to the value of about £26,000,000 under Part I of the Development Act, the employment value of which is preponderantly indirect. In addition, there are schemes to the value of about £10,000,000 approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee which are in operation but for which employment returns are not at present available.
    Sir K. WOOD: As regards the figure of 86,000 for whom direct employment has been obtained since the present Government took office, is that an estimate, or have the figures been ascertained through the local authorities?
    Miss BONDFIELD: From their sources.
    Sir K. WOOD: What are the sources?
    Miss BONDFIELD: If the right hon. Gentleman will put dowry a question, I will give him an answer.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With reference to the total of £77,000,000 for approved schemes, will the right hon. Lady say over how many years that extends?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is the amount from the 1st June, 1929.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Can the right hon. Lady say whether it is the average of two, three or five years?
    Miss BONDFIELD: They vary. The schemes of the Unemployment Grants Committee are of various lengths. The majority of them are for short periods but some of them are for long periods. Some of the road schemes belong to what is called the five-year plan.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are very serious complaints frequently made against the

    19
    extraordinary delay on the part of the Unemployment Grants Committee in sanctioning schemes of work, and will she take any course of action to expedite those schemes?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I think, if the hon. Member will inquire, he will find that in particular cases the delay does not rest with the Unemployment Grants Committee.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it riot a fact that the total number of persons employed on these schemes does not equal the increased number employed in the motor industry under the McKenna Duties?
    Sir D. HERBERT: Is the right hon. Lady able to say how many of these 86,000 people who have been found employment under the schemes of the Unemployment Grants Committee are men who actually have their homes in Ireland, and who have been imported over here for the purpose of these schemes?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I should say none at all.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he has any further proposals to make to the House for the purpose of mitigating unemployment?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): A description of the principal measures taken by His Majesty's Government in connection with unemployment was given in the recent White Paper. The policy there explained is being actively pursued.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the Prime Minister kindly reply to the question on the Paper, as to whether he has any further proposals to make to the House for the purpose of mitigating unemployment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They are all adumbrated in the White Paper.
    Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to press for an answer. I am asking him, not about proposals he has already made, but whether he has any further proposals.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The proposals stated and adumbrated in the White Paper are being actively developed.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, since only 86,000 persons have been found employment, the time has now arrived when he should either bring forward fresh proposals or resign his present post?

    BREAD PRICES.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour if she has any information showing what was the price of the 4-lb. loaf in 1914, in 1924, and at the present date in each of the following countries: Great Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is long and contains a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I hope to do this within the next few days.

  AIR SERVICES (INDIA AND AUSTRALIA).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken to carry out the resolution passed by the Imperial Conference for an extension of the regular weekly air service between England and India as far as Australia at an early date?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): As stated in my answer to the hon. Member on the 26th November last, proposals have been submitted by Imperial Airways, Ltd., for the extension of their England-India air service to Australia. After examination by my Noble Friend these proposals have been forwarded to His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, the Government of India, and the Government of the Straits Settlements for consideration.

  ROYAL NAVY (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. O. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is now in a position to state the decision of the Board of Admiralty as to the granting of marriage allowances to naval officers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): No decision has yet been reached.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What is the nature of the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman announced a year ago was taking place?
  Mr. AMMON: That matter is now before the Board of Admiralty, who are considering the whole of the facts, both financial and otherwise.

  SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
  Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make any statement as to the financial basis of co-operation between the sugar-beet factories and the sugar-beet producers for the coming season, and the outlook for next season in respect of acreage allotted for sugar-beet?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): On my suggestion, factories and growers are again in contact, but as no terms have yet been agreed between them I am not in a position to make any forecast as to the acreage likely to be sown to beet this year.
  Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much financial assistance would be required to bridge the gap between the offers of the Factories and the Farmers' Union?
  Dr. ADDISON: I could not in any case give that information. The gap has not yet been defined.

  TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Attorney-General whether he will consider the advisability of publishing a memorandum showing clearly, not in the form of an Act of Parliament, what changes in the existing law are proposed by the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): I would commend the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the Memorandum on the Bill already presented to Parliament, and, if he and hon. Members would be good enough to have
  22
  with them a copy of the White Paper, I think I shall have no difficulty in explaining the precise changes in the existing law which the Bill proposes on the Motion for Second Reading on Thursday next.
  Major WOOD: Is the Attorney-General aware that the idea was not to inform opinion in this House, but to inform opinion in the country?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope to inform opinion in the country in the course of my speech on Thursday next.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not consider that Lord Buckmaster has already adequately informed opinion on this question?

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can make any statement, as to the intentions of the Government regarding the report of the Select Committee of Inquiry into Capital Punishment?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): There has been no opportunity for seeing what is the opinion of Parliament on the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee set up as the result of discussion on a private Member's Motion. At present I cannot announce the intentions of the Government with regard to the report.

  EGYPT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is able to make any statement with reference to the present position in Egypt; and whether negotiations are proceeding?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): The position remains as stated before the Christmas Recess. No negotiations are proceeding.
  Mr. MANDER: Are we to understand that the attitude of the British Government is still that of neutrality in Egyptian affairs?
  Mr. DALTON: Yes, Sir.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any consideration has recently been given by the Council of the League of Nations to the question of appointing a special chairman to act in an emregncy in the event of a sudden crisis arising; and whether he intends to raise the matter?
  Mr. DALTON: The member who presides over an ordinary session of the Council continues to act as President until the opening of the next session. It is, therefore, his duty, under the present procedure, to take any action which may be required, such as convoking a special session, in the event of an emergency arising. This procedure has hitherto worked well, and it is not proposed to modify it. A special session may, of course, be demanded by any State member of the League, whether represented on the Council or not.
  Mr. MANDER: Has the question of having a, special chairman for emergency occasions not been discussed at all?
  Mr. DALTON: No, Sir; so far as I am aware it has not been discussed; by general consent the present procedure works satisfactorily.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    REGISTRY OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Captain GUNSTONasked the First Commissioner of Works the cost of redecorating the court room and another room used by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The cost of redecorating the court room and waiting room used by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies was £111.

    INLAND REVENUE (INCOME TAX COLLECTION).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what extent the personnel employed on Income Tax collection has been increased since the present Government assumed office?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): There has been no increase, but a slight decrease, in the staff employed in the
    24
    actual collection of Income Tax since 1st July, 1929. If. however, the hon. Member has in mind the staff employed on all matters relating to Income Tax, then I regret that it is not possible to allocate the staff of the Inland Revenue Department between the various duties which it administers.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is it because there is less Income Tax to collect that the staff is less?

  FISHING INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).
  Major WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the report of the Committee which is inquiring into the fishing industry may be expected?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee are engaged in the preparation of their report, but I cannot at present say when it is likely to be received by the Government.
  Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Chairman the desirability of having this report soon, so that the recommendations may be considered and, if possible, put into force before the beginning of the next fishing year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: All the pressure that is fair and legitimate has been brought to bear upon the Committee to expedite their report.

  RUSSIA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give a day to debate the White Paper on labour conditions in Soviet Russia?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must remind hon. Members that the demands on the time of the House between now and Easter are likely to preclude the granting of special time for the discussion of any but essential subjects; and in any event it would be premature to consider this suggestion before the White Paper, which is being prepared as rapidly as possible, is available.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Can the Prime Minister give us any indication as to when the White Paper will appear, and also as to what the nature and scope

  25
  of its contents are going to be, in order that the Opposition may make suggestions for the improvement of the White Paper?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that I could not disclose, even if I knew, what the contents of the White Paper are or are likely to be, but I am informed that it is hoped that the Paper will be ready in about a week's time.
  Mr. SMITHERS: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to continue to encourage the dumping into this country—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!

  ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.
  Major NATHANasked the Prime Minister if it is proposed to lay, as a White Paper, a report of the activities of the Economic Advisory Council since its inception?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the practice of the Government to refer different questions to this Committee and ask for reports; and, if so, how many questions have been referred and how many reports have the Government received?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously, if the hon. Member is interested in these matters, he should put a question down.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Arising out of the original answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his Advisory Committee advised the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill?

  LAND VALUES (TAXATION).
  Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to introduce the promised Bill to deal with the taxation of land values?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I am not yet in a position to say.
  Mr. HANNON: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider this as a method of placating hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway?

  BANKING AND INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).
  Major NATHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the report of the Macmillan Committee?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I understand that the Committee is engaged in drafting its report, but I cannot say when it will be completed.
  Major NATHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Macmillan Committee the urgent anxiety with which the House awaits their report?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that, any such representation is necessary.

  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  Mr. HACKINGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of inquiries by means of commissions or committees which have been instituted by His Majesty's Government since the General Election; the number of reports which have been received; and the total cost up to date?
  Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The appointment of 70 Commissions and Committees has been announced since the present Government took office. Fourteen of these are standing bodies. Of the remainder, 17 have reported. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 4th November last to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer).
  Mr. HACKING: Does that number include the committees set up by the Economic Advisory Council?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will look into that point.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (WRAPPING PAPER).
  Mr. HANNONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the import into this country of considerable quantities of tissue paper under the names of cellophane and sidac; and if he will inquire why these articles have been admitted free of duty notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1926?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am advised that the material known as sidac or cellophane is not paper, and, therefore, is not liable to the duty imposed by Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1926.
  Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that manufacturers of this article in this country contend that it is paper, and will he make further inquiries to find out whether it is or is not paper?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My information is definitely that it is not paper, and, therefore, is not subject to duty under Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1926.
  Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
  Mr. REMER: If it is not paper, is it viscose?
  Mr. MILLS: Does it include Bristol board?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would point out that the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has already, in the question he has put down, asked me to make inquiries.

  COTTON INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).
  Mr. HACKING (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour whether she has any statement to make to the House in connection with the dispute in the cotton industry?
  Miss BONDFIELD: It is my desire to give all assistance in my power towards a settlement of this regrettable dispute. The House will appreciate that, as a ballot of the operatives is now being taken, it is undesirable for me to make any comment on the position.
  Mr. McSHANE: If the employers are unable to carry on their industry with decency to the men and women—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. WISE: May I ask the Minister whether it is proposed by the Government to apply the proposals in the cotton report to the industry if the employers are unable to carry on?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that that question must be addressed to another Department.

  HAIG STATUE.
  Mr. EDE (by Private Notice)asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is now in a position to make any statement in reference to the Haig statue?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Yes. Mr. Hardiman, the sculptor selected by the assessors appointed by my predecessor, has completed the second model. This has been approved by them, subject to some small modifications. The two models will be available for inspection in the Royal Gallery by Members of both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday and Thursday of this week, and on two days in the following week, after which the artist will be authorised to proceed on the work of the full-size statue.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Have the new models been submitted to the various associations of ex-service men who served under the late Field-Marshal and also to Lady Haig for their consideration and views?
  Mr. LANSBURY: No, Sir, but I have communicated to them what is being done.
  Captain W. G. HALL: Is it decided where the completed statue is to be put?
  Mr. LANSBURY: It is to be in Whitehall.

  PICCADILLY WIDENING.
  Sir W. DAVISON (by Private Notice)asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has under consideration the surrender of any portion of the Green Park for the purpose of widening Piccadilly; what is the extent of the ground proposed to be surrendered; and whether there are any trees growing upon it?
  Mr. LANSBURYI have been asked to consider, in connection with a scheme for the widening of Piccadilly west of the Ritz Hotel, the surrender of a very small strip of land in the Green Park. The existing lavatories would be set back and the line of the park railings readjusted, so that not only would the roadway be widened but the existing omnibus stop at the Ritz Hotel could be removed to a point west of the proposed new tube station. In this way, the present serious congestion of traffic would be relieved.

  29
  The strip of park laud which would be surrendered is about 125 yards long and is 9 feet in width at the maximum depth No trees will be affected except two small planes which it will be necessary to remove in any case in the construction of the new station. With Mr. Speaker's permission, I will arrange for a plan illustrating the proposals to be shown in the Tea Room.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Is not the congestion in Piccadilly West caused by the block in Piccadilly between the Ritz Hotel and Berkeley Hotel?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I think the congestion is due to the very big stream of traffic coming down from the side of what used to be Devonshire House. In any case, there is congestion outside the hotel.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a proposal to make an underground passage for traffic between Berkeley Square and Green Park so as to relieve congestion in Piccadilly caused by the cross traffic going north and south?
  Mr. LANSBURY: No, I think not.

  BURMA.
  Major GRAHAM POLE (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for India what is the view of His Majesty's Government regarding the constitutional position of Burma after separation from India?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated yesterday in the final plenary session of the Round-Table Conference, the Government have decided to proceed with the separation of Burma. They wish it to be understood that the prospects of constitutional advance held out to Burma as part of British India will not be prejudiced by this decision, and that the constitutional objective after separation will remain the progressive realisation of responsible government in Burma as an integral part of the Empire. In pursuance of this decision they intend to take such steps towards the framing, in consultation with public
  30
  opinion in Burma, of a new Constitution as may be found most convenient and expeditious, their object being that the new Constitutions for India and Burma shall come into force as near as may be simultaneously.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Has this decision been arrived at since the conclusion of the round-table proceedings and, if not, why was this very grave decision not communicated to the round-table Conference?
  Mr. BENN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to the answer, he would have noticed that it commenced with the words, "As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday."
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that no details such as have been given this afternoon were given to the round-table Conference yesterday, and, if so, is the House to assume that these grave decisions have been arrived at since the round-table Conference concluded and without any reference to the round-table Conference
  Mr. BENN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, he would have observed that it referred to the report of the Committee in which these facts were. stated.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I wish to ask three questions as to the business of the House. I understand notice has been given. If the Prime Minister is unable to answer at the moment, perhaps he can answer later in the debate. I wish to ask whether there has been any alteration in the business for this week announced before we separated for the holidays; secondly, whether he has yet made up his mind how long he proposes to give for the Second Reading of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, and, thirdly, if he is yet in a position to say when he will make a statement to the House on the work of the Indian Conference?
The PRIME MINISTER: There has been no alteration in the business for this week. With regard to the Trade

31
Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, although I still hold that one day is quite adequate, I am willing to allow a second day for the Second Reading. The first will be this week, but we cannot provide for the second until next week, Thursday, or earlier if the right hon. Gentleman would give me notice. With regard to India, what we propose to do is to publish a White Paper which will contain everything that is essential in the statements that have been made, and I hope—although the House will please not hold me to this—the greater part, if not the whole, of the reports of the sub-committees, if they are not published immediately, will be published. It is only a question whether it is worth while holding up the White Paper so that the House might get that information. I am hoping—again, I hope the House will not hold me to this as a pledge —that the White Paper may appear before this week is out, perhaps during the week-end. In that event, I shall be very glad to provide a day for a debate on the subject next week, but the day will depend on when we can get the White Paper out—it will have to follow on that —so that the House, before the debate takes place, will have the essential information in its possession.
Mr. BALDWIN: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his replies. With regard to the last question that I raised, as far as we are concerned, that will be perfectly satisfactory. I expect he realises, as we do, that no longer interval than is necessary should be allowed to elapse, but we perfectly understand that perhaps a few days may be necessary for the preparation of the White Paper. With regard to the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, I am still of opinion that, having regard to precedent and to the very great importance from every point of view of that legislation, longer time will be required, and I purpose pursuing that matter through the usual channels.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Sir Richard Stafford Cripps, commonly called the honourable Sir Richard Stafford Cripps, knight, K.C., for the Borough of Bristol (East Division).
BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
  Captain GUNSTON: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, I shall call attention to the necessity for reducing Public Expenditure, and move a Resolution.
  ROYAL NAVY (OIL FUEL).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the supply of oil fuel for the Royal Navy, and move a Resolution.
  IMPERIAL AIR ROUTES.
  Captain CAZALET: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for the speeding up of the development of Imperial air routes, and move a Resolution.
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, I shall call attention to Maternity and Child Welfare, and move a Resolution.
  BRITISH ARMY (VOCATIONAL TRAINING).
  Mr. GRANVILLE: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for increased facilities for Vocational Training, and move a Resolution.
  SCHNEIDER TROPHY.
  Sir CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the failure of the Government to take adequate steps to defend the Schneider Trophy, and move a Resolution.
  LONDON NAVAL TREATY.
  Captain EDEN: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the limitation imposed upon the British Empire by the London Naval Treaty and the freedom of action enjoyed by other nations not equally bound thereby, and move a Resolution.
  CIVIL AVIATION.
  Mr. MATTERS: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of Civil Aviation, and move a Resolution.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ALTERNATIVE WORK).
  Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of alternative work in dockyards, and move a Resolution.
  WAR PENSIONS (ANOMALIES).
  Major COHEN: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, I shall call attention to certain anomalies in Great War Pensions, and move a Resolution.
  BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITING).
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the situation in regard to recruiting for the Regular and the Territorial Forces, and move a Resolution.

DEATH OF THE PRINCESS ROYAL.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to express the deep concern of this House at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal; and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to assure His Majesty that this House will ever participate with the most affectionate and dutiful attachment in whatever may concern the feelings and interests of His Majesty."
The House will have noted that during the Christmas Recess Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal has died, and everyone who has been privileged to have a glimpse into the soothing domestic life of His Majesty knows the fond relations which existed between him and the Princess Royal and can understand what a very heavy and oppressive personal loss he has sustained by her death. She was not prominent in public life; she was shy, and she was retiring. She was not robust; indeed, she very often suffered from pain. But whoever has been permitted, for instance, to cross the threshold of Mar Lodge on a Sunday afternoon when the autumn light has lain in beautiful peace across the meadows in front of it, over the Dee, and upon the fir-clad hills beyond and has seen the majesty and dignity of State transformed into the charm of personal affection must have borne away with him memories of tender felicity and family happiness. The smooth flow of her life, to which a happy union contributed so much, was broken by the terrible experiences of herself and her family on that night of shipwreck off the coast of Morocco, now 19 years ago, to which was attributed the death of her husband a few weeks later. All her later years were spent in the quiet of her home, occupied by her interests in art, music, and the routine of a Royal but secluded household. It is fitting that this House should dutifully approach His Majesty with an expression of its concern and its sympathy, and I therefore move the Resolution.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I rise to express on behalf of those who sit behind me our sympathy with the humble
42
Address which the Prime Minister has so eloquently moved from his position as Leader of the House. There is something peculiarly intimate and touching about such a Resolution. It often falls to our lot to move these Resolutions for those who have played a great and prominent part in the world, but we all of us know in our own private lives—and here we are touching the private life of His Majesty—that very often it is not those vivid personalities, which appeal to the world's love of strife and have their place in history, that leave the greatest gap, but those whose life has been centred in the domestic and in the love of home and the fair country. Theirs is the closest and most touching appeal to our hearts. It is such a loss in his innermost circles that His Majesty has suffered, and there can be nothing more appropriate this afternoon than that we should pass unanimously this message to His Majesty, which has been moved by the Prime Minister, which is supported by that part of the Opposition for which I speak, and which will be supported by the Opposition for which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) speaks.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I support the Resolution for an Address of condolence with His Majesty in his bereavement. I can add nothing to the very appropriate sentiments so eloquently expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I simply say that I share them to the full, and I rise on behalf of the Members whom I represent in this House to associate ourselves with this message of tender and affectionate sympathy with the King in his sorrow on the loss of a much loved sister.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to express the deep concern of this House at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal; and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to assure His Majesty that this House will ever participate with the most affectionate and dutiful attachment in whatever may concern the feelings and interests of His Majesty."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
"That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, Government Business have precedence on every Wednesday for the remainder of this Session."
I must remind the House that there are a great many precedents for this procedure, but I shall only give one at the present moment. On the 22nd February, 1921, Mr. Bonar Law moved a Motion taking precedence for Government business at every sitting, including Fridays as well as Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, until the end of the financial year. I quote that Resolution, because Mr. Bonar Law then used a sentence which is my case now. He said:
"It may be contended, with some appearance of justification, that the necessity of taking the time in this way … should have been avoided, but there was only one way in which it could have been avoided, and that was by causing the House of Commons to meet earlier than it did."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1921; col. 796, Vol. 138.]
That is exactly my case. Before we rose for the Christmas vacation I was perfectly prepared to ask the Members of the House to assemble a week earlier than they have done, that is, on the 13th January instead of the 20th January. So far as I was concerned, I had a very good idea that whether your holiday ended on the 13th or the 20th it would be all one to me but, with my usual thoughtfulness for the comfort of the House, I decided that it would be fair if you enjoyed a very good Christmas vacation and then came back in the most excellent good tempers to pursue the work of the Session. But that week could only be given on certain conditions. The work up to Easter had been very carefully thought out and fitted into a time table, and very much to my regret—I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will believe that I did my best to avoid it—I found that if that week was to be added to the holidays the House would have to give me the five remaining Wednesdays of private Members' time. At first, it looked as if we should have to take the Fridays as well, but I am glad to say that that is not necessary. Therefore, I am moving my Motion that private Members' Wednesdays should be taken by the Government in order to enable Government business to be performed.
44
I see that some newspapers, always publishing false prophecies, have said that I should come to the House and say that Wednesday, as used by private Members, is no good. That is not true. On the whole, Wednesdays for private Members' business are very well used. There are occasions when perhaps they might have been used better. If the opportunities given to private Members were used for raising questions of a more general character than can be debated in the course of Bills, the discussion of which would do us all good; if private Members would use their time as some have done on Wednesdays for that purpose, I would be the last man, except with the most profound regret and only in circumstances of imperative necessity, to curtail private Members' time on Wednesdays. That is my position.
4.0 p.m.
We must pursue with energy the Bills that are already before us. This week, the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill will be started on its voyage. The Representation of the People Bill will be brought on immediately, and, as the House is aware, that Bill must be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House; it cannot be sent to a Committee upstairs. We propose to proceed with the Agricultural Marketing Bill. A very important part of the existing law relating to payments in respect of Unemployment Insurance comes to an end with the last day of the financial year, and, as the Royal Commission has been asked to speed up its inquiries, and give us a report especially upon that part of the law which expires at the end of March, we propose to introduce legislation, I will not say to continue the existing law, but, at any rate, so as to continue the Treasury's power to assist the unemployed after consideration of the problem. Then there are sure to be some emergency Measures and questions for which time will be wanted. For instance, to-day I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition about India. Time for that, of course, has to be granted, and is granted with the very best will of the Government.
I expect that the right hon. Gentleman will be going again to put his hand into my pocket so far as time is concerned. He knows that I am only too anxious to accommodate him when he is reasonable, but I would like to come to a bargain

45
with him this afternoon. I cannot be reasonable with the right hon. Gentleman unless he is reasonable with me, gives me a slight balance of time and does not compel me to run under backward conditions as far as House of Commons opportunities are concerned. I feel perfectly certain that nobody in this House knows more than he does how reasonable I am in limiting my request for Wednesdays, and not extending it to Fridays as well. It is sheer necessity, and I am following in this respect for once in the good steps of Mr. Bonar Law and the late Conservative Government. I ask for time, which is required for essential business, and I hope that I will receive it from the House.
Mr. S. BALDWIN: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he is asking for time and that he hopes to receive it, that is the truest observation he made during the course of his speech. I have, however, one or two Observations to make, and, possibly, there will be further observations by hon. Friends behind me before the Division is taken. I might say, in passing, that I rather deprecate the use of the word "holiday" as synonymous with the Recess. It makes a false impression on the public mind. I also take a little exception to the right hon. Gentleman having spoken as if he had given us a day for the discussion of India to oblige me. That, of course, after the India Conference, the Government are bound to do. They must make their statement, and we are all looking forward to it. In regard to what was done in 1921, I have very little responsibility for that, but, as a matter of fact, precedents for taking private Members' time so early in the Session are not common, and I would rather like to look for a moment at an occasion, not much more than two years ago, when I had to put down a similar Motion on behalf of the Government of which I was then the head.
I had an excuse then which the right hon. Gentleman has not now. I stated in this House that there was certain legislation which had to be got through before the General Election. But there is no prospect of a General Election now. It is very interesting to notice that in the course of his speech on that occasion he ventured to stress that point, and it was taken up, and I thought at the time it was a good point. He also said that, of course, it was the duty of the Oppo-
46
sition, as it is, to do their best to safeguard the interests of private Members. There is no body of men so willing to commit suicide so far as their time for speech is concerned as private Members behind the Government. It happens time after time, and in spite of all the eloquence and the desire to give expression to themselves, that no voice is lifted up against what the Leader of the House wishes to do. The Leader of the Opposition at that time made this point which, I think, is a perfectly valid one, but I cannot be sure if I gave any reply, though I am sure if I did it was a very reasonable one. He said that of course if you take away private members' time, there is always a moral obligation on the Government, in the event of matters of importance coming up, to give time to the Opposition to discuss those subjects. I would remind him of that, because he seems to be in such a reasonable frame of mind this afternoon, and, having finished the Conference, and having very much less to do, I am sure he will consider that favourably. He also said
"This is not a suspension of the Standing Orders; this is a subversion of the Standing Orders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1928; col. 56, Vol. 222.]
It is less a subversion not taking Fridays, I quite admit, but it is a proposal which in putting it down, we all feel is a pity, and the Opposition always feel that they are labouring under a grievance when private members' time is taken away.
I would say one word to the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party, because he, doubtless, will support this Motion. I would remind him, as I think it is good sometimes to remind him, of what he said a year or two ago. He said that he was going to support my Motion at the end of 1928, because if that Motion were not carried it would delay the General Election we were all looking forward to. He will no doubt tell us this afternoon whether he is still of the same mind, and is looking forward to a General Election. The curious thing is, that, having made that powerful speech, and doubtless influenced a good many votes, I cannot find his name in the Division List. I have said what I have to say. I cannot flatter myself that these few words of mine are going to convert a majority of the House into a minority. We shall have, as all Oppositions have,

47
to suffer with what patience we may, but we shall raise our voice against this arbitrary confiscation of private members' time.
Sir DENNIS HERBERT: The Leader of the House, in moving Motions of this kind, can only rely upon precedents up to a certain point, because in every case the particular position in regard to business is one which must be considered at the time. At the present time, the country finds itself in a position undoubtedly serious, unemployment increasing enormously, our financial affairs, our trade and industry in a sorry plight, and no private Member on this side of the House, at any rate, would be otherwise than willing to give up private Members' time if they saw that the time was going to be used for any remedial measures. But what do we find? We find that the time is to be taken up by Bills and proposals which are not going to deal with this serious state of affairs, and, in fact, cannot reasonably purport to deal with it in any way whatever. One of the principal Measures for which this time is asked is a Measure under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. It is a Measure which, as far as I can see, and, I think, most hon. Members on this side will agree, is going to do nothing to mitigate the evil of unemployment. The agricultural industry does not want it, and does not like it. This Bill, for which we are asked to give time, is one which, as far as I can discover, is genuinely supported by nobody but the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of it, a number of professional party politicians and a certain number of theoretical faddists, all of whom suffer from an ignorance in regard to practical agricultural matters which is only exceeded by that of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I leave the right hon. Gentleman and his friends the supporters of the Bili to wallow in their own self-satisfaction with the extraordinary legislative proposals which they have made.
Do the Government not realise the feeling there is in the country that they are called upon to do something definite with regard to this question of unemployment? More than that, and with a view to mitigating unemployment, the country looks to this Government at once to take some
48
drastic measures to curtail national expenditure, and to try to keep our finances within reasonable limits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is smiling. I hope he is not smiling at what I am saying. At any rate, I am glad that he is on the bench opposite to hear, for what it may be worth, the statement that wherever we go about the country on business matters, not in regard to politics at all, we find this feeling being aroused throughout the country that we are in an extraordinarily dangerous position with regard to our national finances, and yet the Government are asking for time to promote legislative proposals which, so far as they are concerned with finance, are only going to increase our expenditure. There is not the slightest indication in their programme of anything whatever which will stop this terrible downward slide, with national bankruptcy at the bottom of it. While Rome was burning the Emperor Nero was play-acting in a turret of his palace. It has taken nearly 1,900 years to find a parallel to that; with this country on the verge of national bankruptcy the Government can do nothing but sit in Downing Street subsidising grand opera. I protest against this cynical proposal to take private Members' time for Government purposes when the Government have no proposals on the Order Paper which are in the least likely to meet the demands and expectations of the country for something to deal with the terrible state of affairs prevailing at the present moment.
Mr. BROCKWAY: May I as one of the back benchers intervene for a moment in the debate. I welcome the Motion now before the House because I believe that the condition of the country demands that all the effective time of the House should be given to legislation, but I want to urge on the Prime Minister that if the Government takes the time of the House in this way the time should be used in order to deal with the desperate condition of the working classes. The right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) protested against the use of the word "holiday" in connection with the Recess, and I imagine that hon. Members in all parts of the House will concur in that protest. Those of us who have been going about the country during the Recess, to the mining areas, the steel areas or the textile areas in Lancashire,

49
cannot but be gravely disturbed with the growing deterioration resulting not only from unemployment but from wage reductions from one end of the country to the other. We are faced with a crisis in the deterioration of working class standards which demands much bigger and much bolder legislation than anything yet brought forward by the Government Front Bench.
So far as unemployment is concerned, the policy of the Government so far has been to concentrate upon the recovery of our export markets. I desire to urge that if, they are going to take the time of the House in this way it should be used for the recapture of our home market by improving the condition of the workers in this country. In addition, as we are faced with vast numbers of unemployed, the Government should concentrate not upon comparatively small schemes of work under local authorities but upon great national schemes such as are necessary to deal with the housing problem. I support the Motion before the House but I do earnestly appeal to the Government to reconsider their programme and bring in legislation which will adequately deal with the desperate condition of the country at the present time.
Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I should just like to say one word on the subject which the hon. Member for Leyton East (Mr. Brockway) has raised. The House as a whole will expect at an early date a statement of Government policy on the problem of unemployment, a question upon which the mind and heart and conscience of the country is deeply moved at the present time. The House will expect some statement on the problem as to how we are to get our men back to work. There is no doubt that this question will take precedence of all other questions during the next few weeks.
Mr. O'CONNOR: I desire to add my protest against the proposal of the Government to take the time of private Members. There is no hon. Member on this side of the House who would in the least regret making the sacrifice if there was any assurance that any effective use would be made of that time for the purpose of dealing with some of the problems which face us at the moment. At present we are presented with a programme which
50
displays a perfectly cynical disregard of all the needs of the country. Everyone will agree that a new situation has been created even since we separated for the Christmas Recess. There has been an addition of over 300,000 people to the live register, and surely that fact justifies a reorientation of policy, some new proposals, to deal with a situation which has been aggravated to such an alarming extent in the course of the last few weeks. At the present time the only questions in which the country is interested are, first, how to improve the trade of the country and, in the second place, how to reduce the distress of unemployment. These are living problems with which the people are asking the Government to deal.
In what way does the Government propose to deal with them? It presents us with a farrago of Bills, not one of which will add one single man to employment, even if every single Measure is passed. It presents us with a mess of pottage which can only result in increased expenditure and will not add a single soul to the employment list. The Prime Minister and his colleagues are inviting the House of Commons to spend 11 weeks between now and Easter discussing perfectly futile subjects which have no relevancy to the vital needs of the country. We enter our protest against that procedure. That, however, is not the whole case. We are to be presented at the expense of private Members' time with Bills which will add to the economic burdens of the country, which will throw sand into the wheels of capital and labour, which above all other elements in our economic life must be brought to face the difficulties of the present time if we are to survive the troubles of 1931. Instead of dealing with vital problems we are to discuss whether hon. Members below the Gangway are to have the alternative vote, whether we are to use motor cars, or whether the workers are to be permitted to call a general strike. These are the questions the House is to be asked to discuss at a time when what the country needs are resolute measures to deal with the distress which is only too apparent. Let the Government come forward with any proposals, any measures, which show that they have a just appreciation of the present situation and there will be no lack of generosity in surrendering the time of the House. They come forward, however, with a programme

51
which is a farce and an insult to the House of Commons, and we on this side register our protest against it.
Mr. STEPHEN: Since I became a Member of this House I have always been jealous of the rights of private Members, and I should not like this occasion to pass without making a few comments. I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Leyton East (Mr. Brockway). It will be all to the good if all the time of the House between now and Easter were taken up in expediting assistance for the unemployed and improving the condition of the working classes. Certain questions are worrying the working people at the moment. There is the question of wages and the threatened reduction of wages. During recent years there has been a continual fall in wages, but no corresponding reduction has taken place in the rent they have to pay for their houses. I hope the Government will see its way to give facilities for the Rent Reduction and Control Bill which some of my colleagues and I have introduced. The House gave a unanimous First Reading to this Measure, and the fact that not a single voice was raised against it should prove to the Government that facilities for the Bill would not be wasted. There is a very pressing problem in the case of many shopkeepers owing to decreasing trade and harder conditions. I hope we are going to get on the Statute Book before Easter a Measure providing for the reduction of rents in the case of these people.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has introduced a Bill to prevent the reduction of wages. We have asked for facilities for this Measure. The Prime Minister has informed me that the Government are of opinion that the Bill would not meet the case. He did not give any reasons for that opinion. I think the Prime Minister is wrong and that the Bill would certainly be very helpful in preventing such circumstances as have occurred in the railway, mining and other industries. It is true that the Bill could be strengthened, but I hope the Government will see the necessity for passing legislation before Easter which will prevent any lowering of the standards of life of the working classes by reductions in wages. May I point out
52
that in this way we can prevent industrial crises arising? One of the reasons for the existence of the Labour party is that political power should be used for passing Acts of Parliament which will prevent the necessity for strike action or industrial action, and I hope that the Government, even as a minority Government, will take this opportunity when there is a unanimous feeling in the House that something must be done in view of the terrible hardships of the working people. Any Government coming forward with Measures to prevent a reduction of wages, to provide for an increase of wages or for a reduction of rents, would, I believe, have the wholehearted support of the overwhelming masses of the people of this country. It would be doing a great work, and taking the necessary steps towards the creation of a better state of society with better opportunities for all.
Captain BOURNE: Although the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) did not seem to be enamoured of the Government proposal, I presume that he will vote for it, but it seems to me an extraordinary thing that the Government should come back after the Recess, when unemployment has greatly increased, and bring forward a Motion of this kind with no better excuse than that Mr. Bonar Law did it in 1921. I believe that the precedent which the Prime Minister quoted is a bad one, for it will be within the recollection of the House that in those days private Members' time went on after Easter, and private Members still had certain opportunities of raising grievances on all important matters, though perhaps not matters worthy of a vote of censure, after Easter. That, to my mind, is one of the reasons why the House should look very jealously at any Government Motions to take private Members' time. If the Motion is carried there will be no means by which back bench Members can raise any matters, no matter how much those matters may interest the country in general, unless they are of such great importance that the Government are bound to find a day for them. Otherwise, we are confined to discussing what the Government choose to place in front of us.
We have been told by the Prime Minister what the Government intend to put before us. It is not an inspiring programme. It is admitted in all

53
quarters of the House, it is admitted in the Press and by people who are making speeches outside the House, that the country is in a bad way. The outward and visible sign of that is the growth of unemployment, more especially the steady growth in the figure representing those who are permanently unemployed. The Government bring forward a programme which, if any Measure contained in it reaches the Statute Book, will not make the remotest difference to our trading position or give employment to a single one of the unfortunate persons now out of employment. The country expects something different.
The only possible excuse for the Government's existence or for their taking office was to deal with unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Dominions stated that this Government would be judged on its record regarding unemployment. I for one sincerely hope that the Government will be so judged, because I believe that when it is considered that the Government have done nothing and have watched unemployment grow until it has more than doubled and nearly trebled since they first took office, the country will have something to say about it. Unemployment figures stand at the highest total that has ever been known, yet the Government bring in Measures, not to deal with unemployment, but they seek to take private Members' time in order that they might pass the Trade Disputes Bill and an electoral reform Bill which are not urgent and which will not give a single person a job. If that is all that the Government can suggest, I hope that the House will divide against the Motion.
Mr. W. J. BROWN: I want to make it clear at the outset that if there is a Division on this Motion I shall vote with the Government for the taking of private Members' time. I should, however, like to make one or two comments upon the proposal and the circumstances in which it is produced. In the first place, I do not regard the giving up by private Members of the Wednesdays between now and Easter as in any sense a serious invasion of private Members' liberty. If it were the case that anything serious emerged from private Members' business in this House, the position would be different. I have sat through many private Members' days in this Parliament, and
54
off-hand I can think of only one debate which led to any concrete result. That was the debate on Capital Punishment, which resulted in the appointment of a Select Committee from which all the Conservative Members resigned as soon as it reached a, critical stage in its proceedings! In those circumstances and in the experience of every one of us, it is idle for the private Member to hope to do anything unless he can get the Front Bench with him, Therefore, it seems to me quite wrong to treat this proposal as an unwarrantable invasion of very sacred private Members' rights. But there is another reason. If the responsible Government of the country comes to the House and says, "In our considered view the requirements of the situation are such that we want the Wednesdays between now and Easter," only the strongest grounds can justify the House in refusing to meet the request. Presumably the Government is a responsible Government. Presumably it is serious in snaking this demand on us, and since the demand calls for no special sacrifice, I see no reason why it should not be met.
But if private Members are to give up the nine days between now and Easter, I hope that the Government will utilise the days well. I can conceive of four subjects which urgently need the attention of the House and need to be thrashed out to a conclusion. There is, first of all, the unemployment situation. The uneasiness which is felt in other quarters of the House is felt on the Government side—that the economic situation is rapidly drifting to disaster without any real control or influence being exercised by the Parliament of the nation. That is true. Those of us who have come back from our Divisions and have seen what the tragedy means in terms of humiliation and sacrifice in the back streets of our towns, feel that Parliament cannot be allowed to go drifting on in face of the tremendous unemployment problem.
A second thing is the wages situation in the country. At the moment tremendous wages attacks are being launched upon railwaymen, upon cotton operatives, upon other sections of the working classes, and again for all practical purposes Parliament is

55
irrelevant to the situation. Both on the workmen's side in industry and on the employers' side, Parliament is almost a complete irrelevancy to the tremendous revolution which is taking place in the country. That cannot go on indefinitely without serious damage to Parliamentary institutions themselves. There is a third issue: there is India. Many of us view with increasing concern the possibilities of the next 12 months in India. Parliament itself has not debated India from the time of the announcement that the Round Table Conference was to be set up, but Parliament will have to face the consequences that emerge from the conclusions of the Conference and of the reactions which the Report of the Conference produces in India. Are any of the nine days to be devoted to that subject?
Finally, there is the tremendously urgent question of Parliamentary reform itself. Nine days would suffice to reform the procedure of this House; nine days of Parliamentary time seriously devoted to bringing a seventeenth-century machine up to date would be a wise expenditure of Parliamentary time. We have had it from the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), that this Parliament was never created for the handling of economic issues, that it was developed at a time when the sole concern of Parliament was broad political issues that were susceptible of debate in a large assembly. But in the last two centuries a new civilisation has grown up, an industrial civilisation, and to that civilisation the proceedings of our Parliament are very largely irrelevant. I should be out of order if I pursued that subject too far, but I profoundly believe that to a very large extent the great anti-democratic, anti-Parliamentary movements that are sweeping across the continent of Europe will be developed in this country in our time unless Parliament can be made equal to the work of handling the situation in this country.
The Labour party has a programme for Parliamentary reform, and it is a programme which the Liberal Members would find it difficult to oppose. If the Government devoted the nine days to the business of making this House a suitable medium for handling twentieth century problems, the whole subsequent
56
course of the Government of this country might be different. I see that the Prime Minister has left the Chamber, but I hope that whoever replies for the Government will tell us how it is proposed to utilise the nine days that we are asked to sacrifice. I shall vote for the Motion because I think it is the right of the Government to make this request to the House. The Government has a duty to the House of Commons also, and that is to say how far, if at all, the nine days are to be applied to the four great problems that confront the country and about which not a word has been said in the sketch of Parliamentary business that has so far been presented to the House.
Mr. BOOTHBY: With a very large part of what the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) has said, I find myself in substantial agreement. In the first place I would protest against the absence of any responsible spokesman on the Government Front Bench, unless the Postmaster-General is to reply. This is rather an important Motion, but everyone left the Treasury Bench after it had been debated for a few minutes.
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: How about your own Front Bench?
Mr. BOOTHBY: They are not responsible for the Motion. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton has asked for specific replies from the Government on the points that he has raised, and the Government should reply not only to him but to some of us who have observations to make on the Motion. It is treating the House with even less deference than usual, in fact with the utmost contempt, to fling down a Motion of this magnitude and importance, and then not bother even to listen to the debate or to answer it at the end. That is what the Government are doing. I think that the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton is to some extent responsible, because he opened his remarks by announcing that, although he proposed to criticise the Government in certain respects, yet whatever happened, he was going to vote for the Motion. As soon as that remark passed his lips, I noticed that at least two hon. Members left from the Front Bench opposite—
Mr. W. J. BROWN: I did not quite say that. I did not say that I was going to criticise the Government, and nobody who knew me would credit me with that intention. Like Rosa Dartle, I was merely asking for information.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I at once acquit the hon. Member of any intention to criticise the Government in any respect, because I know that he has for long been one of their most loyal and enthusiastic supporters. But the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said he agreed with every word that the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) had said. What did the hon. Member for East Leyton say? He said he was quite prepared to see private Members' time taken up for effective work on the part of the Government, and I hasten to say that I am quite certain that every hon. Member on this side would share that view. If there was the slightest reason to suppose that the time which we are asked to concede was to be taken up with any sort of effective work, we would gladly give it without a Division. But is there the slightest reason to suppose that the work of the Government in the next few weeks is going to be any more effective than its work during the past 18 months?
Under our present system of procedure, the Government of the day are primarily responsible for the legislation which we are invited to consider, and the work which we are asked to do. How have the Government asked this House to spend its time since last October? In considering, week after week, and day after day, two Measures of first-rate importance, namely, the Education Bill and the Road Traffic Act, neither of which is calculated to put a single man or woman into employment. The Education Bill is not even to come into operation until the autumn of next year—if then, because now there is some talk of abandoning it. But, if the Government had any sense of the gravity of the crisis, they would not have asked the House of Commons to waste its time for weeks on end on two Measures which have no direct bearing on the economic problem—the only problem that matters at the present time.
How do they propose to ask us to spend our time now? What are the two principal Measures to be placed before us in the next few weeks? They are the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, and the Electoral Re-
58
form Bill. I ask hon. Members opposite: How many men and women will those Measures put into employment? How are those Bills going to affect the industrial situation? There is no reason to suppose that they will do anything to alleviate it. The country is interested, above everything else at the present time, in proposals to restore prosperity to industry and to revive trade. The country cares about nothing else. The Government have wasted our time on other subjects since October, and now they propose to waste our time still further on subjects which are not relevant to the one key problem. That is ample reason why hon. Members, and especially backbenchers, should decline to give the Government the time for which they ask, unless we receive a categorical assurance that the time will be usefully, and, in the words of the hon. Member for East Leyton, effectively, employed in tackling the only problem that matters.
Take the question of industrial policy generally. If one asks the President of the Board of Trade what specific proposals he is going to bring before us to revive industrial prosperity, one can get no answer of any sort or kind except that he is going to indulge in a few more perfectly futile discussions at Geneva. That is the sole practical proposal he has yet been able to bring before us. If any of us asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the vital subject of financial policy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer treats it as a sort of personal affront. He has done so, not once, but over and over again. I myself have, on several occasions, asked him about financial policy, and the reply has always been curt and barren of any sort of information, and the impression is given that it is somehow or another an insult to the right hon. Gentleman to ask him for any statement about financial policy. But who would deny that this is one of the most urgent questions of the day?
Finally, there is the question of the actual handling of the unemployed themselves, quite apart from any question of schemes worked and the revival of industry. That is a subject on which hon. Members opposite might be supposed to have some views, but there is not a word upon it from the Minister of Labour or from the Government generally. The Unemployment Insurance Fund is per-

59
mitted to go on running into debt to the tune of half-a-million a week while abuses on both sides, both by employers and by some of those who draw unemployment benefit, are allowed to continue unchecked. The Government have practically abrogated all responsibility in this respect, and have thrown the matter over to a Royal Commission which may or may not report in the course of the next few weeks. If one thing is certain, it is that this question of the treatment of the unemployed themselves—and the huge figures of unemployment which have been reached in the last few weeks make it more urgently necessary than ever—should be considered without delay.
The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton said that the Labour Government had a programme of Parliamentary reform. If he outlines all the programmes which the Government have put before the country but of which we have heard nothing during the last 18 months, we shall be here for the summer. They also had a programme and a policy for the control of imports, but we have not heard much about it since the Imperial Conference. Dozens of programmes have been held out to the electors of this country, none of which has even been thought of, since the present Government assumed office. If we are to wait for the Government to put any part of their programme into operation, we shall have to wait for a long time before we see anything in the nature of reform of Parliamentary procedure. That is not to say that such reform is not necessary. I believe that sooner or later some such reform will, undoubtedly, be necessary, and I understand that a Select Committee of this House is at present considering the matter. What is of importance today is that the Government, under our existing procedure and I think probably under any procedure, must assume primary responsibility for the sort of legislation submitted to this House and the kind of questions which we are asked to consider.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) asked the Prime Minister at Question Time to-day whether he had any further proposals regarding unemployment, and the Prime Minister, after hedging a good deal, had
60
to admit that the Government had no further proposals of any sort or kind to deal with this question. Yet we are asked to deprive private Members of the only chance which they will have, until next October, of drawing the attention of the House and the country to some of the things which really matter. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the Government are even aware of the magnitude of the crisis or that they will do anything but attempt, as they have done in the past, to lull the House and the country into a false sense of security.
Mr. J. JONES: It is very gratifying, indeed, to hear the new-found enthusiasm on the subject of unemployment which has been expressed from the benches opposite. I remember the time when we used to walk in procession to the West End of London asking that something should be done for the unemployed when our Friends who are now on the benches opposite had the complete control of Government in this country, and when there was only one man in this House, in the person of Keir Hardie, to speak for the unemployed. I can remember the reception which he got when he dared to ask for £1,000,000 to assist the distressed at that period.
Mr. E. BROWN: And the Right to Work Bill!
Mr. JONES: The hon. Member belongs to a party which was in the Government, with one of the largest majorities that a Government has ever had, when there were just on 2,000,000 unemployed in 1922, and what did he do
Mr. BROWN: I had nothing to do with the Government.
Mr. JONES: You passed by on the other side. You were one of the camp-followers.
Mr. BROWN: No, I was against them.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) must connect his remarks in some way with the Motion before the House, which deals with the taking of private Members' time.
Mr. JONES: I am trying, as far as I can, to do so. I do not want, like Flannigan's pup, to go a bit of the way with everybody. I want to say what I think and to think what I say. In so

61
far as I am concerned, my view is that private Members' time in this House is simply a waste of public time. You talk for days and weeks together and nothing happens as far as private Members' Bills are concerned. You may get the blessing of some Minister who says that the idea is a good one, but the Government have not the time to carry it out. Consequently, I say, it is a complete farce, and until the Rules of the House are altered so that every Motion coming before it will get fair consideration, whether Government Motions or private Members' Motions, it will continue to be a farce. I quite agree with hon. Members that we are facing a great economic crisis, but who is responsible for it? It is the people who are moaning and groaning here this afternoon. They are the champions of the system which has made unemployment. Those who believe in the present industrial system and who stand for it know full well—
Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for a debate of that nature. The Motion now before us is for the taking of private Members' time.
Mr. JONES: With all due deference, Sir, other hon. Members were allowed to discuss unemployment, and I claim equal rights with them. Otherwise, it is no use trying to speak at all.
Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that the hon. Member is complaining of the Ruling which I have just given. I must again point out that this Motion refers to the taking of private Members' time. If the hon. Member can make out that the Government ought not to use that time in legislating in a certain way, he will be in order.
Mr. JONES: I was trying as far as I was able to express my views on the subject, although those views may not meet with the approval of some other Members of the House. I want to see unemployment tackled because my constituency suffers from it as much as any other. In common with some others, I think that the Government might be more courageous in that respect, but I protest most emphatically against people grumbling about the lack of time for private Members' Motions, when they themselves with a big majority and with greater power than this Government failed to tackle the problem. We believe in trying to do
62
something for the unemployed, and those of us who belong to the Socialist movement—with which I have been connected for 40 years—believe that you will never solve the problem until you abolish the system which has created it, and that is the private ownership of the means of living of the people of this country.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. MANDER: I wish to say a word upon this Motion because the interests of back bench Members are not always identical, especially on a question like this, with the interests of those who sit on the Front Benches. It is perfectly easy for a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to be called upon to speak at almost any time he wishes, but it is far more difficult for hon. Members on the back benches to have such opportunities. Therefore, I think they ought to watch very carefully any proposal of this kind, but I am bound to say, from my experience of discussions on private Members' Motions in this House, that a great deal of the time is absolutely wasted on Wednesdays and might be put to much better use. The Government are going to bring in various Measures. These may be unwise Measures, but the House of Commons can take those Measures in hand as they have done before in this Parliament and make them wiser and better Measures. The spectacle of hon. Members above the Gangway protesting against this Resolution is one of the most astounding things that one has seen for a long time. Only a few weeks ago one of their Members put down a Motion on a subject that stands in the forefront of their political programme—the necessity for economy. [An HON. MEMBER: "And yourselves!"] It was not a Motion put down by a Member of the party with which I am associated, or we should have been here in our places. It was put down by hon. Members above the Gangway on one of the gravest points in their programme, and after a half-hour's debate, not 40 of them were here to do it reverence. In those circumstances the opposition of hon. Members above the Gangway is a hollow mockery, and I hope in the circumstances that this Motion will be carried.
Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I want to say a word or two in protest against this Motion. While some of us may disagree as to the wisdom or otherwise of taking

63
private Members' time, Members on all sides of the House are agreed on the suspicion that they have of the use that the Government will make of the time they hope to get in this way. I think the Prime Minister rather deceived the House when he gave us to understand that he had given an extra week in order that Members could enjoy their holidays, because one of the chief reasons why the date of 20th January was chosen was in order to finish the Round Table Conference, and I do not believe that would have been done had the House been sitting and the various Ministers engaged in that Conference had to attend this House.
I maintain that these private Members' days, even though they may not always be wisely used, are a very necessary safeguard for private Members. They allow a Member or a party to ventilate some subject at adequate length, which might otherwise not be ventilated. There is a number of subjects with which the country is at the present time very vitally concerned. There is the subject of unemployment, and there are all the different reactions which are the result of having such an enormous number of unemployed, such as the state of trade and the different circumstances which arise from the present working of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Supposing one of these particular heads or subjects should come to a point in the next few weeks, we should probably have had the opportunity of discussing it had not this Motion been moved. There is a question for which time was asked to-day, which would be eminently suitable for a private Member's Motion, and that is the question of the conditions of employment in Russia. We have had it debated in the papers at great length, and it would be all to the good for that subject to be ventilated here. That will now be impossible unless a Vote of Censure is put down and time granted for it by the Government.
There is another subject, which particularly affects London Members, and that is the present position of the law in relation to Sunday, which it would be very suitable to discuss here. We have different views on it, but we could find out what the general consensus of opinion is and what steps should be taken in the matter. Then again, as we have seen to-
64
day, various suggestions have been brought forward by the left wing of the Government party, all of which it would be very interesting to discuss in this House. When the Government move such a Motion as this, they should he perfectly certain that they are giving adequate time for the Opposition, or even for Members of their own party, to discuss subjects which are of great interest to the country as a whole.
There are now two particular Bills which the Government are wanting to push through. There is the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, and then there is the Representation of the People Bill. What possible hurry can there be for either of them? They are purely party legislation. The object of the Trade Disputes Bill, according to the different discussions that have taken place in the papers, is to increase the coffers of the party opposite.
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): The hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of the subject. He is not entitled to go into the merits or the demerits of any of these Bills on this Motion.
Captain HUDSON.: I bow to your Ruling. I was pointing out that the Prime Minister said he was taking time because of the legislation of real urgency which this House is to be asked to pass, and I was trying to prove that it was merely party legislation, without any real urgency, but I will not pursue that subject further. The Representation of the People Bill can have no possible effect on the vital issues before the country, and it is merely an attempt, as everybody knows, to wangle things in such a way as to get the maximum representation for the party opposite in time to come. Then we have the Education Bill, and we do not even know whether or not it is to be proceeded with. Not one of these three Bills, to accelerate which we are asked to pass this Motion, will have the slightest effect in the way of putting people into employment; they are, on the other hand, likely to be very costly and to cause more unemployment even than there is at the present time.
One other reason for my opposition to this Motion—and I believe I am rather backed up in this by what has happened within the last 18 months—is that I

65
believe that we have far too much legislation in this House. These Wednesdays which are given up to the discussion of different subjects, not in the form of a Bill and not necessarily to be in the form of a Bill in the future, do far more good than the continual bringing forward and rushing through of more and more legislation. One other reason why I object is that I had a private Member's Motion down, which was ruled out by a Motion of the Prime Minister's at the end of last Session.
The final reason why I think this House would be unwise to agree, anyhow without a protest, to the passing of such a Motion as this is that, if only in a small way, this system of allowing private Members by ballot to bring forward various Resolutions gives this House some kind of control over the Executive. If a Motion is brought forward and a Division is insisted on, the Government must take some notice of that Division and must make some reply to the debate. Gradually, control has been stolen from the House of Commons. Members of every party in turn have agreed that something ought to be done about this, but every time a Motion such as this is brought forward it means that even the small amount of control that we have now is being taken from us, and the Executive and the Civil Service behind them rule the country more and more without any kind of check being put upon them by the representatives of the people. For these reasons, I hope this Motion will not he carried.
Mr. ALBERY: From every side of this House and from representatives of every party in it the opinion has been expressed that the legislation which the Government have put before the House and for which they wish to take private Members' time is not in itself of sufficient importance or usefulness to the country in the present time of emergency. That has been debated fairly fully, and I do not propose to say anything on that subject, except that I entirely agree with the general view which has been expressed.
It seems to me that when the Prime Minister tells private Members that he proposes to take their time, we private Members are entitled to the presence on the Front Bench of at any rate a Cabinet Minister to hear our views, to pay some attention to any complaint which we
66
may wish to make, and subsequently to return some reply. In the present; case we have practically been told that we are going to have our time taken, that we can get up and say what we think about it, but that the Government do not care what we think about it and are not particularly interested to hear what we think about it, and that, whatever the result is, they are going to take our time. That seems to me to show a lack of courtesy to the ordinary hack bench Member of this House.
There is one special reason why we should protest against this proceeding to-day. No doubt the taking of Wednesdays could be fully justified if the business of the Government was of sufficient importance and was calculated to deal with the urgent problems now before the country, and further—and perhaps this is as important an argument as any—if the taking of that time was calculated to give adequate time to private Members to discuss in debate the Measures which the Government are bringing forward, but from what the Prime Minister said to-day that does not appear to be the case. He said he was going to give us two days for the Trade Disputes Bill. That Measure in its printed form is extremely complicated. There is bound to be a great deal of legal argument about it, and I take it that there is hardly any hon. and learned Member of this House who will not have something to say upon it. Probably most of those hon. and learned Members will he called, and rightly so, because we shall need a lot of help and instruction to understand what the Government propose to do, but the days allotted are separated.
There will be a great many Front Bench speakers from both sides, and if we get only two allotted days, the majority of private Members will have no opportunity whatever of expressing their views on a subject of the greatest importance, not only to the country but to every single constituency. The legal arguments will mostly be of an explanatory kind, and this is particularly a Measure on which the greatest possible opportunity should be given to private Members to put their views. There is no legislation proposed by the Government which is going to create more feeling in the constituencies or a greater interest

67
there. There is no legislation in their programme to-day about which there will be a greater and a more acute division of opinion, and I protest, not so much about the taking of this time, as at the fact that the time so taken is not to be used, as it ought to be, to enable an adequate debate to take place on those Measures which the Government will subsequently introduce.
Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do so in order to call attention to the gross discourtesy of which the Government are guilty. The taking of private Members' time may or may not be justified, but it is a very serious request to make to the House of Commons, and that that, request should be made and a debate conducted upon it without a single member of the Cabinet on the Front Bench, but with just the Postmaster-General to listen to the views of the House on this subject, is a gross discourtesy to the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "A very good man!"] An extremely good man; I would not say a word as to his morality, even were that in order. I would not say anything against him on personal grounds, but he is not a member of the Cabinet; he is not responsible for the policy of the Government. I draw the attention of the House more especially to this. The Government are now proposing to take private Members' time, and what has characterised the treatment by the Government of private Members' time during this Parliament has been the same gross discourtesy that they are showing to-day. The hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) introduced the other day a Bill, about which we used to hear a great deal when the late Government were in office, to provide boots for children in the schools. When he brought that Bill forward, there was no representative of the Ministry of Health on the Front Bench, although the Parliamentary Secretary, if not the Minister himself, wag within the precincts of the House. As the hon. and gallant Member well knows, they deliberately abstained from coming here in order that they might not have the responsibility of answering him. Having treated private Members in that way during this Parlia-
68
ment, they now come to take away private Members' time, and they private Members in precisely the same way when they make that request.
Let there be no doubt about the grounds on which we oppose this Motion. We do not oppose it because of what might be done in private Members' time if it were not taken away; we oppose it because of what will be done in private Members' time if it is taken away. In the last few months an increasing distrust and contempt for the House of Commons has been growing up in the country, and the Government propose to increase that distrust and deepen that contempt by using the time of the House during the next few weeks, in the midst of an unexampled economic crisis, with unexampled distress throughout the country, not in discussing anything which has any relation to that distress, but in discussing how employers and workers may most easily fight each other.
Mr. HAYCOCK: On a point of Order. The Noble Lord has risen to move the Adjournment of the Debate, but is he not carrying on the debate on the Motion?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the Noble Lord has rather departed from the reasons he gave why the debate should be adjourned.
Lord E. PERCY: I beg your pardon, but I do not think I have departed from them. We are to occupy the time of the House in discussing how employers and employed may most bitterly fight each other, and we are to dance round that mulberry bush for weeks while the hon. and gallant Member's constituents in South Wales, having been put out of work by the Government's Measures, are now to be left to starve by the Government's utter inability to take any action—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Noble Lord rose to move the Adjournment of the Debate on the ground that, no responsible Cabinet Minister was present, and I cannot permit him to discuss on the Motion now before us the Government's action in Wales.
Lord E. PERCY: I was about to use the following words. It is in these circumstances, when they are asking the House to give up the freedom of private

69
Members in order to devote themselves to these degrading, absurd and irrelevant occupations, that the Government—
Mr. MUFF: On a point of Order. Is it courteous to the Chair for the Noble Lord to continue in this way after he has been pulled up twice?
Lord E. PERCY: It is on this occasion that the Government come to the House, and not a single Member of the Cabinet sits on the Front Bench to justify the way in which they would use their time. It is for that reason that I move the Adjournment of the Debate.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I may explain to the House that an urgent Cabinet meeting is being held. The Prime Minister asked me to occupy this place, and, if any specific question with regard to business were raised, to reply to it, having, if necessary, obtained the information for the purpose. I have been sitting in my place, and up to the present only two questions with regard to business arising out of this Motion have been put, and both questions I have noted in order to give a reply at the end of the debate. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in his Motion, I will say a few more words, but I hope that, as I have given this explanation, he will withdraw.
Lord E. PERCY: I can only say that the statement that there is an important Cabinet meeting is no excuse whatever for the absence of a Cabinet Minister. That has never been accepted as an excuse, and it will not be to-day.
Mr. HARDIE: To the Motion before the House that private Members' time be taken there has been moved a counter Motion for the Adjournment of the debate. It is simply a question of wasting the time of the House; I have been here eight years, and I have seen it more than once. The Procedure of the House is such that people outside are led to believe that inside all parties there is only a handful of capable Members, and that the rest must be spoonfed. That is exactly what the House is suffering from. If the House of Commons were looked upon as a body of responsible individuals, reponsible for individual efforts in the Government of the country, the question of who is on the Front Bench would not matter at all. The Motion for the Ad-
70
journment of the debate is a waste of time, and is only another evidence of the need for bringing the whole Parliamentary machine up to date. Surely the rights of private Members ought to be secured, but—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Motion before the House, which is "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. HARDIE: I am trying to give reasons why it should not be adjourned. We want to face the question of unemployment, but to adjourn now will be equal to saying that we are not in a position to deal with it, and we will be deprived of the opportunity of putting forward suggestions. Where schemes are being put up to local authorities and they refuse to carry them out, is not that something which this House ought to deal with now? Why should we adjourn the debate when such an important subject as this has to be dealt with?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see what that has to do with the Motion to adjourn the debate.
Mr. HARDIE: I am doing my best to keep to the subject before the House, but you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are confined by the old and rotten customs of this House. The Motion for the Adjournment of the debate is simply made for the purpose of scoring points, and I am sure that the Noble Lord cannot be satisfied that by moving the Motion he is doing anything to deal with the situation of the nation. When we find private interests preventing local authorities carrying out schemes, we ought to carry out the schemes and put the public authorities aside.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Motion before the House.
Mr. HARDIE: The Noble Lord spread himself pretty wide, and he went into some details about a Bill which were most inaccurate.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When I called the Noble Lord to order he obeyed my Ruling, and the hon. Member must also obey my Ruling.
Mr. HARDIE: I do obey your Ruling, but the Noble Lord continued after you had called him to order. I am not pre-

71
suming to take that liberty, and I deny the right of anyone with a title to tramp over the decisions of the Chair, while common Members are refused that right.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The duty of the Chair is to deal fairly with all Members of the House, and I endeavour to do that.
Mr. HARDIE: In conclusion, I would just say that this is not a serious Motion, there is no sincerity behind any part of it; nor was the Noble Lord himself sincere. He tried to evade every point relating to what should be the serious business of this House, and I hope we shall see that there is no adjournment.
Major GEORGE DAVIES: I think the hon. Member who has with some difficulty succeeded in completing his speech was hardly justified in levelling a charge of lack of sincerity against the Noble Lord in regard to this Motion. Let me bring the House back to a recollection of the situation before us. The Leader of the House, with considerable brevity, gave us the reasons why he wished to inflict what is a considerable demand upon the time of private Members. It is asking a concession of the vast majority of the Members of this House who do not happen to sit on the Front Benches and thus on account of the positions they hold or have held, have the privilege of being called, roughly speaking, every time they rise to their feet. Having made that demand, the Cabinet, with one accord, rose and filed out, leaving the Front Bench almost denuded of occupants. From reading the public Press I know that the Post Office is not unused to criticism, but I could not help feeling a certain amount of sympathy for the Postmaster-General, who, like Casabianca, was left in a place "whence all but he had fled" listening to criticisms to which he could have only an indirect authority to reply, because they could really only be dealt with by the Leader of the House.
I maintain that we have shown our justification for raising this question from two points of view. One is that if we are asked to make this concession of our rights as private Members, it is only courtesy, indeed, it is the proper procedure, that the Leader of the House, having made his request, should remain
72
throughout the Debate in order to listen to the criticisms which followed. These have by no means been confined to one side of the House, because hon. Members opposite, while they have indicated that they propose to support this Resolution, were by no means profuse in their compliments to their own Front Bench regarding the use which the Government propose to make of this time. The second justification for our action is that we now have the privilege of the presence of the Leader of the House as a listener and possibly to wind up the debate. I think our course in making this protest was an exceedingly proper one, because from whatever point of view one looks at the matter, as to whether in the past the best use has been made of private Members' time or whether the best use will be made of it in the future, this is an occasion when we have to register a protest, lest by allowing such proposals to go through as a matter of form, we find that ultimately we, as private Members, have been legislated out of a large number of our already limited opportunities in this House. For those reasons I hope this Motion for the adjournment will be pressed to a Division.
The PRIME MINISTER: I must confess that I am rather surprised at the action taken by the Noble Lord. I understand that the grounds upon which he based his Motion are not quite the same as those taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major G. Davies). I am not quite sure whether it is the Noble Lord or the hon. and gallant Member who is really responsible for this Motion.
Major DAVIES: If the right hon. Gentleman had had the privilege of listening to my right hon. and Noble Friend he would have realised that, though there was a more indirect approach to it, the ultimate goal at which we were both aiming was the same.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am very glad to hear that. It shows a unanimity which has hitherto been rather conspicuous by its absence. The fact of the matter is, this is not the first time in the history of this Parliament or of its predecessors when a Cabinet meeting has been held on certain urgent matters during the time when the House was

73
sitting. The reason why the hon. and gallant Member saw what he did see, namely, Cabinet Ministers on this bench all rising to go out together, was not that we wished to show any discourtesy to the House but that we were going elsewhere in a body on account of a summons which had been issued more than two days ago—I think three days. I left my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General in charge because there is no Member who has studied more carefully the procedure and practice of the House. If the apology which I gave to my hon. Friend on my left and to my colleagues round about when I was leaving had only been uttered in a somewhat, louder voice, so that it might have got across the Table, hon. Members opposite would have found that I was perfectly well aware that I was doing a thing which required some explanation. After this, I hope I shall be allowed to return to this meeting, which is of very great importance, and that the debate may go on with hon. Members assured that my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will reply. An hon. Member opposite seemed to think that I was trying to avoid the right to reply to the debate. I have, in the ordinary way, no such right, to reply. The reply can only be made by another Minister. I assure the House that my departure did not indicate any disrespect to the House. I sat here as long as I possibly could, and left only when it was absolutely necessary to attend to the other business.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not think the reply of the Prime Minister has been at all satisfactory, and I hope that we shall, if necessary, press this Motion to a Division. I do not think the Prime Minister has any conception of what the position really is. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have not been here!"] On the contrary, I have been here this afternoon and made a speech. [Interruption.] What happened was this. [HON. MEMBERS: "They had to tell you all about it."] The Prime Minister made a very serious Motion this afternoon, to take away the whole of private Members' time until Easter.
The PRIME MINISTER: I pointed out that I was not taking away the whole of private Members' time at all, and I also pointed out that, in view of there being more sittings of the House nowadays,
74
private Members, as a matter of fact, have more time.
Mr. BOOTHBY: At the same time the Prime Minister will not deny that he is taking at least nine full days which otherwise would have belonged to private Members between now and Easter.
The PRIME MINISTER: Nine full days?
Mr. BOOTHBY: Between now and Easter, including Fridays.
The PRIME MINISTER: Including Fridays! Fridays are specifically excluded.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I was quoting from what I understood was said by the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway).
Mr. BROCKWAY: Since a direct reference has been made to me—
Mr. BOOTHBY: No, it was the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown).
Mr. BROCKWAY: Since a direct reference has been made to me, perhaps I may say that I did not make any such suggestion.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I think it was the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton. [interruption.] I think lie did. [Interruption.] But I am not prepared to argue about that. What I say is that this is a Motion which is to take a considerable amount of the time of private Members.
Mr. McSHANE: I think it is within the recollection of the House that the Motion before the House is one for the adjournment of the debate, and not the Motion to which the hon. Member is speaking.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to conduct the debate.
Mr. BOOTHBY: The Prime Minister, after having submitted his Motion in a very brief speech, and listened to the reply of the Leader of the Opposition, went out, accompanied by all his Cabinet colleagues, after little more than an hour's debate. I think we are entitled to suggest that if this Cabinet meeting was summoned two days ago the Prime Minister must have known very well that

75
it would take place at a time when the House would be discussing this extremely important subject and he might have arranged to hold a Cabinet meeting at a time which did not coincide with the most important period of the debate. Even so, he ought to have left a responsible Cabinet Minister on the Treasury Bench to reply to the debate. The hon. Member for East Leyton and the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton both delivered attacks, or what amounted to attacks, on the lack of policy of the Government, and expressed the hope that the Prime Minister, or some other Member of the Government, would give assurances that the time of the House which the Government were taking would be effectively used; and the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton also complained of the absence of a responsible Minister, and said there was nobody to reply.
Immediately afterwards I got up and asked whether the Government would be prepared to give any assurance that the time taken would be effectively used in tackling the only problem that matters, the economic problem, and joined with the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton in expressing some surprise, and even discontent, at the absence of any responsible Minister. Perhaps it was impossible to postpone the Cabinet meeting, but the Prime Minister might have seen that the Lord Privy Seal was in his place, because he is able to answer upon the specific questions addressed to the Government by hon. Members sitting behind the Treasury bench and by hon. Members here. We pointed out that the Government had wasted the time of the House since October, and that there was reason to suppose that they proposed to waste it till Easter in discussing legislation which had no direct bearing upon the unemployment problem, and we asked from some responsible Member of the Government an assurance that they would be in a position to bring forward further new constructive proposals to deal with the economic problem and with unemployment.
We got no answer. Not a single Cabinet Minister was present to listen to the arguments, and I think we have a perfect right to complain. The Prime Minister cannot ride off by saying that this is a question of taking only five, or six, or eight days, or whatever it may be.
76
That is no justification for no responsible member of the Government being present to answer questions addressed to them, not only from this side of the House, but from their own supporters, or people who claim to be their own supporters. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet have chosen on a very important motion to treat the House of Commons with contempt, but I can assure him that that contempt is nothing to the contempt with which he and his Government are held in the country to-day; and in conclusion I would like to draw his attention to the cartoon which appears this evening in the "Evening Standard."
Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has given the House an explanation of why no Cabinet Minister was present during this debate, but the Cabinet was fixed two days ago, and it must have been known then that it would be impossible for Cabinet Ministers to be in two places at once. Though I think a case might very well have been made why the Prime Minister himself should be here, he will observe that the case presented from this side was that during a debate of this importance, when the Government are seeking, by the first Motion of the Session, to take the time of Private Members, there ought to be present a member of the Cabinet; because with the doctrine of collective responsibility, all members of the Cabinet are responsible for policy. The Prime Minister said the Postmaster-General was present and that he knew a great deal about procedure. I have no doubt the Postmaster-General could pass an examination in Erskine May at least as well as almost any other Member of this House, but this is not a question of procedure, it is a question of policy. We are dealing with a question of policy and policy alone.
This is a Motion to take private Members' time, and the justification put forward for taking this course is that the Government, as a matter of policy, desire to get on with certain Bills. The desirability of proceeding with them is entirely a question of policy. Under these circumstances, we are not dealing with a question of procedure at all. I think we are entitled to ask, when this Motion is being debated, that there should be a responsible Cabinet Minister present. I am aware that the Prime Minister pays great respect to the

77
rights and to the dignity of the House, but if the party on this side had been in office, and we had put down a Motion of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman would have been the first to say that it was the duty of the Leader of the House to make sure that one of his responsible Ministers was present during the debate.
The excuse that has been put forward is that Cabinet Ministers could not be here because of an urgent Cabinet meeting. We have not been told how urgent that meeting was. If the Prime Minister had told us that the absence of his colleagues was due to an important Cabinet meeting necessitating the attendance of all his colleagues; if the right hon. Gentleman had told us that some crisis of an urgent character had arisen which required all the Members of the Cabinet to be present, that might have been a good reason for the Cabinet being summoned while this debate was proceeding, but that is not what the Prime Minister has said. We have been told that the Cabinet meeting referred to was summoned two or three days ago with a clear knowledge that this debate was going to take place, and I submit that it is very unfortunate that the Cabinet should be summoned when the whole Government and the House knew that this subject was going to be debated. If the Prime Minister elects to summon a Cabinet meeting on such an occasion as this, then he ought to see that a responsible Member of the Government is present. I hope that this Motion to adjourn the debate will be carried to a Division.
Mr. BEAUMONT: The Prime Minister has already admitted that the action of the Government in bringing forward this Motion needs some explanation, but he did not give an adequate one. Reference has been made to the decline in the prestige of Parliamentary government, but how can hon. Members opposite, who have deplored this decline, expect this House to have any prestige whatever when the views of hon. Members are treated with such discourtesy as our arguments have been treated by the Government in fixing a Cabinet meeting to take place when the House is discussing a Motion to take away the rights of private Members. Is a Motion of that kind likely to make Parliamentary
78
government a success or to enhance the policy or the programme of any Government?
I am prepared to accept the statement that no studied insult was intended, but, at any rate, it means that in the mind of the Government the views of the Members of this House matter very little. Criticisms of this Motion have been put forward by the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) and the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), but the Government did not pay any attention to them. I say that it is absolute nonsense even for hon. Members opposite to claim that they are doing anything for the people they represent when they cannot get their own Government to come into the House to listen to their speeches. In these conditions, it is nonsense to imagine that private Members are anything more than a mere voting machine if their opportunities of debate are to be taken away by a procedure of this sort. I hope that this Motion for the Adjournment will be carried as a last attempt to defend private Members' rights in Parliament.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I would like to draw the attention of the House to one very serious effect which this debate has already had. After three hours' debate, the Prime Minister will notice, hon. Members below the Gangway, who usually support the Government, have left the House because they cannot stand any more of the debate. The Prime Minister ought to take that to heart. That is a most adequate reason why the House should adjourn. The Prime Minister has appealed to the House as a Council of State. On the first day after the Christmas Recess he gives as an excuse for his absence the fact that he has to attend a Cabinet meeting. May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman arranges all the Business? He has control of the Business in the House of Commons and in the Cabinet, and yet he has arranged for a Cabinet meeting to take place on the day when the House of Commons is considering a Motion to snatch away the privileges of private Members.
This is a Motion in which an attack is made on the rights of private Members, but, notwithstanding, this opportunity is seized in order to take the Members of

79
the Front Bench out of the House. I should be the last to say anything that, would depreciate the Postmaster-General, because I am sure he is a very nice and inefficient man, but he does not represent the Cabinet at the present time. I would like to say that this sneer at the House of Commons which comes so often from the Prime Minister when he deals with matters of this kind, this attack on the rights of the House of Commons, coming at a time when it is essential that every Member should show the deepest respect for the procedure of this House, ought not to be endured without a protest. It is not sufficient for the Prime Minister to listen to the debate for only a few moments. The leading Members of the Government ought to be here in order to find out what is in the minds of the Members of the House of Commons.
This proposal to adjourn the debate is not a desire to take up the time of the House of Commons, because none of us wish to waste time. Our desire is to compel the Government either to show that they are able to carry on the affairs of the nation or submit to a Motion to
adjourn the debate. There ought to be some Members of the Cabinet to listen to the debate when Members of the House of Commons come back from their constituencies. I have been a Member of the House for a considerable number of years, but I have never known an occasion on which this Motion was more justified. I have never before seen the House of Commons treated so abominably, and the House would be well advised to emphasise the principle that private Members have a right to exercise some control over the affairs of the country and the destinies of the Cabinet. After the way the Prime Minister has treated the House this afternoon, I think that the best way we can show our dislike of that treatment on behalf of the millions of people we represent, is to adjourn the debate and show our disapproval of the disrespectful treatment by the Prime Minister of the greatest of all institutions, the British House of Commons.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 261.

Division No. 88.]

AYES.

[6.0 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Chapman, Sir S.

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

Albery, Irving James

Christie, J. A.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Hammersley, S. S.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Cobb. Sir Cyril

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

Colman, N. C. D.

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Haslam, Henry C.

Atkinson, C.

Cranborne, Viscount

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd.Henley)

Baillie-Hamilton, Han. Charles W.

Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Kills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Balniel, Lord

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Beaumont, M. W.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s.)

Hurd, Percy A.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Jones. Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Bird, Ernest Roy

Eden, Captain Anthony

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Everard, W. Lindsay

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Ferguson, Sir John

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Boyce, Leslie

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

Bracken, B.

Forestier-Walker, sir L.

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

Lymington, Viscount

Brass, Captain Sir William

Ganzoni, Sir John

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Buchan, John

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Butler, R. A.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Butt, Sir Alfred

Gower, Sir Robert

Meller, R. J.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Grace, John

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Campbell, E. T.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Carver, Major W. H.

Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Gritten. W. G. Howard

Muirhead, A. J.

Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)

Chamberlain, Mr. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

O'Connor, T. J.

Savery, S. S.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Simms, Major-General J.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Peake, Captain Osbert

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Purbrick, R.

Smithers. Waldron

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Ramsbotham, H.

Somerset, Thomas

Wayland, Sir William A.

Remer, John R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wells, Sydney R.

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Withers, Sir John James

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Womersley, W. J.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Salmon, Major I.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Thomson, Sir F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Tinne, J. A.

Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Foot, Isaac

Law, A. (Rosendale)

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

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Lawrence, Susan

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Freeman, Peter

Lawson, John James

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cra e M.

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

Leach, W.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Lees, J.

Alpass, J. H.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

Lewis. T. (Southampton)

Ammon, Charles George

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Angell, Sir Norman

Gibbins, Joseph

Logan, David Gilbert

Arnott, John

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Longbottom, A. W.

Aske, Sir Robert

Gill, T. H.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Gillett, George M.

Lowth, Thomas

Ayles, Walter

Glassey, A. E.

Lunn, William

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bston)

Gossling, A. G.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Barr, James

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Batey, Joseph

Granville, E.

McElwee, A.

Bellamy, Albert

Gray, Milner

McEntee, V. L.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

MacLaren, Andrew

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Benson, G.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

McShane, John James

Bevan, Aneur n (Ebbw Vale)

Groves, Thomas E.

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Brkett, W. Norman

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Blindell, James

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Mansfield, W.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tyd)

March, S.

Bowen, J. W.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Markham, S. F.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth. C.)

Marley, J.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Marshall, Fred

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hardie, George D.

Mathers, George

Bromley, J.

Harris, Percy A.

Matters. L. W.

Brooke, W.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Mills, J. E.

Brothers, M.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Milner, Major J.

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Haycock, A. W.

Montague, Frederick

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hayday, Arthur

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Hayes, John Henry

Morley, Ralph

Burgess, F. G.

Henderson, Arthur, unr. (Cardiff, S.)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Herriotts, J.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R.Wentworth)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Cameron, A. G.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Mort, D. L.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Hoffman, P. C.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Charleton, H. C.

Hollins, A.

Muff, G.

Chater, Daniel

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Nathan, Major H. L.

Cluse, W. S.

Horrabin, J. F.

Naylor, T. E.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Isaacs, George

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Oldfield, J. R.

Cove, William G.

John. William (Rhondda, West)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Cowan, D. M.

Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Daggar, George

Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Dallas, George

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Palin, John Henry

Dalton, Hugh

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Paling, Wilfrid

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Palmer, E. T.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Perry, S. F.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Jow tt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Duncan, Charles

Kelly, W. T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Ede, James Chuter

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Phillips, Dr. Marlon

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Kinley, J.

Picton-Turberv, Edith

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Knight, Holford

Pole. Major D. G.

Egan, W. H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Potts, John S.

Elmley, Viscount

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Pybus, Percy John

England, Colonel A.

Lathan, G.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Un ver.)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Rathbone, Eleanor

82

83

Raynes, W. R.

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Townend, A. E.

Richards, R.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Vaughan, D. J.

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Sinkinson, George

viant, S. P.

Ritson, J.

Sitch, Charles H.

Walkden, A. G.

Romeril, H. G.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Walker, J.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Wallace, H. W.

Rothschild, J. de

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Waiters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Rowson, Guy

Smith, H. S. Lees- (Keighley)

Watkins, F. C.

Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

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

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Wellock, wfred

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Snell, Harry

Westwood, Joseph

Sanders, W. S.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

White, H. G.

Sandham, E.

Sorensen, R.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Brm., Ladywood)

Sawyer, G. F.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Scott, James

Stephen, Campbell

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Scurr, John

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Sexton, Sir James

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Strauss, G. R.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterc ffe)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Sutton, J. E.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Sherwood, G. H.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Shield, George William

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Wise, E. F.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Sh aker, J. F.

Thurtle, Ernest

Shinwell, E.

Tillett, Ben

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Tinker, John Joseph

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Simmons, C. J.

Toole, Joseph

T. Henderson.

Original Question again proposed.
Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: On this Motion to take up private Members' time on Wednesdays from now till Easter, I should like, as the Prime Minister is here, to ask him one or two questions. First of all we have to consider, in giving up this great privilege of private Members, what the Government are going to use this time for. The Government, as I understand, are going to use this time for three Measures. One is the Education (School Attendance) Bill, and on this I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. There are rumours in the newspapers that the Education (School Attendance) Bill, which has been debated at great length in this House, is going to be dropped. I think that, before we are asked to vote on this question of giving up the time of private Members to the Government, we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister whether these rumours which are going round are correct or not. I presume that they are not correct, because to-day, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether there was going to be any change in the programme for this week, the answer that the Prime Minister gave was that there was not going to be any change in the programme for the week. From that I presume that the Prime Minister has no intention of dropping the Education (School Attendance) Bill.
Then there is the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, and
84
there is a very important Measure to deal with unemployment. There is a rumour about the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill as well. This rumour is that a bargain has been made by the Government with the Liberals—who, apparently, are not taking much interest in the proceedings—that the Committee stage of that Bill is going to be taken, not on the Floor of this House, but in Committee upstairs. If that be the case, I think we ought to know it before we are asked to give up our time. No doubt the Postmaster-General will be able to give an answer as to whether the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill is going to be taken on the Floor of the House or upstairs, and whether there is any truth at all in the rumour that the Education (School Attendance) Bill is going to be dropped to-morrow. These are some of the rumours which are going about at the present time.
I wanted to say something about the Liberals. It is difficult to talk about them when there is not one of them on their benches at the present time, but we did have an indication from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, that he was going to support this Motion. Be assented with a nod. We can understand why he wants to agree to the time of the House being taken, because he is so anxious to get the alternative vote and to get the Elec-

85
total Reform Bill through, but I should like to remind him, though he is not here, of a pledge—perhaps I can do it through the Press Gallery—that he gave at the last election about unemployment. This is what he said:
"We are ready with schemes of work which we can put immediately into operation. The work put in hand will reduce the terrible figures of the workless in the course of a single year to the normal proportion and will, when completed, enrich the nation. These plans will not add one penny to the national and local taxation."
That was at the beginning of the last election, when there were 1,100,000 unemployed, and at present the figures are over 2,600,000. On the back of this Liberal leaflet we find that the number of people who were going to be employed under this pledge was 586,000. Curiously enough, the number of people who have been directly employed by the work of the Government is 86,000, and so we are short of 500,000 on the Liberal programme, and what is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs going to do about that? He says, "I would rather have the alternative vote on the chance of being able to get some support from the people of the country than bring in these schemes which I have promised to bring in and which I told the electors I would bring in at the last election." The leaflet finishes up with these words:
"Vote Liberal, and put this pledge to the test."
The right hon. Gentleman is being put to the test at the present time, and the Liberal party prefers the alternative vote, and supporting the Government in taking away the privileges of the private Member, to bringing in measures which he says will reduce the number of the unemployed to the normal within a year. But the Prime Minister also made a pledge at the last election. He wrote an article in the "Daily Herald" in which he said:
"We have a programme. We only want the power."
If the Trade Disputes Bill, the Education Bill and the Electoral Reform Bill for the bribing of the Liberal party are the programme he was thinking of, I do not think the House of Commons thinks much of it. If the Prime Minister had a programme at the beginning of the election, why does he not produce it? The result
86
of his programme up to the present is that he has directly employed 86,000 people out of a total of 2,600,000 who are now unemployed, so I do not think it is fair for the right hon. Gentleman to come to us private Members and say, "We want to take your time, not to deal with this programme that I told you about at the last election, not to deal with anything to do with unemployment, but so as to be able to give what the Liberal party wants, which is the alternative vote, and to give our back bench Members the right to strike if they want to." I do not think the country will be very pleased with the Government when they find out why they want to take up the time of the House. I hope that the Postmaster-General, when he replies, will remember my two questions, whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Education Bill is going to be dropped, and whether it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs?
Major DAVIES: Those who have taken part in this debate, on whichever side, have concentrated not so much on whether it was or was not the best use of Wednesdays, to devote them to private Members' Motions, but whether the time will actually be put to the best use. Even hon. Members opposite who intend to support the Motion have themselves taken up the greater part of their speeches with severe criticism of their own Front Bench on that point. After all, that really is the point at issue. It is not difficult to bring forward precedents. It is not difficult to say that the best use has not been made of private Members' time on Wednesdays, but when it comes to the passing of this Motion whereby we are being requested as Members of the House of Commons to make this concession, we are entitled to see the kind of use that is to he made of the time and what is proposed to be done if we make the gift we are asked to make. Six months ago there had been a period of 12 months of this Government in office when the expectations of the agricultural community had been raised to a very high pitch through undertakings that had been given on public platforms throughout the country. Week after week we asked the Minister of Agriculture and other Members of the Government when they were going to provide some opportunity for this

87
matter to be discussed, and we were always put off with the suggestion, "You have your opportunity in the Ballot for Wednesdays." That was true, but those who were lucky in the Ballot did not bring it forward. If we had been more fortunate, we might have spent more profitable Wednesdays than we did. Nevertheless we who occupy the back benches realise that with the present development of the Parliamentary machine our opportunities of independence and of expression of thought become less and less.
Some of the speeches to-day touched on a matter that has been ventilated to some extent in the Press, whether or not our Parliamentary system is in touch with and is properly reflecting the views and feelings of the country as a whole, whether it is not a little out of date and whether it should not be amended. Indeed the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Mr. W. J. Brown) indicated, with the enthusiasm of a comparatively recent Member, how quickly he could remould the whole of Parliament and its institutions in the five days which this Measure is proposing to take from private Members' time. He is, perhaps, an optimist. I do not propose to go into the question whether better procedure and rules could be evolved, but, under the present organisation, the tendency is more and more to make us occupants of the back benches, on whichever side, cash registers of the Front Bench. Hon. Members opposite are straining at the leash to make great flights of oratory while their Whips say, "For goodness sake, keep quiet. We want to get this Measure through." They are having a dose of that now. That becomes more and more necessary because of the plethora of legislation which Government after Government seem to think it is right to inflict on the House and the country. They have squandered their time and their opportunities in the last six months. Hours and hours and nights of Parliamentary time have been spent in discussing an Education Bill which, admittedly, is not to come into operation till the close of 1932 and which, if rumour be not a more lying jade than usual, is likely very shortly to be, temporarily any how, removed from the Order Paper. All that time, which was toeing devoted
88
to something which would have no practical bearing on the really great questions of the day, could have been devoted to other Measures for which there is clamour throughout the country.
The Prime Minister suggested that we had come back refreshed from our holiday and that he had given us an extra week. There are very few Members who have not occupied a large amount of the Recess in work in their own constituencies. We cannot he in two places at one time, and those who have a good deal of territory to cover in a constituency know what a great deal of time it takes. In the course of these journeys, getting once more in closer touch with those who send us here, there are three questions that have been put all the time. The first is as to the enormously increasing public expenditure, the second the cost of the increasing hundreds of thousands who are going on the unemployment register, and the third is, "When are you going to get this Government out?" Those are the three questions that are filling men's minds to-day to whatever party they belong, unpleasant as it may sound. I may leave the third out as savouring too much of internecine warfare, but for the other two it is undoubtedly true, not only of people who take a prominent part in our party politics but of the great mass of the people of the country who are not normally attracted by matters political but are suffering the gravest apprehension on matters economic and industrial. Here not only have we been wasting time in the direction I have indicated, but the Prime Minister is compelled to come to us back benchers and ask us to make a big sacrifice, even if we have not made the best use of our time in the past, in order to facilitate legislation which is entirely out of touch with the real needs and demands of the country, and savours very much of a pact, a deal, or an understanding with the absentee landlords who are not even on the benches below the Gangway. For these reasons, unless the Government can reassure the minds of hon. Members opposite, as well as on this side, that a really good use is going to be made of the time that is demanded from us, we see no reason why we should tamely submit to it, and I shall vote against the Motion.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy)rose in his place, and claimed to move,
"That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 176.

Division No. 89.]

AYES.

[6.30 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Matters, L. W.

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

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Mills, J. E.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

Milner, Major J.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Montague, Frederick

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Grundy, Thomas W.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Alpass, J. H.

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Morley, Ralph

Ammon, Charles George

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydv)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Angell, Sir Norman

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denblgh)

Arnott, John

Hall, Capt. W. p. (Portsmouth, C.)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Aske, Sir Robert

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Mort, D. L.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hardie, George D.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Ayles, Walter

Harris, Percy A.

Muff, G.

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bston)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Muggeridge, H. T.

Barr, James

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Nathan, Major H. L.

Batey, Joseph

Haycock, A. W.

Naylor, T. E.

Bellamy, Albert

Hayday, Arthur

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Benn. Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Hayes, John Henry

Oldfield, J. R.

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Benson, G.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Herriotts, J.

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Bndell, James

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Owen. H. F. (Hereford)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Palin, John Henry.

Bowen, J. W.

Hoffman, P. C.

Palmer, E. T.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Hollins, A.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hore-Belisha, Les e

Perry, S. F.

Bromley, J.

Horrabin, J. F.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Brooke, W.

Isaacs, George

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Brothers, M.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Jones, F. Llewellyn, (Flint)

Pole, Major D. G.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Potts, John s.

Burgess, F. G.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Pybus, Percy John

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Jones, Rt. Hon Le (Camborne)

Ramsay, T. B, Wilson

Buxton. C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Calne, Derwent Hall

Jones, T. I. Mdy (Pontypridd)

Raynes, W. R.

Cameron, A. G.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Richards, R.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Charleton, H. C.

Kelly, W T.

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Chater, Daniel

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ritson, J.

Church, Major A. G.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Romeril, H. G.

Cluse, W. S.

Kinley, J.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Knight, Holford

Rothschild. J. de

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Rowson, Guy

Cove, William G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)

Cowan, D. M.

Lathan G.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Law. Albert (Bolton)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Dallas, George

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Sanders, W. S.

Dallas, George

Lawrence, Susan

Sandham, E.

Dalton, Hugh

Lawson, John James

Sawyer, G. F.

Davies. E. C. (Montgomery)

Leach, W.

Scott, James

Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Scurr, John

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lees, J.

Sexton, Sir James

Dudgeon. Major C. R.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Duncan, Charles

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Ede, James Chuter

Logan, David Gilbert

Sherwood, G. H.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwe ty)

Longbottom, A. W.

Shield. George William

Edwards. E. (Morpeth)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Egan. W. H.

Lowth, Thomas

Sh aker, J. F.

Elmley, Viscount

Lunn, William

Shinwell, E.

England, Colonel A.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Foot, Isaac

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Simmons, C. J.

Forgan, Dr. Robert

McElwee, A.

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Freeman, Peter

McEntee. V. L.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

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

MacLaren, Andrew

Sinkinson, George

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith. N.)

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Sitch, Charles H.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

MacNe-Welr, L.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James .

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Gibbins, Joseph

McShane, John James

Smith. Frank (Nuneaton)

Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Gill, T. H.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Smith, Tom (Ponte ract)

Gett, George M.

Mansfield, W.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Glassey, A. E.

March, S.

Snell, Harry

Gossling, A. G.

Markham, S. F.

Snowden, Rt. Hon, Philip

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)

Marley, J.

Sorensen, R.

Granville, E.

Marshall, Fred

Stamford, Thomas W.

Gray, Milner

Mathers, George

Stephen, Campbell

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Vaughan, D. J.

Williams, David (Swansea. East)

Strauss, G. R.

Viant, S. P.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Sutton, J. E

Walkden, A. G.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)

Walker, J.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Wallace, H. W.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

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

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Thurtle, Ernest

Watkins, F. C.

Wise, E. F.

Tillett, Ben

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

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Tinker, John Joseph

Wellock, Wilfred

Toole, Joseph

Westwood, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Townend, A, E.

White. H. G.

Mr. Paling and Mr. William Whiteley.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

Everard, W. Lindsay

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Albery, Irving James

Ferguson, Sir John

Peake, Captain Osbert

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Purbrick, R.

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

Ramsbotham, H.

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

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Remer, John R.

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Reynolds, Col Sir James

Atkinson, C.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

Baillie Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Gower, Sir Robert

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Baldwin. Oliver (Dudley)

Grace, John

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Grettan-Doyle, Sir N.

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.

Balniel, Lord

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Salmon, Major I.

Beaumont. M. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Savery, S. S.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

Simms, Major-General J.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hamilton, sir George (Ilford)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Hammersley, S. S.

Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Boyce, Leslie

Hartington, Marquess of

Smithers, Waldron

Bracken, B.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Somerset, Thomas

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Haslam, Henry C.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Buchan, John

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. H. J.

Spender-Clay. Colonel H.

Butler, R. A.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Campbell, E. T.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hurd, Percy A.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Tinne, J. A.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

Lamb, Sir J. O.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Chapman, Sir S.

Leighton. Major B. E. P.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Ch J. A.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. Lambert

Colman, N. C. D.

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Lymington, Viscount

Warrender, Sir Victor

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Cranborne, Viscount

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Wells, Sydney R.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Meller, R. J.

Wilson. G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Cunliffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Withers, Sir John James

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Davidson. Rt. Hon J (Hertford)

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Womersley, W. J.

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

Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Muirhead, A. J.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Duckworth, G. A. V

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

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Nicholson. Col Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

Eden, Captain Anthony

Nield. Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

O'Connor, T. J.

Question put accordingly.
The House divided: Ayes, 263: Noes, 176.

Division No. 90.]

AYES.

[6.41 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Arnott, John

Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

Alpass, J. H.

Aske, Sir Robert

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Ammon, Charles George

Attlee, Clement Richard

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Angell, Sir Norman

Ayles, Walter

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hirst, G. H. (York W.R. Wentworth)

Potts, John S.

Barr, James

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Pybus, Percy John

Batey, Joseph

Hoffman, P. C.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Bellamy, Albert

Ho ns, A.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

Raynes, W. R.

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Horrabin, J. F.

Richards, R.

Benson, G.

Isaacs, George

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Bevan, Aneur n (Ebbw Vale)

Jenkins, Sir W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Blindell, James

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Ritson, J.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Romeril, H. G.

Bowen, J. W.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Rothschild, J. de

Brockway, A. Fenner

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Rowson, Guy

Bromley, J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Brooke, W.

Jones, T. . Mardy (Pontypridd)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Brothers, M.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Sanders, W. S.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Sandham, E.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Kelly, W. T.

Sawyer, G. F.

Burgess, F. G.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Scott, James

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Scurr, John

Buxton, c. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

Kinley, J.

Sexton, Sir James

Calne, Derwent Hall

Knight, Holford

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Cameron, A. G.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Sherwood, G. H.

Charleton, H. C.

Lathan, G.

Shield, George William

Chater, Daniel

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Sh s, Dr. Drummond

Church, Major A. G.

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Shillaker, J. F.

Cluse, W. S.

Lawrence, Susan

Shinwell, E.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lawson, John James

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Leach, W.

Simmons, C. J.

Cove, William G.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Cowan, D. M.

Lees, J.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Sinkinson, George

Daggar, George

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sitch, Charles H.

Dallas, George

Logan, David Gilbert

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Dalton, Hugh

Longbottom A. W.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherh the)

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lowth, Thomas

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lunn, William

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Duncan, Charles

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Snell, Harry

Ede, James Chuter

McElwee, A.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Edmunds, J. E.

McEntee, V. L.

Sorensen, R.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

MacLaren, Andrew

Stamford, Thomas W.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Stephen, Campbell

Egan, W. H.

MacNe-Weir, L.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Elmley, Viscount

McShane, John James

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

England, Colonel A.

Malone, C. L'Estrangt (N'thampton)

Strauss, G. R.

Foot, Isaac

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Sullivan, J.

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Mansfield, W.

Sutton, J. E.

Freeman, Peter

March, S.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

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

Markham, S. F.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Marley, J.

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

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Marshall, Fred

Thurtle, Ernest

Gibbins, Joseph

Mathers, George

Tett, Ben

Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

Matters, L. W.

Tinker, John Joseph

Gill, T. H.

Mills, J. E.

Toole, Joseph

Gillett, George M.

Milner, Major J.

Townend, A. E.

Glassey, A. E.

Montague, Frederick

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Gossling, A. G.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Vaughan, D. J.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Morley, Ralph

Viant, S. p.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Walkden, A. G.

Granville, E.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Walker, J.

Gray, Milner

Mort, D. L.

Wallace, H. W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Muff, G.

Watkins, F. C.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Muggeridge, H. T.

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

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Wellock, Wilfred

Grundy, Thomas W.

Naylor, T. E.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Westwood, Joseph

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Oldfield, J. R.

White, H. G.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lad wood)

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Hardie, George D.

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Harris, Percy A.

Palin, John Henry

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Palmer, E. T.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Haycock, A. W.

Perry, S. F.

Wise, E. F.

Hayday, Arthur

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Hayes, John Henry

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Mr. Paling and Mr. William, Whiteley.

Herriotts, J.

Pole, Major D. G.

94

95

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Ferguson, Sir John

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Albery, Irving James

Fermoy, Lord

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Penny, Sir George

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

Purbrick, R.

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

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Ramsbotham, H.

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Remer, John R.

Atkinson, C.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Gower, Sir Robert

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Grace, John

Roberta, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Balniel, Lord

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Beaumont, M. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Salmon, Major I.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Savery, S. S.

Boothby, R. J. G.

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

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Simms, Major-General J.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vans ttart

Hammersley, S. S,

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Boyce, Leslie

Hartington, Marquess of

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Bracken, B.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Smithers, Waldron

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Haslam, Henry C.

Somerset, Thomas

Brass, Captain Sir William

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Buchan, John

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Butler, R. A.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Campbell, E. T.

Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Carver, Major W. H.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hurd, Percy A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Chamberlain, Rt. Han. N. (Edgbaston)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Tinne, J. A.

Chapman, Sir S.

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Christie, J. A.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Turton, Robert Hugh

Colman, N. C. D.

Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Lymington, Viscount

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

Cranborne, viscount

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Wells, Sydney R.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Meller, R. J.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Darymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Windsor-Cve, Lieut.-Colonel George

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Withers, Sir John James

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

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington. S.)

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Womersley, W. J.

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Muirhead, A. J.

Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

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

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Eden, Captain Anthony

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

Everard, W. Lindsay

O'Connor, T. J.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Ordered,
"That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, Government Business have precedence on every Wednesday for the remainder of this Session."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  96
  In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is at Geneva, it falls to me to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I will endeavour to give the House an account of the facts which have led up to the introduction of the Bill, and some particulars of the Bill itself. The object of the Bill is to implement the friendly agreement which was reached last September between the Government of China and His Majesty's Government in this country. This Bill repeals the China Indemnity (Application) Act, 1925. That Act, passed in the last Parliament, never came into effective operation owing to the disturbed condition of China in 1925 and the two

  97
  following years, but since 1928 a considerable and fortunate change has come over the Chinese scene, and the provisions of the Act of 1925, for reasons which I will endeavour to explain, are no longer applicable to the new situation.
  The past history of this question is summarised in a White Paper which was issued last November, Command Paper 3715, which I have no doubt will have been studied by hon. Members who are interested in the question. In that White Paper there is an outline of the history of the indemnity from 1901, when it began to be paid, until December, 1917, when the situation was altered by the entry of China into the War on the Allied side. Payments were then suspended until 1922. On 20th December, 1922, when the payments were on the point of being resumed, His Majesty's Government of that date informed the Chinese Government that they had decided to devote the proceeds of the British share of the Boxer Indemnity to projects mutually beneficial to China and this country. That declaration is of primary importance in the development of this question. The Act of 1925 was designed to give effect to the pronouncement of December, 1922. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, under the Act of 1925, was to decide what projects were mutually beneficial to this country and China. He was to be assisted by an advisory committee. The advisory committee was duly constituted, and included three distinguished Chinese citizens. Its chairman was Lord Buxton, and one of its leading members was Lord Willingdon, who went out to China at the head of a delegation of six members of the committee to examine on the spot the requirements of the situation and to study Chinese opinion on the subject.
  I should like to pay a tribute to the long, arduous and valuable labours which Lord Buxton performed from the moment he accepted the onerous post of chairman of the advisory committee right up to the conclusion of the negotiations conducted by His Majesty's present Government. Throughout that time, despite advancing years and in spite of, at times, I regret to say, considerable ill-health, Lord Buxton always gave fully of his knowledge, his energy and his time to this project, to which he was so much devoted. I should not like this occasion to pass without his knowing that this House
  98
  remembers, and thanks him for, his work. The report of the advisory committee over which Lord Buxton presided was issued in 1926 as Command Paper 2766. It is a valuable document and, although in certain respects the situation has changed since that time, it lays down very important outlines of policy, and gives a great deal of practical information which might well be studied by any hon. Member who is following this matter closely.
  Why is it that the Act of 1925 has now become inapplicable? Primarily for this reason, that whereas in 1925 there was no national government of China recognised by His Majesty's Government, and the Act consequently did not represent negotiated settlement, there has been since 1928 a national government in China recognised by His Majesty's Government. Consequently, it became necessary to substitute, and we have finally succeeded in substituting, a negotiated settlement for a uni-lateral decision by His Majesty's Government. That is the fundamental reason why the Act of 1925 no longer fits the present situation. Under the Act of 1925 the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had himself to determine the mode of expenditure of these moneys. He was required under the Act to provide for applying the money "to such educational or other purposes" as were in his opinion beneficial to the mutual interests of the two countries. The Chinese, under the Act of 1925, had no direct share in deciding how the money ought to be spent, and partly for this reason discussion took place in this House in. 1925 on the adequacy of the guarantees contained in the Act of 1925 that the money would be spent primarily upon educational purposes.
  7.0 p.m.
  There were some hon. Members, of whom I was one, who had doubts. I made a speech of six words, which I have no doubt will be quoted later on. I frankly say that I had doubts at that time, and for that reason I seconded an Amendment moved by one of my hon. Friends, although we did not press it to a Division. That belongs to history and to a different situation. A number of hon. Members, of whom I was one, had doubts at that time, but I hasten to add that the position has completely changed, and changed for the better, and our

  99
  doubts have now been resolved, for reasons which I will explain. The Chinese Government has been recognised since the end of 1928. It is increasingly in control—I will not say absolutely and completely in control—of the Chinese situation. The destroying flames of the long civil war have sunk to flickering embers in outlying provinces, and we hope that they will not flare up again. The prospects of peace and recovery in China seem brighter now than they have done for many years. This settlement is not an imposed, but a negotiated settlement to which the Chinese Government. recognised by our predecessors, have freely assented. I should like to pay a tribute to the work done in connection with these negotiations by Sir Miles Lampson, our representative in Peking, and by Dr. Wang, the Chinese Foreign Minister. All the moneys covered by this Bill are to be devoted to education, either by direct grants or by the creation of educational endowments. The Bill deals, in the first instance, with accumulated funds of something over £3,500,000 now on deposit in a bank at Shanghai. This sum is to be transferred to London, and out of it two direct educational grants are to be paid, one of £265,000 to the Hong Kong University and one of £200,000 to the Universities' China Committee in London. That leaves a residue of something over £3,000,000 which is to be paid over to the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission constituted under this Bill. It is constituted as follows: The Chairman is to be His Excellency the Chinese Minister in London, and there is also to be a representative of the Chinese Ministry of Railways and four other persons described in the Bill as being persons of standing, with wide experience in business matters. They are to be chosen by the Chinese Government from a panel which will be submitted to the Chinese Government by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Will any of them be English, or are they all to be Chinese?
  Mr. DALTON: We contemplate that they will all be English. Consequently, the Commission will consist of six persons, the Chinese chairman, the Chinese representative of the Ministry of Railways, and four Englishmen. That Com-
  100
  mittee will sit in London and will invest the £3,000,000 of the accumulated sum in the improvement and reorganisation of Chinese railways. That sum will be spent on railway materials manufactured in this country. I mention that specifically because I understand that some hon. Members object to this provision. If the Bill passes soon, £3,000,000 of orders will consequently become available at an early date in the British iron and steel and engineering industries.
  Sir D. HERBERT: Is the hon. Member correct in saying that the sum is over £3,000,000? The accounts published in the White Paper show a total sum of just under £3,000,000.
  Mr. DALTON: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from the figures on page 7 of the White Paper?
  Sir D. HERBERT: No, I am quoting from the accounts ending on 31st March, 1929. This is a Command Paper which I got from the Vote Office giving the audited accounts with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  Mr. DALTON: The figures the hon. Member quotes are not the latest available. If he will look at page 7 of the White Paper, he will see it stated there that the accumulated funds, to which the agreement refers, amounted on 30th June, 1930, to £3,515,000. From that we must subtract the grants of £465,000 paid to the Hong Kong University and to the Universities' China Committee, so that the initial sum at the disposal of the Commission will be slightly over £3,000,000. This will be treated as a loan to the Chinese railways by the Board of Trustees set up under the Bill. They are a body which is going to be appointed entirely by the Chinese Government. We are exercising no voice in the composition of the Board of Trustees. They are nominated by the Chinese Government. They will sit and operate in China, and they will act in the way I shall endeavour to describe in a moment. The Chinese Government have a completely free hand in choosing them, but they have kindly informed us they will appoint a certain number of British members, though not a majority. This capital sum of £3,000,000 will be treated as a loan to the Chinese railways and the future interest on the loan will be devoted, at

  101
  the discretion of the trustees, to educational purposes in China, and will therefore constitute an educational endowment invested in the Chinese railways.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Supposing there is no interest paid on the loan and no revenue arises, what happens then?
  Mr. DALTON: Pro tanto and as long as that situation lasts, there will of course be no income from the endowment. No one can gainsay that. I trust, however, for reasons which I hope to explain later on, that we shall have very soon a situation under which interest will be paid. It may interest the right hon. Gentleman, who is the only Member to put down a Motion in favour of the rejection of the Bill, to know that it was from the Chinese that the first proposal to invest this money in railways originated. If he will read the report of the Willingdon subcommittee which went out in 1926, he will find that they went out with the desire to apply the whole sum directly to educational purposes, but they found in China a strong desire for investment in railways. For that reason, we have agreed to this investment in the purchase of railway material while treating it as an investment the interest on which shall be applied to education. Let it not be said that either His Majesty's present Government or the late Government deliberately forced the Chinese Government to depart from education and forced them to invest in railways. Directly the opposite was the case.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: That provision about using the interest for educational purposes does not appear in the Bill. I suppose that is not possible?
  Mr. DALTON: It is in the Notes exchanged between Dr. Wang and Sir Miles Lampson. We cannot put it in the Bill, because it would be binding the Chinese Board of Trustees and we cannot bind their future conduct in this Bill. The Chinese Government have made it perfectly clear that that is their intention.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: That is the agreement?
  Mr. DALTON: Yes, that is the agreement. I have spoken so far of the accumulated sum of £3,500,000. Future payments will aggregate round about
  102
  £8,000,000 between now and 1945, in which year all payments cease. Half of all such payments, about £4,000,000, will be paid to the Purchasing Commission in London, and will be similarly spent by them on British railway material and added to the capital of the educational endowment, to which I have referred, but the other half will be paid direct to the Board of Trustees in China and applied by them to objects mutually beneficial to the United Kingdom and China. It is the intention of the Chinese Government that this sum also shall form an educational endowment. Consequently, the whole £11,500,000 will be applied to Chinese educational purposes, either directly or indirectly. In addition to that, specific provision will be made for the rehabilitation of the Chinese railway systems and the sum of £7,000,000 will be spent in this country in orders for British railway material—£3,000,000 at an early date after the passing of the Bill and a further £4,000,000 between now and 1945.
  The provisions made in this Bill do indeed constitute a great programme of mutual benefit to this country and to China. If this Bill is passed, it will bring, first, increased educational opportunities to the youth of China; secondly, increased material prosperity to China by helping her to build up an inland transport system worthy of her natural resources and of a great modern State; thirdly, increased purchasing power and productivity to the Chinese people, as the result of which the Chinese market will increase in value and so will benefit British export trade; and, finally, it will bring increased orders and employment to the workers in the British heavy industries and in the engineering trade.
  May I say a word in passing on the Hong Kong University and the Universities' China Committee, as we are asking the House to approve a plan by which both these bodies will substantially benefit. The Hong Kong University, although only founded in 1912 and therefore still young as universities go, had already in 1930 some 340 students, men and women, of whom the great majority, 280, are Chinese. They have adopted a residential system with all the advantages which that connotes, and they have created already three faculties in the University—arts, medicine and engineer-

  103
  ing. They are very proud of having in recent years turned out a number of skilled doctors and qualified engineers who have been of great value to China. They are also proud of the fact that they have already attracted considerable private benefactions. In 1929, about half their income of 609,000 dollars was derived from interest on private benefactions. They have had much help from the Rockefeller benefaction, but about half of their endowments have been given by Chinese. The Hong Kong University is at a critical stage of its development, and it is greatly cramped at the present moment, cramped for buildings, cramped for staff, cramped for equipment and facilities generally. It could undoubtedly make good use of a larger sum that we are able to allocate to it at present, but the sum which we are able to allocate will be of great advantage in enabling it to increase its work in that borderland where Hong Kong stands between the Fast and the West. I believe that for the future of Hong Kong University we may entertain bright hopes.
  As to the Universities' China Committee, that was inaugurated in 1925 by the initiative of the Society of Friends, and the present chairman is the Master of Balliol College, Oxford. The committee is composed partly of university people and partly of people with practical experience of China. It is a large committee but, as so often happens in large committees, only a small minority attends regularly and does the work. The work is probably all the better done for that. The object of the Universities' China Committee is to promote cultural relations between China and this country. I can say without fear of contradiction that the work of the committee has been greatly appreciated in China. They have provided assistance of various kinds to Chinese students in this country, and there is scope for a great deal more to be done in that way. They have organised lectures by eminent Chinese in various centres in this country, and much more might be done in that way; and they are very anxious to go further along this line by organising similar lectures by eminent British citizens in China. Hitherto, they have only had very small sums at their disposal, only a few hundreds of pounds, and the secure additional income of £10,000 a year which
  104
  they will get by investing this sum of £200,000 to be received under the Bill, will enable them greatly to extend their work.
  His Excellency the Chinese Minister in London was kind enough to call and see me at the Foreign Office the other day in connection with this Bill and he has authorised me to tell the House that his Government is anxious that the Bill, which represents an agreement to which his Government is a willing party, should quickly pass into law so that the Purchasing Commission and the Board of Trustees may be set up and get on with their work. The Chinese Minister also informs me that the representative of the Chinese Minister of Railways, who is to sit on the Purchasing Commission, has already left China and is expected to arrive in this country next month. I hope, therefore, if the general principle of the Bill commends itself to the House that we shall be able to secure the Second Reading this evening and the subsequent stages at a comparatively early date. This is not a Bill which raises inter-party rivalries or controversies. It is a Bill in which the Government offer to the House a freely negotiated settlement of a question which for 30 years past has vexed Anglo-Chinese relations. The Boxer Rebellion, and the indemnity consequent upon it, symbolise a long and unhappy chapter in the history of Anglo-Chinese relations. By the passage of this Bill I believe that we shall begin a new and happier chapter in those relations.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary regrets very much that he is unable to be present this evening owing to the fact that he made a very important engagement before he knew the date of this debate, but I have been in communication with him quite recently and am in possession of his general views on the subject. The Under-Secretary of State has given us a very interesting and very full historical account of the Chinese Indemnity question, and really I have nothing further to add to that side of the subject at all. It is true that in 1922 our Minister at Pekin informed the Chinese Government that the British share of the Boxer Indemnity would be devoted to purposes mutually beneficial to both countries and four years later that promise was made even more definite, after the report made by Lord

  105
  Willingdon's delegation which went to China; and the machinery was outlined by which the pledge was to be carried out. During the last few months of the late Conservative Administration my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary went a step further and prepared an arrangement substantially the same as the arrangement now proposed.
  There are two important questions which we have to decide this evening. First, is the time really ripe for implementing the pledge which was definitely given by this country? Up to within three months before the late Conservative Administration left office it certainly was not possible, and I think the White Paper issued by the Government shows that quite clearly. If hon. Members will look at the White Paper, they will see that it was not until 20th December, 1928, that the tariff autonomy treaty was signed and the National Government recognised. In the words of the White Paper:
  "These events changed once more the aspect of the indemnity question."
  Three months after that great change took place in China the Conservative Government left office. Up to that time there was really no effective control at all by the central Government of China, except over a very restricted area. The position now to my mind, in spite of the intervening desperate civil war which has taken place, has undoubtedly altered for the better, but I agree with the Under-Secretary of State when he says that it is certainly not yet possible to say that the central Government of China exercises effective control over the whole of China. Indeed, I doubt whether the central Government exercises effective control over much more than half of China, but I believe the time has come when the step proposed by the Government in regard to the Boxer Indemnity can now be taken.
  I hope the House realises the magnitude of the contribution which we are making to China. As the Under-Secretary has pointed out, the total amount of the Indemnity was fixed at £67,500,000, and the British share was £7,500,000, but the total sum payable by China for interest and the amortisation of principal amounted to no less than £147,500,000, and the British share was £16,500,000. According to the White Paper, we have
  106
  £3,500,000 in hand in the Chinese Bank, and there is nearly £8,000,000 outstanding on future instalments. We are handing over to the Chinese Government no less than £11,500,000. I am not complaining at all, because this was the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain); he had already promised exactly the same thing. He was only waiting for the time when China would be in such a state that the step could he properly carried out. But the sacrifice we are making is a very great one when you take into consideration the terrible industrial depression from which we are suffering and the enormous financial burdens which are laid upon us.
  Our action compares very favourably with the action of some other foreign countries. In the case of Japan, the funds are theoretically to be used for educational and cultural objects, but I believe that Japan retains control of all these funds, and very little progress has been made as yet. If you take the case of France—I think I am correct—the instalments are used for the service of certain French loans, and very little money has yet been used for educational and philanthropic purposes. No country in the world has met the wishes of the Chinese to a greater extent than this country, and I hope that one of the results will be that the Chinese will have confidence in the good will which we feel towards China.
  Then there is the second question, which is very important. Under the Bill, the proceeds of the Fund are divided into four amounts. I will not differentiate between the £3,500,000 we had in hand and the £8,000,000 coming in, but for all practical purposes the fund is divided into four amounts. You have the £265,000, which is being paid to the Hong Kong University, and the £200,000 paid to the Universities China Committee in London. Half of the balance is going to the Chinese Purchasing Commission and the remainder of the balance to the Board of Trustees in China, which is to be appointed by the Chinese Government, for purposes mutually beneficial to both countries. This is the point which I think is important. This amount is going to be handed over to China absolutely. So far as the Bill is concerned, any kind of

  107
  control by the United Kingdom is completely abandoned. It is true, as the Under-Secretary pointed out, that the Chinese Foreign Minister in his note to Sir Miles Lampson says that the Board of Trustees will include certain British members, but, if he will scrutinise the White Paper, he will see that it is put in very casual language, in half-a-dozen words at the end of a sentence and no emphasis is laid upon the promise from our side. In recapitulating the Chinese promise this particular promise is slurred over and hardly mentioned at all, and so far as this Bill is concerned that attitude is maintained.
  This seems to me to be a feature of the Bill where the policy of my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary has been somewhat departed from by the present Government. Under the proposals of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the Secretary of State would not only have had a voice in regard to the expenditure on railways, but he would have had a say in the expenditure on cultural and educational objects. As far as the Bill is concerned, we are to have no voice at all in regard to this branch of expenditure. It is true that the Secretary of State will have a say in the appointments to the Commission which deals with the materials for railways, but the Board of Trustees will have complete control over the residue of the Fund. This board is to be appointed by the Chinese Government and there is nothing in the Bill to provide for British representation. We are handing over, when we come to actual money, no less than £5,500,000, perhaps not so much, £4,000,000, absolutely without any say whatever as to how it is going to be spent. This is rather an important omission, and I cannot believe that the Chinese Government would object in the least if words are inserted in the Bill to provide for British representation. It is true that the promise was made by the Chinese Minister rather casually, but I am certain that he made the promise in good faith, and it is all the more desirable to have such words in the Bill, because under the arrangements made between the United States of America and China a good deal of difficulty has been experienced in regard to the interpretation of the promise. There has been a tendency on the part of the Chinese to
  108
  dispense with American representation and turn it into a purely Chinese body. I speak subject to correction, but I believe that is the case.
  The present Government of China will no doubt do its best to adhere to the promise it gave, but we cannot be sure what interpretation will be put upon the promise in the future. After all, this is British money; as the Bill says, it is to be used for purposes mutually beneficial to this country and China, and it seems that British representation should feature as one of the provisions of the Bill. I thought it right just to make that observation. Except for that, it seems to me that the Government are materially carrying out the policy of the late Government, and therefore I feel sure that the Bill will receive the support of my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
  The history of the Bills relating to the Chinese Indemnity has been rather peculiar. There was the Bill of 1923, followed by a General Election. Another Bill brought in by the Labour Government in 1924 was also followed by a General Election. I wonder whether that is an omen for this Bill?
  Mr. DALTON: That may depend upon your party meeting.
  Mr. HOFFMAN: Perhaps you can tell us.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I candidly confess that if it depended on me it would certainly mean a General Election.
  Mr. HOFFMAN: But it does not.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I want to direct attention to one or two points regarding the record of the present Government. In the first place, in answer to an hon. Member on this side, the present Foreign Secretary said on 4th June, 1930:
  "It will be necessary to introduce legislation to give effect to the agreement between this country and China, when it is reached. Before this is done I propose to include particulars of the arrangements made by other countries in a White Paper to he laid before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1930; col. 2167, Vol. 239.]
  Where is that Paper? Has it been laid before the House? That was a direct statement and a pledge made by the

  109
  Foreign Secretary. There is not a word in the Command Paper that has been published as to what foreign countries have done with their share of the indemnity. A distinct pledge was given that we should know exactly what foreign Governments have done, and that pledge has not been kept.
  Mr. DALTON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not imagine that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary desires to withhold information. At the moment I cannot charge my memory with the answer to a Parliamentary question, but we published this White Paper as long ago as November last, and I do not remember having been asked, or my right hon. Friend having been asked, to supplement it with further particulars. If such a request had been made I cannot imagine that there would be any objection to supplying the information.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am sure the present Foreign Secretary would carry out his pledges. The hon. Gentleman says, "Why did you not remind us?" What opportunity have we had of reminding him? The Bill was ordered to be printed on 12th December, a Friday. It was circulated, I believe, on the Monday, three or four days before the House adjourned. A day before the adjournment for Christmas it was announced that the Bill would he taken the first thing to-day. I thought it was an attempt by the Government to smuggle the Bill through without discussion. When the hon. Gentleman says, "Why did you not ask us for more information?" I say it is because we had never seen the Bill.
  Mr. DALTON: My point is that the White Paper was issued half way through November. I know the right hon. Gentleman follows this question with close interest. Presumably he read the White Paper soon after it was issued, and if he found that it did not give sufficient information he had only to communicate by question in the House or by private letter with my right hon. Friend, and we should have been prepared to give any further information. I can imagine that the undertaking to provide further details of what other countries were doing slipped out of the minds of those who prepared the White Paper, but the omission could easily have been put right.
  Mr. LAMBERT: This Bill was not presented until three or four days before Parliament adjourned, and it is now taken on the first day after re-assembly. What opportunity have we have of raising the matter? We did not know what was in the Bill. My point is, therefore, a good one. The hon. Gentlemen has said that this money is to be devoted wholly to education, but he is taking a very circuitous route to secure that end. The money is to be lent to the Chinese Commission to be spent on railway development in China. How does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Chinese will get any revenue in return? A very large amount is already due to British investors for default on the Chinese railway bonds. I believe that something like £17,000,000 is owing to them. The Government are going the wrong way to work. Why do they not go directly themselves and spend the money on the education to which they attached so much importance in 1924? The Americans have adopted a totally different method of dealing with the Boxer Indemnity. They have taken the Chinese to America and so have developed American trade in China. Let me give an extract from a speech made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) in the debate in 1924. He said:
  "We know perfectly well that in the past many of the large American industrialists, especially in the engineering trade, have been in the habit of educating Chinese in their universities … When we are asked to tender for certain work we invariably find that the Chinese engineers have drawn up the specification in such a form as to render it impossible for us to get an order, and it has been drawn to suit the factory in which the engineer has been educated in America."
  Why do we not do the same as the Americans? We first lend money for the development of Chinese railways, hoping against experience that the money will be devoted to education. I want to go more closely into this question. Let us examine the record of Members of the present Government during the 1924 Parliament. The Bill says that the money is to be used to purchase plant, machinery and other articles and materials to be manufactured in the United Kingdom. Does not that conflict with the Washington Agreement of 1922, whereby equality of treatment for all Chinese demands was laid down? I must use rather strong language. It is rather hypocritical, after

  111
  what was said in 1924, to say now that the money must be spent in the United Kingdom because that connotes a profit. I do not mind a profit; I like profits, but I do not like hypocrisy. Here is what the present Lord Ponsonby (then Mr. Ponsonby) said in 1925 on the Bill of the late Government:
  "Nothing could be more fatal than that this gesture which we are making … should be in any way desecrated by a desire on our Raft to make a profit out of it for individual British subjects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1925; col. 705; Vol. 183.]
  What are the Government doing to-day? Trying to make a, profit contrary to their own pledges in 1925. What did Lord Cushendun, then Mr. Ronald McNeill, say? On the Report stage of the Bill he said:
  "I entirely agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Ponsonby) that it would be disastrous if we utilised this Bill as a means of extracting any commercial or other profit for this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1925; col. 706, Vol. 183.]
  It is rather hypocritical on the part of the Government to come forward now and say: "We are using this money for education, and we do not propose to get a penny out of it for this country, but the railway materials must be bought in this country." That is not quite cricket. The Government of 1925 brought in a Bill. It was strongly objected to. That Bill stated quite clearly that the money should be devoted to educational "and other purposes." An Amendment was moved to omit the words "and other purposes." That Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) in a very long speech, and it was seconded by the hon. Gentleman who has brought in the present Bill. Is there any consistency in hon. Members opposite? The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs seems to have adopted a Janus-like attitude. In the late Government it was educational altruism; to-day, I am sorry to say, it is sordid commercialism. I do not know what it will be in the next Parliament. I object to this Bill, in the first place, because it has been hurried on. I have had no opportunity of studying it. We have had no opportunity of putting questions regarding the fulfilment of the pledges of the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: You could have put questions to the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. LAMBERT: How is it possible to put questions when the House is on holiday?
  Mr. MALONE: The postal service is very efficient.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I cannot put a, Parliamentary question through the postal service. Such Parliamentary matters are not dealt with through the post. I want to put these questions in the House of Commons. The Bill will really besmirch the fair fame of Britain in China. It is education plus five per cent. It would have been infinitely better for this country, if the Government made this gesture at all, to have made it freely and to have said that it would not attach any conditions to it. But here the Government are going out of their way to make a profit in defiance of past pledges. As I say, I have no objection to profit, but I do object to hypocrisy, and what is vastly more important than anything else in dealing with this Bill is that the good faith of Britain should be recognised in China. It will always be pointed out that whereas the Americans spent their money on the education of the Chinese, we, on the contrary, laid it down as a condition that railway material should be purchased in this country. Do Members of the Government such as the President of the Board of Trade think that that is carrying out the pledges which we made in 1924 and which we have made over and over again to China? I think that our reputation for uprightness and integrity has been infringed by this Bill, and therefore I move that it be read a Second time upon this day six months.
  Mr. MANDER: Following the precedent set in the last Parliament by the hon. Gentleman who is now Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I rise to support the rejection of this Bill. The mere fact that the hon. Gentleman has, for once in a, while, found an enthusiastic supporter on the front Opposition bench above the Gangway, does not prevent us on these benches performing the normal functions of an Opposition. I think that the Government are doing a good thing in a very

  113
  bad way. This handing back of the indemnity money was supposed to be a beau geste which was going to have a good effect throughout China, but the way in which we are doing it is I believe going to destroy the whole moral value of what is intended. I quite agree that the Chinese Government are in favour of this proposal. An agreement has been come to, and that is something in its favour. However deplorable it may be that the Chinese Government are not willing here and now to spend practically the whole of the money on education, yet it has to be recognised that that is their view, but the Government are attaching conditions to this scheme which will have a very bad effect on our prestige throughout China. Here let me quote a passage from the report of Lord Buxton:
  "It is to be borne in mind that the fundamental object in returning the indemnity is thereby to improve friendly relations between China and Great Britain, and enable the two countries to honour, respect and appreciate each other. It is essential to make it clear that there is no intention to utilise the indemnity for the purpose of exploiting China in the interests of British influence or trade or of British educational propaganda."
  This proposal is in direct defiance of that statement. Of course, we desire to get as much trade in China as we can, and I desire to see the Chinese buy British railway material to the largest extent possible, but to attach a condition that they must buy that material in Great Britain, in many cases probably at far higher prices than they would have to pay otherwise, is going to make our position difficult. Our rivals and competitors, trade and otherwise, will tell the Chinese, "You are paying 20 per cent. more than you need pay for that material." Thus we shall get a thoroughly bad name in that country if we attempt to make profit out of what ought to be a purely moral arrangement.
  My second objection to the Bill is that it seems to be a conflict with the Nine-Power Treaty arrived at in Washington in 1922. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has considered the matter from that point of view; whether any representations have been received from the United States Government, and what he is going to say, when and if he does receive representations from that Government to the effect that this proposal is in conflict with the open door
  114
  policy to which we are a party with eight other Powers. The third argument which I submit to the House is that we are here opening up a fund of £3,000,000 for the purchase of railway material in this country when there are already people in this country who are owed £17,000,000 in respect of railway concerns in the past. Is it not very unfair and hard on them, that these people coming in long afterwards should, as part of a bargain on an educational basis, to give a moral benefit to China, receive this advantage? Is it not very hard on those who have no prospect of obtaining any payment of their debts, that their friends and competitors, coming in at this late stage, are going to be paid in full? I do not think that is a wise or fair arrangement. The Secretary of State in a Memorandum on the subject said that this was going to be a test case, as to whether we were going to play the game with the new regime in China. I venture to say that it is a test case and that the Government have come off very badly. I believe that these proposals are ultimately going to do an amount of harm to the good name of this country which will outweigh any immediate gain that we are going to have in trade. For that reason I associate myself with the Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
  Captain EDEN: I find myself in an unusual position. I have to give support, even if somewhat qualified, to the Government, and I do it the more willingly, because I find that on this occasion they are following faithfully in the footsteps of their predecessors. I understand also that the action of the Government to-night constitutes one more broken pledge in the record of the Government. If that be true, as apparently it is, then all must be for the best within the compass of this Bill. I think the Government can show precedents for the course which they are following—precedents not only here but in other countries. The United States Government, although by a slightly different method, have in fact yielded up the greater part of this indemnity. Indeed, they were the first to take such action. They discovered that the money was more than they required, and therefore they proceeded to return some of it. I only hope that that action may prove to have been prophetic.

  115
  The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) made one or two observations with which I should like to deal. He seemed to fear that the effect of our action in this instance would be to raise suspicions in China as to our motives in granting this money. This money is, of course, a free gift. It would have lain within the power of the British Government to have made any conditions which they thought fit, but actually this Bill is based, as I understand it, upon the recommendations of a body over which Lord Willingdon presided as a result of their researches in China. On that body the Chinese were represented, and I do not think it can be pretended that this gift which Great Britain is offering to China is, owing to the machinations of British capitalists, tinged with some sinister motive. Nothing of the kind. It is a free gift in the form, which China, through her own representatives, suggested. The really important date in this matter is 20th December, 1922, when the British representative at Pekin gave the first verbal undertaking to the Chinese Government as to our intentions with respect to this indemnity. I am not saying now whether I think it was right or wrong, but we gave that undertaking and by that undertaking we are in my judgment compelled to stand. It is interesting to note that actually on that date the Government presided over by the late Mr. Bonar Law was in office, but it is to he presumed, from the time which must have elapsed before the instructions had reached Pekin that the actual instructions were given by the Coalition Government before it left office. So that all parties are, in truth, equally committed to this policy in respect of the indemnity. I cannot see, therefore, that there can be any criticism.
  The only thing which we have to consider is whether, having given our solemn word, first verbally and then in a written declaration, we can possibly do otherwise than honour our bond. There can only be one answer. It would be important in any country to do so, but it is particularly important in China, where our British men and women have built up a reputation for fair dealing and for standing by their word which is perhaps the greatest asset of British trade in China. There is absolutely no question that we must honour this obligation. I do not think
  116
  that anyone in the House will deny that statement.
  8.0 p.m.
  The only difference which exists in regard to this matter is that some hon. Members below the Gangway appear to be frightened that some taint will be attached to this gift because of the fact that money is to be spent here, but, since China herself has asked for this method of payment, and since this is a free gift, I cannot see wherein the alarm lies. For my part, I am very glad that money is to he spent here. In fact, I think that this is the only contribution which the Government have made to the solution of the unemployment problem, and it took this over from its predecessors, and copied it letter by letter and upon that I heartily congratulate them, except for the one departure to which reference has been made. The work which will be done in connection with railways and bridges is work of which our workshops stand in need, and by which China will benefit. There are some people who think that when the world trade depression comes to an end, one of the first countries to show recovery will be China, once she has placed her credit on a firm basis. That may be true, and, should it be true, surely this country would deserve to share in that recovery from having fully and honourably met its obligations. If China is better equipped in railways and public utilities for such a recovery, then we shall have actually given a very considerable benefit to the Chinese people, perhaps even greater than the benefit from the money which will be spent also on educational purposes. We ought to have some explanation from the Government as to why this one change has been made between the proposals of the late Government and the present proposals. If hon. Members look at the White Paper they will find at the bottom of page 7 the only declaration which affects this £4,000,000, and that declaration in the words of Dr. Wang is:
  "For the control, apportionment, and administration of the above-mentioned endowment the Chinese Government will duly appoint a Board of Trustees in China which will include a certain number of British members."
  That is the only undertaking of any kind that this money is going to be spent in the method of which we are asked to approve. In the same White Paper on page 11 the British Minister repeats in

  117
  similar terms that guarantee given at an earlier stage. I cannot see why that guarantee could not have been included in the Bill, and, if it could not, it should surely have been emphasised in the correspondence. It does not even have a fresh paragraph to itself, but is thrown in at the last, and anyone who studies the records will find without difficulty that the previous interpretations have caused trouble over these moneys. After all, £4,000,000 is a considerable sum, and it would be helpful if we could have some information from the Government as to why this safeguard has been removed. What was the matter with it before in the proposals of the late Government? Did the Chinese ask for it to be removed? I can hardly believe that, in view of their earlier attitude, so that I think we must ask the Government as to their motive in this matter. It can be argued quite fairly that in passing this Bill now we are taking a risk in view of the present unstable conditions in China. I think we are, but it seems to me that it is a risk which, in all the circumstances, is well worth taking. I am not sure that I am enthusiastic about the changes that the Government have made in the Bill, but in their broad purpose in interpretating it, I think they are right, and without doubt the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has shown an improvement in his entire change of point of view since he crossed the Floor of this House. I could only wish that in some other respects the Government had shown that they were glad to educate themselves as the Under-Secretary of State has apparently done.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I also propose to say nothing which would prevent the acceptance of the Second Reading of this Bi11 by the House to-night, although I have a great deal of sympathy with the views which have been expressed by my right hon. Friend below the Gangway as to the speech with which this Bill has been introduced after the production of it for the purpose of examination by hon. Members. It would have been better if we had had a little more time to examine it, but the reason I am not prepared to accept the rejection of the Bill is that I do not think my right hon. Friend is on very good ground when he bases his argument on the fact that
  118
  the passing of it may be interpreted in some way or other as the breaking of a pledge to China or may be, in China, looked upon as a gift with a very definite qualification regarding the spending of the money in this country. I say that, because it is clear to those who have followed this matter from the beginning that it has always been understood that the spending of this money shall be for the mutual benefit of this country and of China, and I do not think that when an agreement has been come to, as it was come to under Lord Willingdon and the members of his Committee, as to the method in which the money should be spent, there is any point to be gained by suggesting that we are going behind the original purposes of the agreement, which, as I say, were definitely for spending the money for the mutual benefit of this country and of China.
  But there is, I think, one very marked change in the proposals which the Government have now put before us from those which were contemplated by the House on previous occasions, and in that regard I am in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden). If the Committee will turn to page 5 of the White Paper, they will see it quoted there, and again subsequently on other pages, that the Secretary of State would in all previous proposals have retained the control. There is only one place in which the Government give any reason for the alteration they have made, and that is where they say:
  "His Majesty's Government were no longer dealing with a China distracted by civil war and by the claims of rival Governments."
  I am very doubtful whether we have really arrived at the time in which, with all the good will in the world, we are entitled to say that we should hand this money over to China without any control of any kind, and I am not sure that there is not some point in the argument which was put forward by the Liberal benches that if we are going to do that, it would be better to hand it over altogether. It seems to me that we are moving very fast indeed, and no special reason has been given in the White Paper to show why the Government have thought it necessary to make this very remarkable change from the proposals originally put before the House. They say:

  119
  "The only logical alternative appeared, therefore, to consist in handing over full control of the funds to the National Government of China and to rely upon their appreciation of our action in order to obtain fulfilment of the original intention of our policy."
  As I say, I am not going to oppose the Bill on that account, but I think it is going very much farther than this House has ever previously contemplated, to hand over the whole control of this matter, out of the hands of the Foreign Office altogether, without the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having any say in the matter, and although I can only hope that it will work out in a manner satisfactory to this country and to China, I can conceive that there are people who might justly say that the fact that a great change has been made would have justified the House in asking for further consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have both left the House, and not a single Member of the Liberal party is on the benches which they usually should but very seldom do occupy. I have read this Bill and take some particular personal interest in it, because I took part in the debate on the 1924 Bill, and I sat next, on the benches opposite, to my right hon. Friend, as he then was, Mr. McNeill, now Lord Cushendun, when he spoke in the debates on the 1925 Bill. Although I am not going to oppose the Bill, I think that we on these benches should say a word about the hypocrisy of the action of the Government. This Bill puts the Socialist Government in a ridiculous position. They have had to eat their own words. It puts the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs particularly in a ridiculous position, because this Bill, introduced, and recommended by him, seeks to carry out Measures which he took part in trying to prevent being carried out in the 1925 Parliament. Political dishonesty and hypocrisy of that kind cannot be allowed to pass without comment. I have taken trouble to dig out the past debates on this matter, because it is such an example of what I may call, in the intellectual sense, dishonest politics by the Government. I turned up my speech in the debate of 1924, before the hon. Gentleman the present Under-Secretary of State was in
  120
  the House, and in that debate our lamented friend Sir Fredric Wise, on the 16th June asked Mr. Ponsonby, as he then was, who was in charge of the Bill, if it would be used for railway building, and Mr. Ponsonby answered in the negative. Now we come to the 1925 Bill, and I sat through the whole of that debate. It was very vividly impressed on my mind, because, as was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, there was a powerful, very vehement, and violent speech by the present hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) to whom I wrote last week that I was going to speak in this debate. In it he opposed the China Indemnity Bill on the Second Reading, on the 3rd March, 1925. When Mr. McNeill moved the Second Reading, he said:
  "I observe an Amendment has been put down in the names of three hon. Gentlemen opposite"—
  I take those to have been Mr. Ponsonby, the present hon. Member for Huddersfield, and the present Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—
  "who express their wish to throw our the Bill on Second Reading for the reason that there are not sufficient guarantees that the money will be devoted primarily to educational purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1925; cols. 282–3, Vol. 181.]
  They therefore moved an Amendment. Mr. McNeill then suggested that they should use the words "educational or other purposes," and he amplified those words roughly by saying he thought it would be good for the Chinese people if the word "educational" could be interpreted so as to include medical or scientific research. That did not suit the hon. Members opposite, and Mr. Ponsonby said—and I think this extract ought to be well rubbed in, in order to show a first-class example of what I may, without offence, call political hypocrisy:
  "We have shown clearly our bonâ fides in the matter. If they move this Amendment and if there is a division on it, there will be no misunderstanding with regard to the motives of the Labour Government and the attitude of the Labour Opposition. It will be noted merely as a protest against this unprecedented action on the part of His Majesty's Government and as a demand that this money is to be spent primarily on educational purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March. 1925; col. 288, Vol. 181.]
  Following him was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe, Captain Brass, as he then was, who said

  121
  "If we could use this money to develop some of the railways, roads, and canals in China, we should do far better than educating Chinese."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1925; col. 289, Vol. 181.]
  Mark what reception those words got from the benches on the Socialist side. They were received with jeers. The suggestion they jeered at when suggested by us is now to be enacted in the Bill which the Under-Secretary of State recommends to the House. Then we had the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who moved the Amendment, and who said:
  "The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) has shown that in the minds of some hon. Members there is a definite intention, if the opportunity presents itself, to spend this money not at all upon education, but noon such purposes as the laying down of railways, and so on …"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 3rd March, 1925; col. 290, Vol. 181.]
  He went on to say:
  "Possibly £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 …. would provide 2,000 miles of railways That being the position, we cannot pretend that by a proposal of that kind you are going to do something which will bring benefit to all the homes of the 400,000,000 people in China."
  Then the hon. Member for Huddersfield said:
  "The granting of money for railways, in fact, instead of helping China on to its feet, if the grant be made in connection with some of the military leaders of China, may actually make the present confusion worse confounded …. It is because we to-day suspect that this Committee is likely to use the money, not for educational purposes. but for railways in backing up other commercial enterprises, that we feel we cannot accept the Measure in its present form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1925: cols. 292–4, Vol. 181.]
  To sum up the whole thing, the present Under-Secretary of State, who recommends this Bill, then put his doubts in the matter into action, because he seconded the Amendment. What hypocrisy for him to come down here. after doing all he could to stop the very policy which this Bill now implements, and recommend us to do the very thing he then wanted to stop! The present Prime Minister said:
  "One hon. Member has suggested that the money should be spent on railways. There is a great deal to be said for that idea, but when you go into the details you find that you cannot do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd March, 1925; col. 314, Vol. 181.]
  122
  What they said they could not do and ought not to do they come down here now in a white sheet, with their tongue in their cheek, and ask us to do. They went even further, because when the Bill came up on 4th May, 1925, for further consideration Mr. Ponsonby asked to leave out the words "or other" because, he said:
  "The Amendment would make the purposes to which the money is devoted exclusively educational purposes."
  I will quote Mr. Ponsonby more fully than he was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. He said:
  "Nothing could be more fatal, than that this gesture that we are making, and which other countries have made before us, should be in any way desecrated by a desire on our part to make a profit."
  The Under-Secretary boasted that it would be a profitable transaction by bringing trade to this country; I hope that it will, but I hope that the Government will not make this transaction a factor or an item of boast in the number of schemes which their party is to set going to reduce unemployment. Therefore, said Mr. Ponsonby,
  "I want to emphasise the fact that we hope very much that the instruction to the Committee, and the purpose that the Government have before them, will be made clear, in order that the money may be devoted to educational purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1925; cols. 704–5, Vol. 183.]
  That is the line taken by the Socialist party in opposing any effort which we made to have the very thing done which is now being carried out in this Bill. I leave that now, having registered any protest against a cynical exhibition of the political hypocrisy of the present Government.
  Let me deal with the Bill as I see it. I need say nothing about the £465,000 which the Under-Secretary has mentioned is to go to the Hong Kong University and the Universities' China Committee. In Clause 1, Sections (2) and (3), however, the amount in round figures to be dealt with will he rather more than £11,000,000., which can be divided up into two portions—roughly £7,000,000 for railway material, and about £4,000,000 for education. That is provided for by
  "one-half of every sum received after time commencement of this Act,"

  123
  as it is stated in Sub-section (3). I have read very carefully through the Command Paper No. 3715, and I assume that the Government are in accord with the policy laid down in this Foreign Office Memorandum. It indicates an agreement, for on page 6 is says:
  "A new Act is required to implement this agreement. The Bill drafted, with this end "—
  that is, to implement an agreement which has taken place between Dr. Wang and Sir Miles Lampson. Let me draw the attention of the House to a passage which I do not think has been adequately mentioned in this connection during the debate. Dr. Wang says, on page 9, paragraph 6 of the White Paper:
  "Funds spent in the limited Kingdom will be regarded as loans, bearing interest and providing for eventual amortisation, from the Board of Trustees to the Chinese Government Railways or other productive enterprises concerned, and strict account will be rendered from time to time to the said trustees. The amounts attributable to the service of such loans will be paid to the said trustees and by them applied to educational purposes at the earliest opportunity."
  A statement is made by Sir Miles Lamp-son almost in the same words on page 13 of the White Paper 3715. No provision is made, however, for carrying out this undertaking in the Bill, and words giving effect to that agreement should appear somewhere. I hope that that provision will be added on the Committee stage so as to make it a condition, when this Bill goes through, that the Chinese authorities must take proper steps to see that the funds which are to be used for buying railway material, shall be repaid by amortisation and interest provided meantime. At any rate, it must be thoroughly well understood that it is a condition precedent to this House agreeing to the Bill that the Chinese Government must find the interest and amortisation.
  A little thing struck me in going through this White Paper. On page 10 the word "donated" appears in a Foreign Office dispatch. It is a dreadful word and ought not to be used by those who wish to speak or write pure English. I find the New English Dictionary says that it is a word mainly of United States usage. It is a word which belongs, I suppose, to that scientific toy, called in the United States language, the "talkie or movie." When English-speaking
  124
  people wish to say "give" they should say "give," and not "donate." It is a vulgarity. I hope that the Foreign Office will take notice; I cannot imagine that Lord Rosebery or Lord Grey or Lord Balfour would have used that word at all, and certainly not in a Foreign Office dispatch. I shall not oppose the Bill, for it carries out what we wished to carry out in 1924 and 1925, but I make the suggestion that the Government should put in a Clause to implement that section of the agreement which was signed by Dr. Wang and Sir Miles Lampson, which comes under paragraph 6 on page 9 and again on page 13 of the White Paper. There is nothing unfriendly to the Chinese Government about it, or anything in it to which anybody can object, and if it is put in we shall be better satisfied with the Bill.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who introduced the Bill, put the position so clearly and fully that a very brief reply on behalf of the Government to the points which have been raised is all that is necessary. I will not attempt to reply to the charges of change of attitude which have been made by my hon. Friend who has just spoken and other hon. and right hon. Members. I have always thought that it was singularly unprofitable in this House to wander about in the vain path of old speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There never was a case in which that enterprise was more melancholy and more unprofitable than on the present occasion, because I have not the least doubt that hon. Members in different parties held these views with perfect sincerity at the time that they were expressed. What we have to recognise to-night is that we have been dealing with a situation which has changed very largely over a term of years, and that we are now in the presence of an agreement as between the Chinese Government and the Government of this country which is mutually acceptable, and which, being mutually acceptable, is in keeping with that basis of mutual benefit laid down in 1917 when for all practical purposes we waived any claim to exclusive benefit under the Boxer Indemnity.

  125
  My right hon. Friend who led the debate from the other side called attention to the position of the Board of Trustees in China, and pointed out, quite properly, that there were only two statements in this White Paper, in the exchange of Notes, reciprocal in character, which said that there should be certain British representatives on that board, whose duty it is to deal with the £4,000,000 portion of the indemnity over the next 15 years. It has been suggested by hon. Members that that should be put in the present Bill. The House will observe on that point that we are really dealing with a question which is within China itself, and which I should think is difficult of inclusion in a Bill of this kind promoted in the United Kingdom. In any event, we have not the least reason to doubt that the terms of the correspondence which has been submitted on this point will be faithfully observed. The whole object is to come to a friendly relation in a very practical way, and to link up provision for education with railway development on an increasing scale in China.
  That leads me very easily to certain other points which have been raised in the debate. The basis of this plan is that it should be one which is of mutual benefit to the two countries. It is quite true that over a considerable part of the history of this subject education has been emphasised, and perhaps there is a good deal to be said for the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) that if we were dealing with this afresh, or if there had been no history, a claim might have been made for the sum to be handed over, in the hope that it would have been applied to educational purposes; but, as my hon. Friend beside me has pointed out, it is really devoted to education.
  After all, if the Chinese Government consider that that object is served by the two immediate grants to the Hong Kong University and the Universities China Committee and by an investment in a great industrial enterprise designed to yield an income providing further for education in China, I cannot see that there is any real departure from what we previously had in view. I should have thought that, from the standpoint of the two countries that was a very
  126
  satisfactory arrangement. Be that as it may, the Agreement is here, and I do not think hon. Members have really contested its terms on the points which I have so far summarised in my reply. There is, of course, the other kind of business consideration, and it is here that the Board of Trade more particularly enters the picture. It was argued by two hon. Members on the Liberal benches that there is some departure from the Washington Agreement of 1922 in that it is specified in this plan that the orders for the material for railway construction must be placed within Great Britain. May I say at once that we have taken advice on that point? It is unnecessary to review the relevant clauses of the Agreement of 1922, but in substance they provided for the policy of the open door in China: that is, that countries should not seek to gain advantages over one another, that it should be a kind of open area for commerce.
  Our advice is that there is nothing in this Agreement which conflicts with that wider and general policy of the open door, and that in particular as we are here dealing with funds which beyond all dispute belong to the people of this country, we are entitled to make a specific arrangement, if the Chinese Government agree, that goods shall be purchased within these shores. Moreover, the agreement was submitted to the other signatories to that Treaty in good time for observation, but these have not been forthcoming. This, I suggest, is a complete reply to the questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molten and by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)), who supported him in moving the rejection of this Bill.
  Another point is raised as to the disadvantage at which the Purchasing Commission, or the Chinese Government generally, might be placed if prices in this country were higher than prices elsewhere. It is unnecessary to stress further the point of mutual benefit, and, further, the Purchasing Commission, which includes representative British men, will be able to compare the prices here with the prices of railway material elsewhere, and I have no doubt that if they think they are unfair in any respect, they may delay their operation or inquire or take steps to see that that point is fully safeguarded. But there will also be

  127
  competition amongst the iron and steel firms in this country in an endeavour, at the lowest possible rate consistent with efficiency and an economic return, to minister to China's economic development; so I think no considerable difficulty need be anticipated on that point.
  Then hon. Members raised another consideration which, I agree, is of importance. They pointed to the debts due to British engineering and other firms in China in respect of railway and other development in the past, which debts are in default or have not been paid. I can inform the House to-night that that matter was considered. It has been suggested—I believe even publicly from time to time—that the settlement of those debts should be linked up to the indemnity obligations, made, as it were, a kind of prior charge, or at all events a charge on those payments from time to time. Both our predecessors and we have been unable to take that view. They remain separate and distinct. But I am able to read to the House to-night, and I propose to read it, in order that there may not be the slightest misapprehension on this important question, a statement made by the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs to His Majesty's Minister in China, under date 22nd September, 1930:
  "I have the honour to inform your Excellency that it is the intention of the Chinese Government in connection with their programme of railway rehabilitation to include in the arrangements for such rehabilitation the early settlement of outstanding debts due to British merchants for rolling stock and other railway material already supplied to the lines in question. It is understood, however, that the settlement of these debts may not necessarily be made out of the remitted indemnity funds, in order to conserve the said funds for construction and rehabilitation purposes."
  That declaration has been made, and I have not the least doubt that every effort will be made to give effect to it.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: That is a very important statement so far as it goes. Does that mean that the Chinese Government, which in the past has borrowed large sums on the London market by means of Chinese bonds some in default —Government bonds—and has raised the money for building railways in various parts of China, is saying that the interest and the sinking fund for the repayment of those funds raised for railway construc-
  128
  tion will be dealt with in the spirit of that letter?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No, I think my right hon. Friend has raised a somewhat wider point on which, no doubt, during the Committee stage of the Bill, if it were so desired, my hon. Friend beside me or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would make a statement. The statement which I have just read to the House tonight is confined to the question now before us, namely, those debts due to engineering and other firms relating to past railway enterprises in China, and that is, as I conceive it, the limit of that statement. I think only one other observation is required. All authorities are agreed that it is of the highest importance to the recovery of our industry and commerce in Great Britain that the markets in the Far East should be brought again into a condition of effective purchasing power. Within recent times we have been reminded that in China, India and Russia we have, approximately one-half of the population of the world, 900,000,000 out of 1,800,000,000. China, which has a population of perhaps more than 500,000,000, may, it is acknowledged, become a very valuable market for British goods as it proceeds with its reconstruction. May I mention one very remarkable fact? China has an area considerably larger than that of the United States of America, but its railway lines are less than one-twentyfifth of the railway mileage of the United States. I think that to-day there are not more than, perhaps, 10,000 or 12,000 kilometres of railway line in China, of which, perhaps, 7,000 or 8,000 may be regarded as main line. A very large part of that railway system is urgently in need of reconstruction and repair. This great market cannot be developed for British or any other goods until the transport system of China is far more widespread and efficient than it is at the present day. I think there would be a very great advantage in thus linking up the purchase of railway material, which would assist the heavy industries in this country, and minister to a great educational purpose in China, and, at the same time develop what we hope will be a valuable market. for British goods. With this explanation, I hope that the House will now proceed to a Division on the Second Reading.
  Sir D. HERBERT: I want to ask a question with regard to the meeting of existing debts. A number of Chinese Government bonds which were given as payment for services rendered in connection with certain railway and other developments in China are in default. Does the night hon. Gentleman mean that those bonds which are in default will in future have their obligations met?
  Mr. HAYCOCK: What is the actual market value of those bonds to which the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) has just referred?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I could not reply to a question of that kind without notice, because I have not any knowledge of the value. With regard to the other question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I can only say that I have already replied to that point. The exact terms of the statement made on the 26th September by the Chinese Minister are as follow:
  "The early settlement of outstanding debts due to British merchants for rolling stock and other railway material already supplied to the lines in question."
  I regard that as a narrower proposition than that of any bonds or other obligations. I believe this to be confined at the moment to the cases of those firms in China which have suggested that their debts ought to become a prior obligation in these indemnity payments.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I do not wish to say anything which will upset this agreement, but I think the House ought to be very definite on this question. The President of the Board of Trade has just told us that the whole of these funds belong to this country, and that, for practical purposes, from 1917, we are making a definite present of these funds to the Chinese. I agree that it is impossible for this House to do anything except that which has been proposed, and I will not make any further comments on those lines except to say that I think the House has every reason to remember what the President of the Board of Trade has told us about these funds. In the first place, I wish to ask the Government definitely a question which has already been put, and which I noticed the right hon. Gentleman did not answer. At the bottom of page 7 of White Paper 3715, there are the following words:
  130
  "For the control, apportionment, and administration of the above-mentioned endowment, the Chinese Government will duly appoint a Board of Trustees in China, which will include a certain number of British members."
  I want to know whether that cannot be definitely laid down in the Bill. I know how far we have gone to meet the Chinese, and it is only right that we should go a long way. I agree with everything that has been said in the way of doing nothing which would depreciate the value of the work of this country in China and the necessity of recapturing our markets in China. In Clause 2, Subsection (I, i), there is a, proviso:
  "to enter into, and to supervise and secure the carrying out of, contracts for the supply and the delivery in China of such plant, machinery and other articles and material to be manufactured in each case within the United Kingdom."
  I congratulate the Government most thoroughly upon having got that proviso in this particular part of the agreement. I do not join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Melton (Mr. Lambert) in accusing the Under-Secretary of having changed his mind. I would like to ask if this stipulation means that the railway trucks and engines, and the material required for the building and running of these railways, will be purchased in this country, or does it mean that the Chinese will make their own railway material in the future by setting up factories in China? I find on page 3 of the Memorandum that:
  "The United States of America were on the point of remitting their remaining balance."
  I think we ought to be told what the United States have actually done. We have heard a good deal about the education of the Chinese here and in the United States, but I would like to know if the United States have really given the whole of this money for educational purposes. Another question I would like to ask is, What has actually happened to the money which went to France? The statement as it stands is very vague and indefinite, and the House should know whether some of it has gone to relieve the French people of their burdens. We might be told where the money has gone in those two cases. I will not inquire where it has gone in the case of Japan.

  131
  It has always been agreed that this money should be spent upon educating the Chinese.
  Would it not be equally a matter of mutual benefit both to the British people and to the Chinese if some institution could be established in this country so that a larger number of British people might have a thorough educational knowledge of the Chinese language and of China, with the idea that they would go out, as missionaries if necessary, but, even better, As trade missionaries, for the purposes of opening up British trade in that country? [Interruption.]. I only mentioned missionaries as one alternative; I should be much keener on a certain number of British people being given a very much greater knowledge of Chinese, so that they might go out to that country and do everything they could to sell there the products of the work of British men and women. I think the suggestion is worth making that some of this money might have been applied in that way, which would have been of mutual benefit to both the Chinese people and ourselves. I hope that these questions will be answered by some Member on the Front Government Bench, and I should like to congratulate them most respectfully on being rather better in their attendance now than they were earlier in the afternoon.
  Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: This Bill grants to the Universities' China Committee a considerable sum of money, namely, £200,000, and I should like to take the opportunity of expressing the hope that part of that money will be spent in establishing a hostel for Chinese students in this city. A source of trouble in foreign countries is that students of those countries, when they come here, come under wrong influences, and, if such a hostel were established under responsible management, it would go some way towards counteracting possible evil influences on Chinese students. My right hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden), mentioned the point that no definite British influence is guaranteed on the Board of Trustees. The President of the Board of Trade told us that he did not
  132
  see his way to introduce into the Bill a definite guarantee with regard to that matter, but I should have thought that it would be quite possible to do so, and in any case I should like to express the hope that the Board of Trustees will see their way to supplement the efforts of the Universities' China Committee to provide for the essential needs of Chinese students in this city. The Bill seems to me, although apparently inconsistent with the Act of 1925, to be, nevertheless, in substance and in principle the same. I have followed with much interest the progress of this question in 1923, 1924, and under the Act of 1925, and although it is not often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has suggested, that one has the opportunity of congratulating the Front Bench opposite, I do congratulate them on having produced a Bill which combines two very useful objects, the encouragement of British trade and the encouragement of education.
  Bill read a. Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I should like at the outset to assure the House that I shall be as brief as possible in presenting this Measure and explaining its object, and I am encouraged to believe that it need not take up any undue length of time because I think it will be found that the Bill is largely non-controversial. The object of the Bill is to correct an unforeseen consequence of the provision of Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929. Under that Section, as many Members of the House will recollect, county councils were required to review the circumstances of the county districts, and to consider whether it was desirable to change the boundaries or in other ways to alter the existing arrangements for the distribution of the

  133
  counties into rural and urban districts. The county councils were to report to the Minister of Health and to make proposals for any changes that they thought desirable, and the Minister, subject to various provisions as to publication and the holding of local inquiries, was empowered to make orders for the carrying out of the proposals with or without modification. Section 47 of the Act provided for the holding of similar reviews at intervals of not less than 10 years.
  The desirability of these provisions was a matter of general agreement. It is equally a matter of general agreement—and I am sure that the Ministers who were in charge of the Departments concerned at the time of the passing of the Act of 1929 will confirm this—that at the time of the framing and passing of that Measure it was not realised that this review of the county districts was likely to lead to the constitution of numerous new local education authorities for elementary education, and still less was this result intended. In order to make clear to the House how it is that this result will come about, unless legislative measures are taken to prevent it, I must refer to the provisions of the Education Act of 1921, which prescribe the bodies that are to be local education authorities for various purposes. Under Section 3 of that Act, which incorporates the provisions of the Act of 1902, the council of a borough with a population of over 10,000 and the council of an urban district with a population of over 20,000—the population in both cases, be it observed, being reckoned according to the Census of 1901—are constituted as local education authorities for elementary education. It will be observed that, inasmuch as the population is to be reckoned in accordance with the Census of 1901, the mere automatic increase of the population cannot lead to the creation of new local education authorities; but the creation of new local education authorities can arise from such an addition to the area of a borough or urban district as would increase its population, according to the 1901 Census, to 10,000 or 20,000 as the case may be; or, again, a rural district with a population of over 20,000 in 1901 might be turned into an urban district. In point of fact cases such as these have been very rare; in the course of the last few years there have only been nine of them all told. But, although the number of cases
  134
  hitherto has bean somewhat small, the position has been entirely changed by Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929.
  The extent to which the operation of this Section would result in the creation of new local authorities for elementary education, unless steps are taken to prevent it, cannot in the nature of things be foreseen, but it has become clear that, if the statutory reviews of districts proceed with proper regard for the purposes for which they were designed, and especially the purpose of securing that the districts shall be large enough to have sufficient resources to carry out their non-educational duties adequately, an incidental result will be that new local education authorities will be constituted on such a scale as very seriously to disorganise the existing system of elementary education in the counties. The present Bill is accordingly designed with the special object of securing that new local education authorities for elementary education shall not come into existence where they do not exist already, but that the areas concerned shall remain under the administration of the county councils for the purpose of elementary education.
  I said at the beginning that it would probably be found that this Measure was largely non-controversial, and I would therefore venture to remind hon. Members opposite, if it be necessary to do so, that in this connection the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) addressed to my right hon. Friend some time ago a question which showed that he was fully alive to the difficulties inherent in the situation. I think I can say with confidence that all local authorities accept the principle of the Bill. The counties would perhaps have liked it to cover rather more ground, while urban districts would have liked a rather easier means of creating new Part III authorities. As is inevitable in connection with compromises of this sort, no one can get all they want, but I think, having said that, all are prepared to accept the Bill as steering a reasonable middle course. One observation that I ought in justice to make is that no reflection is intended in any way in regard to the manner in which boroughs and urban districts have hitherto discharged their functions as local education authorities. Still less

  135
  does the Bill constitute, or indeed foreshadow, anything in the nature of an attack on the autonomy of existing authorities of these types. The question of the distribution of duties and powers among local authorities for the purposes of the reformed system and their classification in relation to elementary and higher education respectively may need attention at some later date, and perhaps before many years have passed, but the time is not yet ripe for this and the Government are not proposing in this Bill to make any change in the existing situation. What they do propose is to prevent the creation of new small authorities by operation of law merely as a result of local government changes which are initiated with an entirely different purpose.
  With that explanation of the general nature of the Bill, perhaps I might summarise its purposes. It deals with the situation in Clause 1 (1) by first of all laying down the broad rule that the council of a borough or urban district shall not become a local education authority unless it is already such an authority at the passing of the Act. There are two exceptions engrafted upon this rule. The first leaves the way open for an urban council to be made a local education authority by private Bill legislation. This incidentally covers the constitution of new county boroughs, which can only be formed by an Act of Parliament, and which should not be prevented from attaining their full educational status. The second exception, introduced by way of proviso, deals with the peculiar case of the union of two or more urban districts any or all of which are already autonomous for purposes of elementary education. In that case, the council of the new united district is to retain the educational status of the former council or councils.
  Clause 1 (2) enacts a merely formal and consequential Amendment as to the area for which a county council is to be the authority for elementary education. Clause 2 gives the title of the Act and incorporates it with existing educational legislation. I would ask the House to accept this as a useful and uncontroversial measure to obviate an unexpected difficulty arising under the recent local government Act which would have
  136
  seriously impeded educational administration. The matter is one of some urgency because, until this question is settled, county councils will find themselves embarrassed in considering their schemes for the rearrangement of boundaries under the Local Government Act, and also their plans for the reorganisation of education. I hope the House will deem that as being a sufficient explanation of the reason for the Bill.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to say one or two words upon this Bill inasmuch as it arises out of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, for which I happened to be the responsible Minister. I approach this subject not, from an educational point of view but from the point of view of general local government administration. I have no quarrel with the description the hon. Gentleman has given of the object or origin of the Bill except in so far as he has described these consequences of the Act of 1929 as being unforeseen. If he had said only unintended, I should entirely agree with him. It was true, I think, when the Bill was originally drafted, that this particular consequence was not foreseen but, as a matter of fact, we did become aware before it passed the House that this was a possible result of the operation of the Clause which afterwards became Section 46. The Act, in so far as that part of it was concerned, was founded upon the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, the second report of which made certain recommendations, and in their report no mention was made of any possible consequence in the way of setting up Part III authorities in addition to those already existing. As far as I am aware, that consequence was not present to the mind of the Royal Commission. But while the Bill was going through the House we became aware that this might happen, and the question arose whether we should attempt to correct it in the Bill before the House. It was a very long Bill, already almost overloaded with Clauses and Schedules and, seeing that the provisions of this part of the Bill would not take effect for a very considerable time after it was passed, we felt that there was ample time to deal

  137
  with the matter by means of a special Bill at some future time. This Bill is the legislation that is required.
  As I understand the position, it is not desired or intended—in fact the Bill will not in any way change the position of existing Part III authorities. What it does is to avoid the creation of new Part III authorities, not as part of educational policy but merely as unintended and incidental results of other provisions which were intended to facilitate the general development of local government. I think it must be clear that county councils, in making a review of the conditions and in considering what recommendations they shall make for extension of existing boundaries, or of amalgamations of existing authorities, or for combinations of two or more existing authorities, once they are faced with the prospect that such recommendations might completely upset their educational programme, would find themselves very much hampered in their review of the conditions, and indeed that consideration might lead to their making recommendations other than those which they would have felt it desirable in the general interest to make if it had not been for that particular contingency, and, that being so, it seems to me that there is a sound case for providing, by means of special legislation, that no such result should follow. That, of course, does not in any way prejudice the present position of existing Part III authorities nor does it lay down any rule or principle which could guide us in deciding whether one kind of authority or another is the proper one to deal with education under Part III of the original Act. All that it does is to conserve the existing situation, and, in those circumstances, as far as we are concerned, we are not offering any opposition to this Bill, and it may be treated, as the hon. Member has suggested, as a non-controversial Bill.
  Mr. EDE: I do not intend to oppose this Bill, but I am bound to say that I regret that the Government did not take the opportunity to deal comprehensively with the position of Part II and Part III authorities. The fact that we have this Measure before us at all is another proof that, viewed from the point of view of the Ministry of Health, education is still the Cinderella of the local government services. It is true that the right hon.
  138
  Gentleman in framing his Local Government Act, 1929, received no recommendations from the Royal Commission to help him, because when the County Councils' Association pressed upon the Royal Commission the desirability of hearing evidence on this point, the Royal Commission declined to hear any evidence and ruled the administration of education outside the scope of any report they intended to make. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman himself was not responsible for that fact, and I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman, but it is unfortunate that all the developments in education, when outside controversial matters are now taking place, are very largely hampered by the fact that we have separate education authorities for Part II and Part III of the original Act of 1902.
  It is, surely an anomaly that if within a borough or an urban district a child is in a selective central school doing advanced work, its education is provided for out of the borough or urban district rate, whereas if it is in a junior technical school or a, junior commercial school or a secondary school, its education is provided for out of the higher education rate. One has the amazing anomaly of a county council which is conducting a scheme of non-selective central schools and the boroughs and urban districts in its area conducting a scheme of selective central schools. The work of what is technically higher education is hampered and neglected by the fact that there are different policies with regard to education in the same area. It is an anomaly that should not be allowed to exist. I cannot help thinking that, far sooner than my hon. Friend led us to expect, it will be necessary, if we are going to get the best out of the reorganisation of elementary schools, that there should be one education authority in respect of all forms of education in connection with any one area. I suggest that die time for those Part III authorities has long since passed, and that the definition of elementary and higher education needs redrafting at the present time so that it shall really be in accordance with existing educational practice. It is being hindered by the fact that we have Part II and Part III authorities existing at the present time.
  Most amazing and stupid anomalies have been created. Take the county of

  139
  Surrey, for instance. Wimbledon with 4,500 children is a Part III authority, but Mitcham, the adjoining urban district, with 7,500 elementary school children is administered by the county council. In Mitcham, elementary and higher education are under one authority, the county council, but in Wimbledon there is a scheme of selective central schools under the borough council. There are a junior commercial school, a junior technical school, and two secondary schools under the county council. This case can be multiplied by hundreds throughout the country. I realise that this Bill prevents the multiplication of this difficulty in various parts of the country, but I hope that my hon. Friend and the Board of Education will seriously consider whether the time bas not arrived for a courageous reform of educational administration bringing educational administration more into line with educational practice than is the case at present. If such a thing were done, I am sure that the task of a reasonable reorganisation—I am leaving outside the question anything about raising the school age—and of securing that the children shall get the education for which they are best fitted, would be greatly helped, and that many of the questions arising between borough councils and county councils would be avoided.
  Lord E. PERCY: I desire to say one or two words upon this Bill, but I am not going into the very big question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). If he wants to know why the Royal Commission on Local Government did not deal with the question of Part III authorities, I think I can tell him. It was because people like the hon. Member made speeches about Part III authorities similar to that which he has made. He will remember that just before the Royal Commission came to that region of their study a report came out with recommendations on this subject, and immediately a dog fight started between those who took the line of the hon. Member on behalf of county councils and those who, on behalf of the Association of Education Committees, took the opposite line. That great journal "Education" contained fiery articles, which were almost exaggerated to the extent of a
  140
  European and international crisis, on the subject of Part II and Part III authorities. The Royal Commission would have done no good stepping down into that arena where feeling had been thoroughly embittered already and trying to go over ground which had been gone over by the Hadow Committee with such unfortunate results in the way of disagreement. While it is no good making the kind of friendly attack on Part III authorities which the hon. Member for South Shields has made, there is a very strong case for facilitating agreement between Part II and Part III authorities.
  This Bill does nothing more than what is very necessary to correct the effects of the 1929 Act. It is entirely non-contentious, and we shall support it. But I want the Government to consider whether they cannot add to this Bill provisions which will enable Part III authorities and Part II authorities to come to reasonable transitional temporary agreements in connection with the reorganisation of the schools in a county area, especially where the boundaries of the existing Part III authority are going to be extended as a result of the Local Government Act, 1929. The extension of the boundary of a Part III authority under the Act of 1929 in ordinary times would not make much difference—it would be a transfer from one to the other of a certain number of elementary schools—but at the present moment county councils are planning the central schools, and they have not the faintest idea whether this or that central school, by the time it is built—even by the time the foundations are laid—will not have departed from their area, and they will then have no power to finish it, and some other authority, the Part III authority to whose area, the territory has been added, will have to finish it.
  Mr. EDE: I should like to remind the Noble Lord that under the Act of 1921 a local education authority can build a school outside its own area if it has to serve any of the population in its own area.
  Lord E. PERCY: That is the point to which I was coming. I think the hon. Member has given an incomplete statement of the effects of the Act of 1921. While it is true that a local education authority can provide and maintain a school outside its own area for the benefit

  141
  of children within its area, it is equally true that the power which is given to one authority by the Act of 1921 to delegate the management of a school to another authority is limited by the fact that the delegation may only be made in the case of a school which is within the area of the authority to whom the management is delegated. The provisions of the Act of 1921 interpose a number of restrictions on the power of these two local education authorities, the Part 2 and the Part 3 authorities, to make arrangements for one to run the schools of the other temporarily, or for one to take over a certain area within the territory of the other.
  These provisions of the Act of 1921—I do not want to involve the House in a reference to the Sections of the Act—could be quite easily amended so as to give greater scope for agreement between these two classes of authorities in connection with reorganisation. That is what I want to see done. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I have suggested privately a certain Amendment which would have that effect, but I do not want to delay the course of the Bill, because it is important that it should come into operation as soon as possible. Moreover, I am the less anxious to delay the passage of the Bill by moving Amendments because in view of the Title of the Bill I am not at all sure that any Amendment that I might move would be in order. I should, however, like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance. He treated us rather cavalierly when we were dealing with the matter on the School Attendance Bill, and I do not think that he realises fully the difficulty which does arise in connection with reorganisation in certain county areas, especially the suburban areas. Whether or not an Amendment of the kind that I have suggested could be put in the Bill, will the Parliamentary Secretary and the President of the Board of Education be prepared, if we do not make trouble by moving Amendments, to consider the introduction of another non-contentious Bill —I am not asking for compulsory powers but only for permissive powers—which will deal with these gaps in the Education Act of 1921, in the interests of smooth and speedy reorganisation in connection with the changes created by the Local Government Act of 1929.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: The subject raised by the Noble Lord is one of great
  142
  interest and one which obviously requires attention. I can assure him that we will examine the suggestion that he has made, in the hope that something may be possible.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr.Morgan Jones.]

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (STAFF SUPERANNUATION AND POLICE FUND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Part I of the Bill applies to the staff employed at New Scotland Yard under the Commissioner of Police, under the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District and at the police courts under the Chief Magistrate. It does not apply to any member of the Metropolitan Police Force or to the police magistrates. Part II applies to the keeping of the banking accounts of the Metropolitan Police Fund, and the drawing of cheques. Clauses 1 and 2 bring the pension conditions of the civilian staff paid from the Metropolitan Police Fund into line with those of the Civil Service as regards (1) gratuities to unestablished employés who leave after long service and (2) the commutation of compensation allowances granted on abolition of office or removal from office.
  The Metropolitan Police Staff (Superannuation) Act, 1875, provides that the pension conditions of established civilian staff paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund are similar to those of civil servants employed in other Government Departments, but the Act gives no power to the Secretary of State to grant gratuities to the unestablished staff, nor does it enable any commutation of compensation allowances granted upon abolition of office or removal from office. The absence of this power occasions great hardship particularly to those members who are unestablished. It is possible for a man employed by the Receiver in a temporary capacity, say, for 21 years or over to be unable to receive any

  143
  gratuity on his retirement, and yet had he been employed in some other Government Department, such as the Office of Works, that financial privilege would have been extended to him. Part I of the Bill is designed to remove what I hope the House will consider to be an anomaly and a grievance. Respecting commutation, I am assured that cases of commutation will rarely arise, but we are taking power in Clause 2 to deal with the matter. Although it is a new power in relation to this Fund it is a power that exists, if I am informed correctly, throughout the Civil Service.
  Part II of the Bill deals with the administrative difficulty to which I have referred. The effect of Section 10 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, is that each cheque drawn daily in the office of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District for making payments from the Metropolitan Police Fund must be countersigned by the Commissioner of Police, an Assistant Commissioner or a Deputy-Assistant Commissioner. This provision gives rise to great inconvenience, and, on occasion, delay. The financial responsibility for the issue and signing of these cheques is vested in the Receiver, and in the future, if this Bill becomes an Act, it is proposed that an officer of the Receiver's Department shall countersign the cheques instead of the officers to whom I have referred. I am advised that the Comptroller and Auditor-General agrees with this course, and is satisfied that the proposal embodied in Part II will maintain the necessary check on payments out of the fund, and provide adequate safeguards. The Bill further provides for the opening of other accounts. For example, when the Lost Property Office was transferred from New Scotland Yard to Lambeth, difficulties arose because there they could not open an account locally. Under this new provision they will be able to open an account, as it were, on the spot and pay moneys into the account.
  I might say one word in relation to the cost. Part II of the Bill involves no financial expenditure whatsoever. With regard to Part I, any expenditure will be met from the Metropolitan Police Fund. I am unable to say what the exact figure will be in any given period. It is very problematical. In fact, there may be little or no expenditure for some years,
  144
  and the maximum amount by way of gratuities, I am informed, is not likely to exceed a sum of £500 in any one year. As the Financial Memorandum explains, there will be no direct charge on the Exchequer, but so long as the Exchequer makes a grant-in-aid to the police for expenditure, then an amount not exceeding one-half the total cost will be annually borne by that grant. As regards commutation of compensation allowances, as the Financial Memorandum points out, it will not increase the total charge falling upon the Police Fund in respect of such allowances, but merely alter its incidence as between one year and another. I think I have briefly, but nevertheless fully, explained what is the real purpose and object of the Bill, and I hope it will prove to be uncontroversial and receive a Second Reading to-night.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: I want to say only a few words in connection with this Bill which has been moved by the Under-Secretary. He said, quite accurately, that it was divided into two parts. The proposals contained in Part II involve no expenditure on public funds, and, moreover, they deal merely with the machinery for making payment out of the Metropolitan Police Fund. It does, quite obviously, seem unnecessary that the Commissioner of Police should be called upon to countersign cheques in connection with the fund when, in fact, the financial responsibility is vested solely in the hands of the Receiver. It would clearly be a waste of time for the Commissioner or his deputy to continue to sign cheques when the authority for payment, or the responsibility when anything goes wrong, is not vested in him. I understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no change of real importance contemplated in Part II, and, therefore, I submit it is not necessary for us to quarrel over that part of the Bill.
  Part I of the Bill is rather more important. The hon. and learned Member has told us that a charge on the Police Fund is involved. He pointed out, as is stated in the Financial Memorandum, that there is a Government grant of 50 per cent. towards police expenditure, so that of any expenditure which occurs under Part I of the Bill, half will be borne out of the fund and half by public funds. The charge on the Exchequer, therefore, is one-half the total cost under the pro-

  145
  vision of the Bill. What is the form of the expenditure? It is quite clearly laid down in the Bill that it enables gratuities to be paid to unestablished employés after they have done a certain length of service. The hon. Member said that there was hardship created to-day, and I understood him to say that the hardship was mainly created among those who are un-established. Surely the hardship is totally in connection with those who are unestablished?
  Mr. SHORT: Totally.
  Mr. HACKING:I think he said mainly, but it is quite clear from the Bill that the only people who are suffering at present are the unestablished employés. Another reason for these proposals is to allow the commutation of allowances for compensation, but that will not involve any charge at all, it will simply affect the method of making payments at an earlier date. All that sounds very reasonable on the face of it, but it is certainly not an economy. We are told in the Memorandum that the maximum amount which may be granted by way of gratuities in any one year is not likely to exceed £500, of which the public funds would have to pay £250. That may not sound a very large sum, but what I would like to ask is how many cases of hardship have actually arisen over a period of years? It is only on that that we can estimate what the expense will he in future years. The hon. and learned Member has mentioned only one case of hardship, which he gave as an example, but I doubt very much whether there have been many cases in the past. I am doubtful whether this Bill may not in fact deal with other cases where there has not been a great deal of hardship. Obviously, nobody will come under this unless he has had a long period of service, and it would seem that these particular employés, instead of being left as unestablished servants, should, in fact, be established.
  Why is it that they are left unestablished, and that the Metropolitan Police should not know that there will be something definite about their employment in future and, therefore, they might be taken on the established staff? After long periods of service it seems strange that they should be still unestablished. How many members of the unestablished staff are there at present? The hon. Member
  146
  did not tell us that. Is any increase anticipated in the number, or has the limit been reached at present? Have we any guarantee that there will not be an increase in these unestablished employés, and thus be a much greater expenditure from public funds in future than would have been the case in the past had the Bill been the law of the land? In order to ensure that there is no extravagance under the Bill I suggest that the Government should insert a limit of expenditure. That is not an unreasonable demand. Unless there are cases of hardship I do not, think Part I should be allowed to pass. The Bill is drawn to include quite definitely only those cases where there is a real grievance, not cases where there is little or no grievance, and I want to be sure that no other cases will slip in under the Bill. If the Under-Secretary can give us an assurance on these somewhat small points there will be no trouble so far as we are concerned. We certainly should not oppose the Second Reading, although we may desire to amend the Bill in some small details in Committee.
  Mr. KELLY: I should like to ask why it is necessary at this time for separate accounts to be opened, such as the account for the Lost Property Office. I fail to understand why it is necessary to have these many accounts. In view of the fact that so much of the time of the Commissioners of Police has been taken up in signing cheques, a duty they will not have to undertake in future, I hope the question will be considered as to whether there is justification for having so many Commissioners of Police. Can the Under-Secretary of State say what period of service is necessary for the receipt of a gratuity? Is it to be on the same lines and under the same conditions and covering the same period as gratuities which are now given to those employed in certain other Government Departments? I do not know whether there are in the employ of the Metropolitan Police unestablished employés, but if so I hope the conditions for a gratuity are going to be much easier than those which operate in certain other Government Departments.
  Mr. SHORT: May I say, in answer to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), that the account should be opened

  147
  as near to the place where the work is done as possible. Under the existing law the Lost Property Office has not been able to do this and there has been some considerable inconvenience. In respect to the period of time, the unestablished members of the staff will now be brought into line with the rules and regulations governing the Civil Service. I believe the period of service is somewhere about 10 years. The right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) asked whether there would be any increase in the unestablished staff. I do not expect that there will be any increase. His inquiry as to whether it was possible for them to be made members of the Civil Service raises a big question which I am afraid is foreign to the discussion. These matters are largely governed by the rules of the Civil Service. There are times when people have to be brought in and it is quite impossible because of the conditions obtaining to place them upon the establishment.
  Mr. HACKING: If there is a job to be done, naturally, it can be done by employing someone temporarily and for a short period. But these are all people pf 10 years' service and I want to know why they should not become established.
  Mr. SHORT: I hardly feel competent to deal with that question at the moment. The matter is largely governed by the conditions of service. Then with regard to expenditure. I do not expect that there will be any great expenditure. During a period of years there has been, on an average, only one case per year of a person who on retirement would have been entitled to this gratuity had he been employed in another department. As they are employed in the Metropolitan Police Office they are not entitled to it. There will be no great increase in expenditure in consequence of the power given in Part I of the Bill.
  Mr. HACKING: Has the Under-Secretary any idea of the number of unestablished employés? The Bill says it is small, and the Under-Secretary has said that it is very small. Can he give us anything more exact?
  Mr. SHORT: I think 600 is about the number.

  COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill has already passed another place and, small as it is, it is not nearly so large as it actually appears. In the main it is a consolidating Bill, and I hope it meets the legitimate complaint that generally consolidating Bills have been legislation by reference. On this occasion we have brought in an entirely new Bill, which will have the effect of repealing the Acts of 1865 and 1909 and embodying just two new provisions. Briefly, the Acts of 1865 and 1909 empower the legislative government of any colony to provide vessels of war and raise seamen and others to serve in such vessels, including volunteers in case of emergency. But these powers are conferred on colonies singly, there being no power for two or more colonies to combine in order to provide the necessary vessels and their complement of crews. Further, there is no provision in the Acts of 1865 and 1909 whereby the training of such crews and volunteers can take place outside territorial waters. This is felt to be rather absurd and the Bill proposes to meet that position. These two points are the only fresh points in the Bill. In fact, there are less than 20 lines of new legislation. For the rest this Bill repeals the Acts of 1865 and 1909 and presents them in a form that is more easily understood. Anticipating possible criticism, I would say that the London Naval Treaty is binding on the Empire as a whole, and that there is no suggestion that this Bill will afford any loophole for getting outside that Treaty by increasing our naval forces by means of the Colonies or Dominions.
  Commander SOUTHBY: When I read the title of the Bill, I hoped that we would have an opportunity of discussing the question of contributions from the dominions and colonies towards naval defence. But, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this is only a consolidating Bill. I

  149
  would like to congratulate him and the Government on having for once avoided a vice to which they appear to be somewhat prone, namely, legislation by reference. I cannot help thinking that the Bill is a piece of long overdue legislation, and for that reason I welcome it. It was an anomaly that under the two old Acts it was impossible for a colony to combine with another colony for mutual employment of such vessels as they might provide, and it was an absurdity that men raised by a colony could not be sent home to England to be trained, if they were raised under those Acts. I am glad that both those anomalies have been put right.
  A point on which the hon. Member touched very lightly was the question of the Bill being read in conjunction with the London Naval Treaty. That is a matter which will require very careful consideration—that what ships are built and employed and operated by a colony should be such as will fit into the picture and be suitable for the naval needs of the Empire as a whole. I hope that when any question, of ships is raised by a colony, that matter will be taken into very careful consideration. It is true that the colonies are restricted by the Treaty as to the class of vessel they may build or operate, but I do not think that the same restriction applies so far as personnel is concerned. I speak subject to correction, and if I am wrong I hope the hon. Gentleman will say so, but I think the colonies would be entitled to raise and train men for the naval service in such number as they think fit without any reference to any agreement we may have with another nation. I welcome that idea because it will provide an opportunity for the training of the necessary seamen for the defence of the Empire in waters in which they might be particularly required in time of war or emergency, and that will be all to the good.
  It is essential to have an efficient and well-trained personnel scattered throughout the world, a personnel on which we can draw if occasion arises. The generosity and loyalty of the colonies are well known. This is a fitting occasion to remind the House and the country of the splendid efforts which have been made by the colonies in the past to help the Mother country in the provision of war vessels. The provision of the Malaya by
  150
  the Straits Settlements might be mentioned as an example. Long may that spirit continue! There is one further point about the Bill. As introduced in another place Clause 3 referred to the payment of expenses "in so far as this House should make provision." I am glad to notice that an Amendment was accepted whereby the word "Parliament" was substituted for "this House." Experiments by draftsmen in changing the word "Parliament" into "House of Commons" are to be deprecated, and I am glad that we have reverted to the old custom of calling Parliament Parliament and not pretending that it means only the House of Commons.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I, too, very much welcome this Bill. It is something like 20 years since this subject was discussed in this House, and in the interval we have had great troubles, which have given many of the Colonies an opportunity to show that they are prepared to do their utmost to provide defences, and very efficient ones in many instances. This is an opportunity for increasing the popularity, and even for increasing the knowledge of the names, of many of our Colonies, which to-day are not sufficiently well known in this country. Subjects like this seem to be dealt with very quickly in this House. That must be either because of the apathy of the people or because of their unshakable belief in the sufficiency of the Admiralty. I think it is the belief in the Admiralty. I may not be believed when I say that people do not know very much about the Colonies. It is on record that a Royal Commission suggested even the giving up of the whole of the West African Colonies not many years ago. I am glad to see that the Bill gives the Colonies an opportunity of providing themselves with a defence and of combining in that admirable project.
  Although I know the names of all our Colonies, I am not sure whether all of them come within the scope of the Bill. I do not know whether there exists a Parliamentary definition of a Colony, and I shall be glad of information on the subject. There are all sorts of small places and some very large places with immense revenues. There are smaller Colonies like the Bahamas, Barbados, British Guiana, Trinidad, the Leeward Islands and Mauritius; then in West Africa there

  151
  are Nigeria, Gambia and Sierra Leone; and there are places like the Straits Settlements and Ceylon. I would like to know whether the Federated Malay States are in fact a Colony or not. If so they are in a very strong position to help towards the expense of providing naval defence. Clause 1 of the Bill refers to the expense of maintaining and using vessels of war. The Straits Settlements have a revenue of nearly £7,000,000; Hong Kong, £2,750,000; the West African Colonies, Nigeria, Gambia and Sierra Leone, have between them an annual revenue approaching £12,000,000; and even Trinidad and British Guiana have about £3,000,000.
  If we can impress on the Colonies the necessity for their own defence, and how welcome would be their aid in the event of the Empire getting into trouble, we shall do a great deal of good by discussing this Bill. At the present time something like 25s. a head is paid for the naval defence of the country, but in many of our Colonies vast sums of money are made by people who live and have their business in those Colonies and in most instances do not pay anything directly towards the defence of this country. and of the Empire and of the Colony in which they live. I am delighted to see in this Bill the two provisions which have been mentioned, one empowering the Colonies to combine and the other in regard to the training of naval ratings and officers from the Colonies. I think that those parts of the Bill are altogether to the good.
  I wish to put one or two questions upon the actual terms of the Measure. I am anxious to know what are the limits of the conditions mentioned in Clause 1? What are the conditions which would not be approved? Are they actually laid down or is this merely a wide expression which has to await events before being brought into play? I should also like to know whether there has been in fact any actual combination of Colonies in connection with the question of their mutual defence and, if so, what Colonies have made such combinations? I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some indication of what sort of ships are kept by the Colonies at the present time and the numbers of men and officers which they have enlisted for manning those ships.
  152
  Clause 2 dealing with Colonial naval forces opens up the vast question of the naval defence of the territorial waters of some Colonies. In the case of the Straits Settlements, for instance, if carried to its logical conclusion, the question of the naval defence of the Colony, albeit within its own territorial waters, is a very large, important and technical subject which I trust is being carefully studied. Such a matter might easily include the provision of torpedoes, aircraft, wireless telegraphy, booms and even submarines. That I hope will be borne in mind by the hon. Gentleman, realising the great scope which this Bill gives to the Colonies.
  I have one small doubt about paragraph (b) of Clause 2, Sub-section (1), as to whether or not this means that the officers and men belong to the Colony, or whether the "establishments or other places" belong to the Colony. I think the Bill is not only timely, but useful, and I would congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the First Lord and the Department on introducing it. If the Bill has the effect of making the Colonies realise that it is their duty to combine for their mutual defence and to standardise methods, material, personnel and equipment and also if it will infuse into the people of this country a greater knowledge of and interest in our possessions, then it will have served a great purpose and will redound to the credit not only of the hon. Gentleman who has introduced it, but of the Department with which he is connected.
  10.0 p.m.
  Major ROSS: I should like to add a modest contribution to the bouquets which have been so admirably bestowed by my hon. and gallant 10.0 p.m. Friends on the Government in general and the Admiralty in particular for having brought this Bill before the House. I am all the more ready to congratulate the Government on this Bill in that my opportunities for congratulating them do not appear likely to be numerous for some time to come. As to the substance of the Bill the hon. Gentleman who introduced it did so with great lucidity, but he treated the matter in a rather academic way. I should like to inquire what practical results, if any, will flow from the Bill? To begin with, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we

  153
  on this side need no undertaking from the Government that they are in any way trying to make the British Navy too strong. In fact our criticism may be directed in a contrary sense. Therefore, as to the only point of criticism which the hon. Gentleman seemed to anticipate, he need have no qualms as to criticism from this side.
  We have here a Bill which, for the first time, gives power to the Colonies to combine and to pool their resources in producing some degree of naval defence and naval force. I suppose this provision is not merely academic and that there must have been, in the minds of those who drafted and promoted the Bill, some combination of Colonies which might be expected—of course one cannot speak with complete certainty—to relieve this country of some small share of its naval burden. I am sure the House is anxious to know what result in that direction may be expected to follow the passage of the Bill. At present the Navy maintains a considerable force of sloops in the neighbourhood of some of the Colonies and such ships would be peculiarly well adapted to be maintained by the Colonies themselves. Their work is in the coastal waters of the Colonies and they could, no doubt, be manned by crews habituated to those climes who would suffer less than crews from these islands, while local naval forces would be very well able to understand not only local navigation, but such questions as from time to time might come within the authority of the naval forces on the spot.
  On the African station four sloops are maintained at present. May we hope that some combination of the African Colonies will relieve us of manning and maintaining some of those sloops. Again, in the West Indies there are two sloops, the "Heliotrope" and the "Scarborough." Is it expected that any of the West Indian Colonies, or any combination of those Colonies, will be able to suggest relieving the Royal Navy of that local duty. Of course, the seamanship that will be required is as great there as anywhere, but it might be economic that the duty of the local patrols, which are, in effect, nautical police rather than serious fighting forces, might well be undertaken by such forces as the Colonies themselves can raise, and by this Bill provision is
  154
  made for uniformity. I certainly, in the straitened condition of affairs, particularly as regards the Navy, would very much hope that the hon. Member can give us some encouragement as to the prospect, if this Bill is passed, of some slight degree of relief being extended to this country as regards the local naval forces in the neighbourhood of these Colonies.
  Mr. AMMON: With the permission of the House, I will try to answer one or two points that have been raised by hon. and gallant Members opposite. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby, raised just two points. In regard to the training of the personnel with the Fleet, that would largely be with the squadrons in their particular home waters; and as to the point he raised with regard to the introduction of the word "Parliament," I think he indicated in his speech that he already knows that in the first place there was a draftsman's error which had eliminated the word "Parliament," which was in the Act of 1865. That has been reinserted in another place, and is now presented in the Bill in this form, thus preserving the integrity of Parliament.
  Commander SOUTHBY: I raised the question of the personnel which the Colonies would be allowed to raise. They are limited in materiel by the Naval Treaty, but I asked if I was right in assuming that they are not limited in any way in the numbers of the personnel that they may raise, train, and maintain.
  Mr. AMMON: They are not limited in so far as they would be raised for their own defensive purposes, and for use in their own home waters. If they had to be used more widely, authority would have to be obtained for them in the ordinary way, but there is no limit in that particular respect. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), he asked how far this Bill applies. It applies to all the Colonies, as distinct from the Dominions, including the Crown Colonies.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Will it apply to Tanganyika Territory, a mandated territory with a great port of Dar-es-Salaam, or a Protectorate like Kenya?
  Mr. AMMON: It applies to Kenya Colony. The hon. and gallant Member then raised a point with regard to the Sub-sections (1, b) and (1, c) of Clause 2. Sub-section (1, b) is a new provision of the Bill, and under certain conditions allows the personnel to train with the fleet outside their own home waters. Sub-section (1, c) merely repeats what was in the Acts of 1865 and 1909, and has reference to the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Volunteer Reserve, giving authority to raise them in the ordinary way as in this country. The last speaker asked what practical results are likely to follow from this Bill. It is anticipated, or rather hoped, that one of the practical results that will accrue is that West African Colonies will be able to combine together as a unit in order to raise forces, and that Kenya and other places also will decide in like manner to raise forces.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Will the hon. Member answer the question whether there has been any actual combination at all?
  Mr. AMMON: Up to now there are no Colonies which have either ships or personnel, but we hope that, coming out of
  156
  this Bill, that may actually happen, giving them the facility where desirable to combine together in order to provide both the necessary ships and personnel for their respective defence forces. It is also anticipated that Ceylon and the Strait Settlements may come into this scheme, though not as a combination. Sloops are not within the limits of the Naval Treaty and would be suitable for the particular Colonies to raise. I think I have answered all the questions put to me, and I trust we may now have the Bill.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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