Sitting of 1 April 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1919–20).
Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1920 [by Command]; referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. [No. 63.]
BRITISH MUSEUM.
Copy ordered, "of Account of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1919; and Return of the number of Persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1913 to 1918, both years inclusive, together with a Statement of the progress made in the arrangement and description of the collections and an Account of objects added to them in the year 1918."—[Mr. Fisher.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SLESWIGERS.
  Lieutenant-Colonel WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sleswigers of Danish race are still treated as enemy aliens in this country; and whether any concessions which may have been made to Poles, Czechs, and inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine may be extended to those Sleswigers who are not of German race?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The arrangements made for the treatment of different classes of persons technically of enemy alien nationality but of friendly race must necessarily vary
  1040
  with the different political situations of the persons affected. I understand that Sleswigers of Danish race have always received in this country the most favourable treatment possible in the circumstances and that individuals who have produced Danish passports have been considered alien friends.

  ALBANIA.
  Lieutenant-Colonel RAYMOND GREENEasked the Under-Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Greek bands are carrying out massacres along the Albanian frontier; and whether any steps are being taken to restrain them?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer returned to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds on 24th March, to which I have nothing to add.

  WATFORD SCHOOLS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the education of between 1,600 and 1,700 children in Watford has been, almost continuously since November, 1915, and is still being, seriously hampered, and their school hours reduced by one half owing to military occupation of schools; whether he is aware of a representation on this matter which was recently made to the War Office by the Herts County Council through the Board of Education; and whether he will at once take steps to have the Chater Schools at Watford released from military occupation?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The Chater Schools, Watford, are the only elementary schools belonging to the local education authority now in the occupation of the War Department. The question of their retention has been recently under consideration, and it has been decided that the schools can be vacated and handed back to the local education authority in two or three weeks from date. There is no record of any communication having been received in the War Office from the Herts County Council, through the Board of Education, on this matter

  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT (CIVILIAN ACTING-PAYMASTERS).
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among civilian acting-paymasters in the Army Pay Department owing to their not being given the gratuity and war bonus which are paid to acting-paymasters who are granted temporary commissions; and whether any reason exists for civilian acting-paymasters thus receiving considerably lower remuneration than commissioned acting-paymasters?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have nothing to add to the written reply which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing on the 24th March. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the reply referred to.

  SOLDIERS' GRAVES.
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that he will permit the remains of British soldiers buried in Germany to be exhumed and brought home for reinterment, should the relatives so desire, as soon as the transport facilities permit?
  Captain GUEST: This matter will receive sympathetic consideration as soon as the condition of affairs permits.

  MILITARY MASSAGE SERVICE.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a petition from the members of the Military Massage Service; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Captain GUEST: A form of petition has been received from members of the Military Massage Service. Full consideration has not yet been given to all the matters raised, but it has been possible already to deal favourably with some of them.

  ARMY OFFICERS (PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS).
  Sir WATSON CHEYNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state
  1042
  how many officers are still in the Army who are suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis; how many suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis have been discharged from the Army since 4th August, 1914; how many officers and ex-officers suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis have been given appropriate treatment since 4th August, 1914; and how many officers and ex-officers suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis are at present under treatment, and what kind of treatment are they receiving?
  Captain GUEST: The only figures available are those relating to ex-officers which are in the records of the Ministry of Pensions. I am informed mat the number of officers discharged on account of pulmonary tuberculosis since the 4th August, 1914, of which the Ministry of Pensions have record is 615. All of these have been, offered treatment but twenty have not accepted. The remainder have been given, treatment. The number of ex-officers at present under treatment is 449, made up as follows:

  In sanatoria, 152.

  Convalescing at the coast or in the country, 41.

  Under treatment at home, 256.

  I understand that special reference to all commands at home and abroad would be necessary in order to obtain the figures as regards serving officers. As regards the last part of the question, I can assure my hon. Friend that all officers suffering from this disease are receiving appropriate treatment.

  CENSOR'S MUSEUM.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what steps, if any, are being taken to preserve for the public the contents of the Censor's Museum at Strand House, including the collection of enemy propaganda literature?
  Captain GUEST: The contents of the Censor's Museum are being handed over to the Imperial War Museum and the British Museum.

  FOREIGN PRESS (GENERAL STAFF REVIEW).
  Lieutenant-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to secure to

  1043
  the British Museum and principal university libraries complete editions of the daily review of the foreign Press and supplements prepared by the General Staff during the War?
  Captain GUEST: I am informed that the British Museum and certain universities are already on the distribution list for the review of the foreign Press. Any applications made by other universities will be favourably considered.
  Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: Will they receive complete bound editions?

  WAR OFFICE STAFF.
  Major O'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for War what reduction in the numbers of the staff and employés, male and female, in the War Office has taken place since 11th November, 1918?
  Captain GUEST: On the 11th November, 1918, the total staff (military and civilian) was 21,807, and since that date the net reduction effected is 2,097. This excludes reductions of staff consequent on the transference of the Department of the Surveyor-General of Supply to the Ministry of Munitions. Further reductions will continue to be made wherever possible.
  Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask what further reductions are contemplated in the next six months?
  Captain GUEST: I should like notice of that question.

  OFFICERS' PROMOTION.
  Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War whether a retired officer over fifty-five years of age in receipt of a pension of £200 per annum in addition to full pay, and with no active service experience during the recent War, has lately displaced a much younger substantive major on the active list in command of a Reserve battalion; whether there are many such cases; and whether, with a view to affording employment and promotion to younger officers who have done good work in the War, he will take steps to replace in retirement those officers who, though reemployed during the national emergency, are too old to hope for further advancement in the Army?
  Captain GUEST: The policy of the War Office is to relegate to unemployment all retired officers now employed on full pay, and to replace them by officers on the active list. This policy is now being carried out. I do not know anything of the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but if he will let me have the particulars I will inquire into it. I may say, however, that where a commanding officer of a Reserve battalion becomes a casualty, the practice is for the second in command to take his place until either he is confirmed in the appointment or a better qualified officer is appointed in his stead.
  Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is stated to be a very common case that active list officers are now being displaced and put on the retired list?
  Captain GUEST: If my hon. Friend will give me a case I will look into it.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
    Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of men in the Non-Combatant Corps, stationed at Kilnsea, were sent to a dispersal camp for demobilisation in January last, application having been made in the proper way for their return to civil employment; that these men were not demobilised and had to return to their unit; that they are still being retained, although other men in the unit for whom application had not been made before the 1st February, have been demobilised; and whether he will give instructions that the men who were qualified for demobilisation prior to the 1st February and were not demobilised shall be released without further delay?
    Captain GUEST: Men in the Non-Combatant Corps were not eligible for demobilisation in January, and I regret no action can be taken in the cases referred to. The Regulations were not made applicable till later, as I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough on the 11th March.

    DENTAL MECHANICS.
    Mr. RODGERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of dental mechanics at the dental

    1045
    mechanical centre, Colchester; if this number is in excess of the requirements of the centre; and, if so, will he arrange for the early demobilisation of those who can be spared, giving special consideration to any over thirty-seven years of age and to those who have businesses waiting their return to civil life?
    Captain GUEST: Twenty-six dental mechanics are at present attached to the centre referred to. Five of these are eligible for immediate demobilisation under current Regulations, and instructions have been issued for their release. The remainder are not eligible for demobilisation at present. The establishment required for the centre is sixteen, and the remaining five mechanics who are surplus to establishment are being used to relieve dental mechanics elsewhere who are eligible for release.

    EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of soldiers with the Egyptian Expeditionary Force who have been down with dysentery and malaria being returned home before the warm weather comes, and whether he will instruct commanding officers out thereto take into consideration for early demobilisation men who have suffered in this way and are ill suited to the prevailing climatic conditions?
    Captain GUEST: Men who have suffered in health and who are thereby rendered unfit for the prevailing climatic conditions will be dealt with by the medical authorities concerned and transferred to England in all cases where it is considered necessary.

    RELEASE APPLICATION.
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private Charles Ross, No. 427415, 39th Company, Army Service Corps, Mechanical Transport, Hutment Camp, Grove Park, S.E., is manager of a building business at Forres and has been applied for by his employer on the grounds of indispensability; and whether, seeing that this man was only passed fit for garrison duty, that his wife is ill, that he has six children dependent upon him, and in view of the urgency of the housing problem, he can see his way to have this man demobilised in order that he may return to his civil employment?
    Captain GUEST: I am informed that Private Ross is not registered at the War Office as pivotal or for special release, and that there is no trace of any application for his release having been received. If my hon. Friend will furnish a statement setting out fully the compassionate grounds on which release is asked, vouched for by himself or by a doctor, justice of the peace or clergyman, the case will receive consideration.

    BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (OFFICERS IN FRANCE).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in consequence of the suspension of the demobilisation of officers, many units of the British Expeditionary Force in France have on their strength a number of officers with nothing to do, as other ranks are cut down to cadre strength; and if he will state with what object such officers are retained at great cost to the country and to the detriment of their future careers?
    Captain GUEST: The demobilisation of officers has not been suspended, but is proceeding as rapidly as circumstances permit.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware these cases are very small in number?
    Captain GUEST: The question asked is whether the demobilisation of officers has been suspended, and that is not the case.

    OFFICERS' PEACE-TIME UNIFORMS.
    Mr. ARCH DALEasked the Secretary of State for War if he has yet come to any conclusion as to a Grant for the expense of peace-time uniforms for officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

    DUTIES OF RETAINED MEN.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether commanding officers render a return of the exact duties on which men are employed who are now eligible for immediate demobilisation, but who are being retained as indispensables for the work of demobilisation; how often this return is rendered; and who examines this return?
    Captain GUEST: Men detailed for release as pivotal men are only retained

    1047
    for military duties under written authority of the General Officer Commanding in Company concerned, and for most exceptional reasons. Men, if demobilisable in accordance with Army Order 55 of 1919, whose special release is ordered, or for whom release slips have been received, or who have received contract offers of employment, are not retained for military duties without the written sanction of an officer not below the status of a brigade commander. The retention of pivotal and special release men is communicated to the War Office; apart from this no return is rendered of the nature referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir J. HOPE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of the rendering of this nominal return giving the employment in which these men are employed when they are retained?
    Captain GUEST: The work of the Labour Office in connection with demobilisation is almost excessive at the present moment.

    TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for War whether of the draft of 250 men of the ¼th Somerset Regiment, now returning from Mesopotamia, only thirty Territorials of 1914 are included; whether this order of demobilisation is in accordance with the promise made by Major-General Donald in the name of the late Lord Kitchener, then Secretary of State for War, when these Somersets went to the East in October, 1914, that they should be brought home so that they might resume their employment or get fresh employment before the great rush took place from the Colours when the War was over; and what further steps he proposes to take to carry out this promise?
    Captain GUEST: Demobilisation is being carried out strictly in accordance with the regulations in force and in view of the changes that take place in the personnel of a battalion owing to wounds, sickness and other causes during four and a half years of war and long service in two tropical countries, I do not think the proportion of 1914 men inconsiderable. With regard to the promise made by Major-General Donald I would refer to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on the 25th February relative to the return of troops from the East.
    Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that the promise was given by Lord Kitchener and not by Major-General Donald, and that there are 200 of these 1914–15 men still in Mesopotamia in spite of that promise?
    Captain GUEST: Perhaps my hon. Friend has not had time to read the Secretary of State's full statement on this subject, pointing out that Lord Kitchener could not have foreseen the length of the War or the difficulties of demobilisation.
    Colonel MILDMAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men serving in France from Somerset also say that the promise applies to them?

    WORN-OUT CLOTHING.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the officers in charge at Shirehampton Camp, Bristol, refuse to supply soldiers upon demobilisation with fresh boots, underclothing, and cardigan jackets, although the articles worn by the men have been in use for a considerable time and are worn out, and whether he will take action in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries have been made, and I am informed that no soldier, on being demobilised at the camp mentioned, has been refused exchange of worn-out clothing.

  OVERSEAS TROOPS.

    NATIONAL RECOGNITION.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has made any preparations or arrangements for the nation to testify its gratitude for the splendid services rendered by the overseas troops in the War; and whether he will give the public in some of the leading centres of the Kingdom the opportunity of greeting and saluting representative units of these troops before their departure from our shores for their distant homes?
    Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to similar questions asked yesterday by the right hon. Member for Deptford, the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford East, and the hon. Member for Devonport, to the effect that the matter is being discussed, and that I hope to make a statement at an early date.

    2ND BATTALION DEVON REGIMENT.
    Colonel MILDMAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the prospective return of the 2nd Battalion Devon Regiment to England, he will consider the possibility of ensuring that it shall thereupon be brought to its headquarters at Exeter, as all Devonshire is desirous of welcoming the battalion home in a manner fitting its record in the War?
    Captain GUEST: I am informed that this battalion will return from France as a cadre, but General Headquarters, France, have not yet notified the date of its return. The present proposal is to reconstitute the battalion at Devonport. If there is a strong desire that it should go to Exeter first, I will certainly have the matter considered, although from the War Office point of view, it would be more convenient if the reception were at Devonport.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that the centre is at Devonport?
    Captain GUEST: If the desire expressed is sufficiently strong.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is very strong.

    MILITARY SERVICE (EVASIONS).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give instructions for prompt and effective steps being taken to trace the many men who have so far dishonestly evaded military service, also the men who deserted on their first leave and were not then rounded up, with a view to their replacing men in the Services who have faithfully carried out their duties during the War?
    Captain GUEST: The tracing of men who have evaded military service is a matter that still falls to the Ministry of National Service to deal with. As regards deserters, the provisions of the King's Regulations (paragraphs 514 and 515) have been strictly carried out. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the apprehension of deserters is primarily a matter for the civil police, once the names of the deserters have been notified by their commanding officer. It should be borne in mind that even if these men were traced
    1050
    and called up they would not be in a position to replace men serving with the Armies of Occupation until they have received the necessary military training.

    ARMY OFFICERS (FULL PAY).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War the number of Army officers of all ranks on full pay; how many of these are on actual military service; and how many are employed in administrative posts?
    Captain GUEST: The total number of Army officers of all ranks on full pay at present is 113,305. There is no Return available showing exactly how each of these officers is employed, and the preparation of such a Return would involve a great deal of labour and research, which the Departments concerned are not in a position to undertake.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is not this number of officers very excessive as compared with the non-commissioned officers and men still serving in the Army?

    ARMY INSTRUCTORS (POLICEMEN).
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether those members of county and borough police forces who, in response to Lord Kitchener's appeal in 1914, were lent to the Army for the purpose of instructing recruits are to receive any monetary recognition of their services; and whether, in the case of men who subsequently enlisted, the period of service as Army instructors will be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of gratuity given on demobilisation?
    Mr. FORSTER: These instructors received, in addition to their police pay, Army rations, accommodation, fuel and light, and, if separated from their families, Army separation allowances. I fear it is not possible to give them any special recognition. With regard to the last part of the question, I am afraid it is not possible to allow the service referred to to count for the gratuity.
    Sir F. HALL: Was not the service originally given by these people military service, and in those circumstances should it not count?
    Mr. FORSTER: The service that counts for gratuity must be enlisted service. These men were not enlisted at the time to which my hon. Friend refers. I am afraid that if we made a departure from the basis on which the service gratuity is paid we should be landed in all sorts of difficulties.

  LONDON TERRITORIAL REGIMENTS.

    TRIUMPHAL MARCH THROUGH LONDON.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of setting apart a day for a march through the Metropolis of the London Territorial regiments who took part in the War?
    Captain GUEST: I understand that the Lord Mayor of London hopes to arrange for a Triumphal March of London Regiments through London, though I have no definite information yet in regard to this proposal. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 25th March to the hon. Member for Rochdale, to the effect that directions have been given that the question of triumphal marches of troops in their territorial areas should be studied with a view to action in all possible cases. My hon. Friend may rest assured that London will not be overlooked in this connection.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman put himself in communication with the Lord Mayor, so as to settle the matter at an early date?
    Captain GUEST: The War Office is expressly waiting to hear suggestions from the Lord Mayor.
    Sir F. HALL: In communicating with the Lord Mayor, will the War Office ask him to consider the advisability of communicating with the mayors of the various Meropolitan boroughs?
    Captain GUEST: Yes, Sir; when the communication arrives from the Lord Mayor.

    TERRITORIAL TROOPS (ACTIVE SERVICE).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War the approxi-
    1052
    mate number of Territorials who landed in India in 1914 who have seen active service?
    Captain GUEST: The figures are not available at present, and in view of the pressure of work in the Record Office I am afraid I cannot undertake to have a Return of the numbers prepared—at any rate for the present.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: May we take it for granted that the large majority of these Territorial troops have seen active service?
    Captain GUEST: I think that a great many more have seen active service than is thought by public opinion.

    LONDON HOTELS (OCCUPATION BY WAR OFFICE).
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for War which London hotels are at present under the control of the War Office, and the purposes to which they are applied?
    Captain GUEST: The number of the hotels at present under the control of the War Office is fourteen. With my right hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the detailed list showing the purposes to which each is applied.
    The following is the detailed list promised:—
    Hotels taken in the London District, showing the purposes to which they are applied:
    Hospitals.

    Great Central Hotel, Marylebone.

    Endsleigh Palace Hotel.

    Home Mechanical Transport Depot.

    Russell Court Hotel, Guildford Street.

    New Zealand Headquarters.

    Tollard Royal Hotel.

    Army Service Corps Supplies.

    Privatali Hotel (part of).

    Hostels.

    Buckingham Palace Hotel.

    Premier Hotel, Southampton Row.

    Royal Air Force.

    Hotel Cecil.

    Adelphi Hotel.

    Orchard Hotel, Portman Street.

    Petrograd Hotel, North Audley Street.

    Covent Garden Hotel.

    American Expeditionary Force Headquarters.

    Belgrave Mansions Hotel.

    Goring Hotel.

    Note.—This does not include any hotels taken over by His Majesty's Office of Works.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way to offer conscientious objectors now in prison the opportunity of release on condition that they take their places as non-combatants in the Army of Occupation, and so release men who have borne the burdens of fighting and long service and for whom places are waiting in civilian life?
    Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Southport on 17th March, to the effect that it has always been the practice to release any man of the class referred to who has given an undertaking to serve in any non-combatant unit, and that any conscientious objector who is prepared to give that undertaking will be given the opportunity of so serving.

    DR. FREYBERGER.
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the act of disloyalty that caused the naturalisation certificate of Dr. Freyberger to be rescinded; and why was he employed officially as a pathological expert to conduct post-mortem examinations when many experts of purely British blood could have filled that position?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The act of disloyalty committed by Dr. Freyberger was the aiding and abetting of his son in an attempt to disclaim British in favour of Austrian nationality, and so avoid military service. I believe that many years ago Dr. Freyberger's name was included by the London County Council in a list of competent pathologists whom London coroners were authorised to consult, but, so far as I am aware, he was never employed by the Government.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE (PENSIONS).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to increase the pensions of those men who rejoined the Metropolitan Police Force in 1914 and who have served continuously until March, 1919?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir. The pensioners who were re-employed were allowed to retain their pensions, and received, in addition, a special rate of pay in consideration of the fact that they could not earn any increase of pension.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DISABLED MEN).
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements has been made to relieve employers of any increased liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act with respect to the employment of disabled men?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Disabled Sailors and Soldiers Compensation Committee, which reported last year, recommended that certain arrangements should be made with insurance companies and others by which employers would be indemnified against any increased liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act arising from the employment of disabled men. The nature of these arrangements is summarised on pages 7 and 8 of their Report. As stated in reply to the hon. Member for West Woolwich on the 20th February last, His Majesty's Government have approved the adoption of arrangements on these lines, and the necessary legislation will be introduced at an early date.

    HOLLOWAY GAOL.
    Lieut-Col. Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary how many of the prisoners in Holloway are epileptic, how many tuberculous, and how many feeble-minded?
    Mr. SHORTT: The number classed as-epileptic is seven, as tubercular four, and as feeble-minded six.

    ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary what is the number of alien enemies at present interned in this country; have any and, if so, what number been released since 11th November, 1918; how many have been repatriated since that date; and what arrangements are being made for dealing with those still interned?
    Mr. SHORTT: The number of alien enemies at present interned is about 5,000. The number released since the Armistice is forty-one, and upon this point I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire on the 11th March. The number repatriated from the internment camps since the Armistice is 20,586. As regards the last part of the question, repatriation is still in progress, and will be applied to all except those whose claims to stay here are allowed for exceptional reasons by a tribunal to be appointed for the purpose.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the nature of the tribunal and when it is to be established?
    Mr. SHORTT: The tribunal will have at its head a learned judge of the High Court, and it will be constituted pretty much as it was before the Dissolution.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it to be understood that practically the whole of these enemy, aliens will be repatriated?
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot prejudge the findings of the Committee.
    Sir F. HALL: Is that the intention of the Government?
    Mr. SHORTT: The intention of the Government will be to follow the advice which the Committee gives them.
    Sir F. HALL: Do they always follow it?

    ARMY BOOTS (SALE).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that Army boots have been sold as waste product at the price of 4d. per pair, and that it was estimated that half of them were capable of repair, and were subsequently sold at 14s. and 15s. per pair in shops; and what steps he proposes to take?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I have been asked to reply to this question. At present I have not sufficient information to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question, but if he will give me particulars I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DISCHARGED MEN (TUBERCULOSIS).
    Colonel MILDMAYasked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the possibility of continuing the total disability pension to all men discharged with active tuberculosis for at least twelve months after their discharge, in view of the fact that the reduction of this pension has been found to induce the men to take unsuitable work, often with very serious consequences?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir James Craig): My hon. and gallant Friend's object appears to be met by the present practice. Men discharged with active tuberculosis are proper subjects for treatment in sanatoria, and arrangements have been made with the National Health Insurance Commissioners for the provision of institutional treatment in all such cases as quickly as possible. While the men are under treatment they receive allowances equivalent to pension at the total disablement rate.

  TUBERCULOSIS.

    INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Pensions how many ex-Service men suffering from tuberculosis were awaiting sanatorium treatment on the 28th February last?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): I have been asked, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, to answer this question. The number of discharged tuberculous men awaiting residential treatment on the date named was approximately 470.
    I may add that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, in conjunction with the Minister of

    1057
    Pensions, has appointed an Interdepartmental Committee with the following terms of reference:
    "To consider and report upon the immediate practical steps which should be taken for the provision of residential treatment for discharged soldiers and sailors suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and for their re-introduction into employment, especially on the land."
    The Committee will consist of representatives of the several Departments concerned, and of Members of this House. I have 'been asked to act as chairman. Replies are still awaited in one or two cases, but I hope shortly to circulate with the Votes the names of the members of the Committee.
    Colonel ASHLEY: What immediate steps have been taken, because if these unfortunate men have to wait for the Report they will probably all be dead?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Would it not be more to the purpose if the Local Government Board had provided extra sanatorium accommodation at once?
    Major ASTOR: The Local Government Board is taking every step to provide additional sanatorium accommodation. All I meant to convey by that answer was that there was not a long waiting list on the particular date mentioned. There are something like 200 committees concerned, and there were only a couple of cases from each committee on the waiting list at that moment.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a longer waiting list of civilian patients? What steps have been taken to deal with them?
    Major ASTOR: I think the civilian tuberculous people have a far longer waiting list than discharged ex-soldiers. This question only refers to ex-soldiers. The Local Government Board is taking every step to try to encourage the provision of institutional treatment for the population at large.
    An HON. MEMBER: Does this apply to soldiers in Ireland suffering from tuberculosis?
    Major ASTOR: I think so.

    QUEEN MARY'S WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAINasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that tuberculosis contracted by
    1058
    women during service with Queen Mary's Women's Army Auxiliary Corps cannot be certified as attributable to that service, and consequently that no compensation or gratuity is granted in such cases, whereas tuberculosis contracted during service by a man is considered attributable and as giving a claim to consideration for a pension, and whether he will introduce a measure to remove this and similar inequalities in the treatment of ex-Service men and women?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to answer this question. I think my hon. Friend is referring to cases where members of the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps have contracted tuberculosis in this country. Such cases are dealt with under the regulations applicable to civilian subordinates, whether women or men.

    GOVERNMENT DAIRY FARM.
    Captain BROWNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether it is proposed to establish a Government demonstration dairy farm in the county of Northumberland?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): The Board's scheme does not at present include a demonstration farm for arable dairying in Northumberland. Only a limited number can be started, and they will be placed in the districts in which it is considered this method of milk production is most likely to be successful, and in which the operation of ploughing orders would restrict the amount of cow-keeping unless the farmers can be shown an alternative method of keeping cows. Should the demonstrations succeed in their purpose the trials would be extended into other districts.
    Captain BROWN: Might we be informed where they are to be established?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly if the hon. Member will give me notice.

    GERMAN PRISONER CAMPS (FOOD CONSIGNMENTS).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, before this country is committed to supplying Germany with food, he will take steps to stop the large

    1059
    consignments regularly arriving at German prisoner-of-war camps in this country of bacon, butter, flour, sugar, cakes, apples, and cheese, or, in the alternative, to commandeer such parcels and treat them as part of the rations for the prisoners?
    Captain GUEST: The parcels received in this country from Germany for German prisoners of war are sent in accordance with agreements made during the War. The amount of foodstuffs they contain is not sufficiently large to make an appreciable difference.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not obvious that if one consignment was commandeered no more would come, and that the small amount that does come blunts the appetite of these prisoners for British provisions, and therefore there is a saving to the State?

    ROAD-STONE CONTROL COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the directions of the Road-Stone Control Committee (War Office), dated 17th July, 1918, operate unfairly in the case of quarry-owners; whether the cost of maintaining wagons has increased by 250 per cent., approximately, since 1914; whether railway companies, by reason of their contract with the Government, are able to meet this increased cost of repair; and whether similar consideration should be given to quarry-owners, whose wagons are also at the service of the nation?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I understand that, under the directions to which my hon. Friend refers, the addition to the free-on-rail price of road materials to cover delivery at destination station in privately-owned wagons must not exceed the amount which would be charged by a railway company for such conveyance if the material were carried in railway-owned wagons. I am informed, however, that the increased cost of maintenance of privately-owned wagons is taken into consideration in fixing the maximum price of quarried material, and is, in fact, treated as part of the cost of production.
    Mr. HURD: Are we to understand that there is really no differentiation in the matter between the quarry owners and the railway companies?
    Mr. FORSTER: I did not say that. What I said was that the addition to the price to cover delivery must not exceed, in the case of privately-owned wagons, that which is properly chargeable in the case of railway wagons.
    Mr. HURD: Does that mean that there is no differentiation in the treatment of these two classes?
    Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member has reason to think that the intention of the regulation is not carried out and gives me particulars I will inquire into it.

    WOMEN MAGISTRATES.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has yet considered the appointment of women magistrates; and, if not, whether they will do so?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): This question has not yet been considered by the Government.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is it going to be considered by the Government and, if so, when?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say anything about when. I suppose it will have to be considered some day.

  STAPLE INDUSTRIES.

    STATUTORY COMMISSIONS.
    Mr SITCHasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the information respecting costs, uneconomical management, and profits revealed by the Coal Industry Commission, he will advise His Majesty to establish further statutory commissions in order to elicit information of a like character concerning other staple industries with the view to effecting economies in production and management and thereby securing a decrease in the cost of living?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

  INCOME TAX.

    HUSBANDS AND WIVES.
    Lieutenant-Colonel ROUNDELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    1061
    whether he can give an estimate of the cost of removing the joint assessment to Income Tax of husbands and wives?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The immediate annual loss to the Exchequer would be £20,000,000. The loss would, however, be an increasing one, and might easily reach in a short time £50,000,000 per annum.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are we to understand that this very large sum is the measure of the present injustice to married persons, and will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of meeting the cost of the reform out of a tax on bachelors?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend's first question is in the nature of argument. I will only say No to it. I do not agree. As to the second, I will not anticipate my Budget Statement.

    HOUSE REPAIRS.
    Major COPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increase in the cost of repairs to houses, he will consider the advisability of granting a larger allowance for such repairs under Schedule A, Income Tax?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

    INTERIM CLAIM FOR REPAYMENT.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether a married woman can, like an unmarried woman, make an interim claim for repayment of Income Tax if her husband's assessments happen not to be settled until the end of the year of assessment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There would normally be no difficulty in making an interim repayment to the wife in the circumstances stated.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: How can a married woman make an interim claim for repayment if she has to take her husband's income into account, and his income is not known?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend wants a further explanation, I can give it to him. In reply to a written answer I can give him all the details. I
    1062
    am afraid I cannot give it to him now, but I can assure him that normally there is no difficulty in the matter.

    EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the amount of unemployment now existing, the Government will take steps to prohibit the employment of aliens in Government and private employment until British labour has been fully absorbed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. With regard to Government employment in the sense of employment directly under the Crown, no persons of alien nationality are now being engaged and the Civil Service Commissioners propose to fill vacancies with persons of British nationality only. As far as the employment of aliens by private employers is concerned, the facts are that in respect of aliens who came to the United Kingdom during the War for employment on war services steps have been taken by the Ministry of Labour to repatriate a very considerable number, and the proportion still remaining in the United Kingdom is small. With respect to aliens who were demiciled in this country before the War, instructions have been issued to Employment Exchanges not to submit an alien for any vacancy for which a suitable British applicant is available, and in no circumstances to submit an alien for a vacancy outside the area of the Exchange at which he is registered.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the Government going to take steps very soon to tighten up the alien laws generally?
    Mr. WARDLE: That is a question which should be put to the Leader of the House.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any condition in Government (Contracts that the contractor shall not employ these agents?
    Mr. WARDLE: My Department is not responsible for Government contracts.
    Colonel BURN: Will the hon. Gentleman see that aliens who are employed in Government offices and who evaded military service are got rid of and sent back to their country?
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask the Leader of the House that question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of it.

    UNCLAIMED BANK BALANCES.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of unclaimed bank balances in this country and the estimated value of all unclaimed jewellery, plate, etc., similarly deposited; and whether he will take steps to apply the same in the nation's interests?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: While I cannot give a figure, inquiries made by the Treasury indicate that the amount which would be likely to be forthcoming from these sources is not substantial. I do not think any action is called for in the matter.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the inquiries be made from the bankers themselves?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They have been made; but they were made before I was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. RENWICKasked a question which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not hear the hon. Member.
    Mr. RENWICK: I will repeat it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put it on the Paper.

    AGRICULTURE (WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the desirability of issuing as a separate Blue Book the sections relating to Wales in the recently published Reports on wages and conditions of employment in agriculture; and whether he will place a certain number of copies at the disposal of the parish councils and agricultural labourers' unions for free distribution and send a free copy to every village institute throughout Wales?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir, the Board will adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion and publish as a separate Departmental Paper the sections which relate to Wales, but they have no power to distribute free copies thereof.

    SMALL HOLDINGS (ISLE OF ELY).
    Sir RICHARD WINFREYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board propose to give consent to the purchase of a farm by the Isle of Ely County Council, in the parish of Thorney, for the purpose of small holdings for discharged soldiers at the price of £80 per acre, seeing that His Grace the Duke of Bedford sold this land about ten years ago for £35 per acre; and, if so, what will be the approximate rents charged to the new occupiers after the land has been equipped by the erection of houses and suitable buildings so as to permit of holdings of from 30 to 50 acres being created?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board have not received any proposal from the Isle of Ely County Council to purchase a farm at Thorney. If such a proposal is received the value of the land and its price will be carefully considered before the Board a sanction is given.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does not this show what good landlords Dukes are?

    ALLOTMENTS (EAST SHEEN).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether certain allotment-holders at Fife Road, East Sheen, have been ejected from their allotments on the ground that the land was required for immediate building; whether it has now been ascertained that no such building can immediately take place and that the owner has now stated that he will himself cultivate the land; whether he will ascertain if such owner has taken any steps to cultivate the land; and, failing which, will the Board take steps whereby the allotment-holders can be reinstated?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: This land was given up in consequence of an assurance from the owner that he proposed to build at once, and that until the work actually began he would continue to cultivate the land. Inquiry will be made into the present position, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CEREALS (GUARANTEED PRICES).
    Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the

    1065
    Board of Agriculture whether he can now state the manner in which the undertaking given by the President of the Board of Agriculture, on 19th November last, with regard to prices for cereals for 1919 crops will be carried out?
    Sir A. COSCAWEN: The prices guaranteed by the Government for 1919 grain crops are as follows:

    (1) Wheat, 71s. 11d. per qr. of 480 lbs. (or 75s. 6d. per qr. of 504 lbs).

    (2) Barley, 61s. 6d. per qr. of 400 lbs. (or 68s. 10½d. per qr. of 448 lbs).

    (3) Oats, 44s. 1d. per qr. of 312 lbs. (or 47s. 6d. per qr. of 336 lbs.).

    The guarantee applies to the proportion of the entire produce of each cereal normally sold, and not in respect of the proportion consumed on the farm.
    It has been decided to give effect to these guarantees by means of the machinery of Part I. of the Corn Production Act, 1917. This involves payment to growers of any difference between "average prices" and "guaranteed prices," on the basis of a yield per acre of 4 qrs. of wheat, 4 qrs. of barley, and 5 qrs. of oats, respectively.
    It has been decided to take four-fifths in the case of barley and two-thirds in the case of oats as the proportion normally sold. The grower of wheat will therefore be paid for each acre four times the difference between 71s. 11d. and the average market price ascertained for the seven months commencing 1st September, 1919. The grower of barley will receive for each acre four times four-fifths of the difference between 61s. 6d. and the average price of barley similarly determined. The grower of oats will receive for each acre five times two-thirds of the difference between 44s. 1d. and the average price of oats similarly determined.
    These guarantees are subject to the provisions of Clause 1 (b) of the Corn Production Act, 1917, which deal with negligent cultivation.
    Mr. FITZROY: In view of the fact that of all cereals rye has to be sold earlier than any others, and in view of the fact that it was grown largely under the order of the Food Controller and made a standard part of war bread, will the Board include rye in the guaranteed price?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Will the hon. Gentleman give notice of that?
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Are the Government going to take the crop themselves?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; we do not propose to take over the crop. What we propose to do is to apply the machinery of the Corn Production Act and pay the difference between the average price and the guaranteed price.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Has not the machinery of the Corn Production Act broken down this year?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; I do not think so.
    Major WOOD: In view of the statement made, what steps will be taken by the Government to make these prices effective in the way of finding markets, if the market does not exist?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; we cannot give any guarantee to find a market, and no such statement was made. What we do is to give the difference between the guaranteed price and the average price.
    Colonel ASHLEY: If there is no sale, how can there be a market?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Of course there would be a sale. Does the hon. Gentleman think there has ever been a year when there has been no sale?
    Major WHELER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time in many cases wheat has not been able to be sold?

    EXTRA FOOD.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Food Controller what are the regulations affecting the provision of extra food which have been recommended by a duly qualified medical practitioner; and whether the same is within the sole discretion of a medical officer of his Department?
    The MINSTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): Under the arrangements for the provision of extra food for invalids, food control committees are empowered in the majority of cases to grant extra rations up to certain maxima to persons presenting a certificate from a duly qualified medical practitioner. In a few cases, applications are referred by the food control committee to the Ministry of Food and are dealt with under the supervision of the medical adviser to the Ministry. I may add that these arrangements were framed in consultation with a medical advisory committee appointed

    1067
    by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in conjunction with the Food Controller, and are varied from time to time with the assistance of that committee in order to correspond with modifications in the rationing regulations.

    "NATIONAL FOOD JOURNAL."
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPEasked the Food Controller how much the publication of the "Food Control Journal" costs; and how long it is proposed to continue its issue?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The total cost of the last six issues of the "National Food Journal," including paper, was £1,735. From this has to be deducted £1,295, receipts from sales, the total net cost cost accordingly being £440, or at the rate of about £70 for each issue. In future the journal will be issued monthly instead of fortnightly, and it is expected that it will be discontinued altogether about September next. I may add that the journal has served an extremely useful purpose in keeping food control committees, traders, and others interested, informed of the work of the Ministry.
    Sir J. HOPE: In view of the necessity for economy, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of suspending this issue altogether, and also of reducing the other establishment charges of the Food Ministry?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am considering every charge with a view to its determination at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing recipes so as to make Government food eatable?

    INSURANCE COMPANIES (CLAIMS AGAINST GERMANY).
    Mr. THOMAS SHAWasked the Secretary to the Treasury if industrial insurance companies have submitted claims against Germany for sums paid on policies held by the relatives of soldiers who have been killed; and whether he will see that friendly societies and trade unions who pay funeral benefits shall receive any concession granted to insurance companies?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not aware that any industrial insurance companies
    1068
    have submitted claims against the German Government for sums paid on policies held by the relatives of soldiers who have been killed. Any British friendly society, trade union, or other insurance institution can register claims under the Foreign Claims Office for losses which it has sustained in respect of policy-holders killed by illegal enemy action.

    WATER POWER RESOURCES COMMITTEE (NORTH WALES SURVEYS).
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade when and by whom partial surveys of certain water powers in North Wales were made on behalf of the Water Power Resources Committee; whether there is any reference in the interim Report of the Board of Trade Water Power Resources Committee to any scheme for utilising North Wales water powers for the benefit of the community; and whether copies of this interim Report will be available for the public?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): Provisional surveys of certain water powers in North Wales were made in August and September last on behalf of the Water Power Resources Committee by Mr. W. Vaux Graham, M.Inst.C.E. The committee deal with the general question of the development of water powers for public purposes in paragraphs 11 and 17 of their interim Report, which has now been published.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    TROOPS AND MUNITIONS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any payments have been made from the National Exchequer in respect to the conveyance on the railways of troops and munitions during the War; if so, can he state the approximate amount; and, if not, will he explain the meaning of the statement regarding the present financial position of the railways that a liability is imposed upon the National Exchequer?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No direct payments have hitherto been made by the Exchequer to the controlled railway companies for the conveyance of troops and munitions, but so far as such conveyance involves an

    1069
    increase in railway working expenses and a reduction in ordinary traffic receipts, the Exchequer is affected in accordance with the arrangement under which the railway companies are guaranteed their pre-war net receipts.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is it true that the Government for more than one year since the War received money from the railway companies over and above the expenditure, notwithstanding that no payment was made for all the troops conveyed?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

    TRAIN SERVICE, DUNSTON AND NEWCASTLEON-TYNE.
    Mr. SPOORasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the passenger train service between Dunston and Newcastle-on-Tyne, which was suspended during the War because of the great amount of munitions traffic, has not yet been restarted and that great inconvenience is being caused to large numbers of people in consequence; and if he will use his influence in order to have the service resumed immediately?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that the passenger train service referred to has been suspended, and I have recently been in communication with the North-Eastern Railway Company on the subject. The company explain that the goods traffic at present requiring to be conveyed is even greater than at the date when the passenger service was discontinued. I much regret the inconvenience now being suffered by would-be passengers, but I could not press the company to take action which would increase the existing difficulties in dealing with goods traffic.

    LOCOMOTIVES IN FRANCE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked how many locomotives still remain in France, and whether he will consider the possibility of getting as many as possible on this side so as to enable more trains to be run at Easter and Whitsuntide?
    Captain GUEST: Four hundred and twenty-three locomotives owned by British railway companies are still retained in France, and thirty-six locomotives have been returned to date. The remainder are being returned as they can be released, and as speedily as trans-Channel facilities
    1070
    permit. There are in addition 786 locomotives in France which are the property of the War Department.

    HOSTILE AIRCRAFT (INSURANCE PREMIUMS).
    Major WHELERasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade the grounds on which it is said to be not practicable to make refunds to those public bodies of the insurance premiums against hostile aircraft which were paid shortly before the Armistice on 11th November?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is estimated that there were about 2,500,000 policies in force at the date of the Armistice, and it would need a separate calculation in each case to determine what is the proper amount to be returned. The scheme is worked almost entirely through the fire insurance companies, who have not the staff to do the work involved in the refunds. For these reasons the Aircraft Insurance Committee came to the conclusion that it was impracticable to make a general refund of premiums, and no special exceptions can be made.
    Major WHELER: Is it not a fact that considerable profit was made, and could not some refund be made?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Government have made a considerable amount out of this, but they have had to pay for aircraft defence.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is it not possible out of these profits to make refunds to those people who have had their property destroyed by aircraft prior to the date on which their policy was put into force?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have notice of that question.

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (STAFF).
    Major O'NEILLasked what reduction in the numbers of the staff and employés, male and female, of the Ministry has taken place since 11th November, 1918?
    Mr. HOPE: Since the date of the Armistice the headquarters staff of the Ministry of Munitions has been reduced from 25,144 to 16,101. This represents a reduction of 9,043 persons, of whom 2,541 were transferred to the Demobilisation

    1071
    and Resettlement Department of the Ministry of Labour, and 6,502 have been discharged.
    Major O'NEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the rate of discharge will be at any rate increased in the near future?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Why has the rate of demobilisation been so slow?
    Mr. HOPE: I am afraid that I cannot give an absolute promise. Hundreds have been discharged during the last fortnight. But the business of the liquidation of contracts demands a large staff, and hon. Members may appreciate that sometimes it is quite as complicated a business to get out of your liabilities as to incur them.

  HOUSING.

    DISABLED MEN.
    Brigadier-General COCKERILLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in connection with any general scheme of housing and town-planning, he will consider the advisability of providing a sufficient supply of houses specially designed to meet the requirements of disabled men, e.g., provided with lifts, etc., and, in appropriate cases, grouped as garden cities, so as to afford such men the fullest possible amenities in their home life and easy access to their work?
    Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any practical proposals in the housing schemes submitted by local authorities for giving effect to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

    SMALL-POX.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, with regard to the cases of smallpox in 1918, and the two deaths regarding which the diagnosis was open to some doubt, he is aware that the medical men who diagnosed the cases have no doubt whatever but that the disease was smallpox; and whether he will give the grounds for the statement that the diagnosis was open to doubt?
    Major ASTOR: In one case the certificate of death gives the case as "doubtful
    1072
    variola." The other was the subject of an inquest and a verdict was given that the death was due to natural causes in accordance with medical evidence. Upon examination of the body the indications were not sufficiently conclusive to warrant a positive diagnosis, although the case was suggestive of hemorrhagic small-pox.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Was not this diagnosed by a medical man as small-pox?
    Major ASTOR: It is quite true that one medical man diagnosed it as the hon. Member suggests, but there was also a contrary opinion.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Major E. WOODasked whether, in considering an application for an old age pension, receipts in kind are included in the estimate of the applicant's means; and whether an applicant, having no actual means but being maintained by others, is eligible for a pension?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the second part would depend on the conditions of the particular case.
    Major WOOD: If I bring a particular case to the notice of my hon. Friend will he hold out any hope of a sympathetic reply?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will give a direct reply. It may be sympathetic or not.

    AIR MINISTRY (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. RAPERasked if the Break Clause has been imposed in the case of all contracts which were in force when the Armistice was signed for the supply of aeroplanes, engines, and spare parts; and whether in any case the imposition of this Break Clause has been subsequently varied?
    Mr. HOPE: The Break Clause has been imposed on all contracts for aeroplanes, seaplanes, engines and spare parts, in force at the date of the Armistice, with the exception of contracts for certain of the latest types of machines and engines, which the Ministry of Munitions has requested by the Air Ministry to complete, and of contracts for obsolete types where

    1073
    it has been thought preferable to stop work rather than to incur expenditure during the Break period. The quantities to be delivered under the Break Clause have, in many cases, been varied, after investigation of the work in progress, in order to secure the greatest economy, having regard to the expenditure already incurred, and the value of the articles when completed.
    Mr. RAPER: Will the hon Gentleman give particulars of the contracts which have been varied?
    Mr. HOPE: I think that would be too long. Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me on that matter.
    Mr. RAPERasked why the system which was adopted of allowing contractors a certain profit on materials supplied to them by the Government was made retrospective?
    Mr. HOPE: From the form of the question it is not possible to identify the system to which my hon. Friend refers. If he will supply me with further particulars I will have inquiries made.

    POST OFFICE WIRELESS STATIONS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes to continue control of the Post Office wireless stations after peace is declared; and, if so, whether he is aware that the Post Office wireless operators desire to retain their civilian status and, in view of any change being made, if he will take them into consultation before any final decision is reached?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No suggestion has been made that the Admiralty should retain permanently any stations in which Post Office wireless operatore are employed.

    ADMIRALTY ACCOMMODATION, INVERNESS.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether three of the largest hotels in Inverness are still requisitioned by his Department, with a staff of 200 employés, whose work consists of looking after three tugs, which are scarcely ever used, and a few trawlers, which also are rarely employed; and
    1074
    whether he will consider the desirability of releasing these tugs for service on other parts of the coast?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Two hotels, the "Palace" and the "Alexandra," and Inverness College, remain in Admiralty occupation, and 182 officers and ratings-(including forty-seven members of the Women's Royal Naval Service) are still employed under the Senior Naval Officer, Inverness. During the War, as my hon. Friend will very well understand, the: duties of the Senior Naval Officer, Inverness, were heavy and responsible. Of course, many of these have-lapsed, and the work of reducing the-base has been pushed forward steadily. I do not imagine that my hon. Friend seriously means that this officer-has a staff of 200 ranks and ratings for the mere purpose of looking after three tugs which are scarcely ever used and a few trawlers which are also rarely employed. But if my hon. Friend will put a question down one day next week, I will in the meantime secure a full and detailed report on the work still being performed and the officers and men still; retained at Inverness to perform the same.

    LOSS OF THE "HAMPSHIRE" (NON-PUBLICATION OF REPORT).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty upon what principle his Department declines to publish the proceedings at the inquiry into the loss of the "Hampshire"?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have endeavoured to state fully the grounds of justification for Admiralty policy respecting the non-publication of Reports of Courts of inquiry. As the answer is lengthy, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer referred to:
    The considerations which have influenced the Admiralty in refusing—as they always, have done—to publish the Reports of Courts of inquiry are as follows:—
    A Court of inquiry is not a legal body, but is simply a means of enabling a senior officer to arrive at a correct conclusion on any matter upon which he requires to be thoroughly informed or upon which there may be a question whether it should form the subject of a court-martial.
    It cannot examine on oath, nor compel the attendance of witnesses other than

    1075
    those belonging to the Naval Service. There is no prosecutor, nor is any person concerned in the inquiry allowed the assistance of a "friend" or professional adviser. Its procedure is not regulated by strict rules of law.
    It cannot give a verdict or award a punishment, but can merely express an opinion or make recommendations to assist the senior officer (or the Admiralty) in arriving at a right conclusion on any matter.
    My hon. Friend will realise that an inquiry of this kind may be of the greatest value in indicating what amount and quality of evidence is likely to be available in a case should judicial proceedings be instituted. It must, however, not be treated as if it were itself a judicial inquiry. My hon. Friend again will realise that the chief value of Courts of inquiry consists in the fact that they are not restricted by the ordinary rules of law and procedure; but this freedom can only be maintained by insisting on the almost informal character of these proceedings as aids to the authorities in making up their minds, and by denying to the findings of such Courts any final and intrinsic validity of their own.
    In these circumstances, if it were decided to publish the findings of such Courts, the Admiralty would be bound in justice to the public and to individuals to change the whole scope and character of Courts of inquiry, and to make them into judicial bodies, thus destroying much of their usefulness.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: That is without prejudice to my putting another question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as I am concerned.

    TELEGRAMS (DELIVERY).
    Sir P. GRIGGSasked the Postmaster-General whether steps can be taken to facilitate the delivery of telegrams at Seven Kings, Ilford, seeing that at the present time the delivery from the local post office to roads near by has taken from two to three hours, as shown in case No. 1, G.P.O. reference 1300/19, time taken for delivery to Elgin Road two and a half hours, and, in case No. 2, time taken for delivery to 181, Aldborough Road two hours fifty minutes?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The delay in delivering the telegram at Elgin Road, Seven Kings, was caused by heavy pressure of business at the local office. The telegram addressed to 181 Aldborough Road cannot be traced from the particulars furnished, but it seems probable that any delay was due to the same cause. I am taking steps to strengthen the messenger force at the Seven Kings office, and I hope that there will be an immediate improvement in the service.

    MEMBERS' CORRESPONDENCE.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Post master-General whether, in view of the in creasing correspondence imposed upon Members of the House and the increased rates of postage, he will arrange that each Member applying at the Lobby post office may be supplied with a limited number of franked envelopes each week on signing a form that such envelopes shall be used solely for the purpose of political correspondence?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: As I stated in reply to a similar question last year, I should be sorry to see any system of franking Members' letters revived.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all Ministers have a right to frank the same letters on the same subjects as those on which Members have to pay postage?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Of course I am aware of it.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ministers not only frank letters for official purposes, but also, as I can prove to him if he has not the evidence, for their private correspondence?

    POSTAL EMPLOYES (RE-ENLISTMENT).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Postmaster-General whether he will grant facilities to Post Office employés to re-enlist in the Army of Occupation and will guarantee their re-employment on de mobilisation?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The posts of Post Office servants who obtain the permission of the Post Office to volunteer for further

    1077
    military service in the Armies of Occupation will be kept open for them. I am prepared to grant permission to re-enlist to Post Office servants who can be spared from their civil duties.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Will these Post Office servants be allowed to re-enlist without prejudice to their careers?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I have already answered that question.

    LONDON DRESSMAKERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the National Federation of Women Workers that women have not refused occupations at anything like a decent wage of 25s. a week or over; and is he aware that dressmakers at the West End of London are prepared to pay a weekly wage far exceeding that amount, but are unable to obtain hands; and will he institute an inquiry at the dressmaking establishments at the West End of London and ascertain how many situations are awaiting suitable applicants, and at a suitable remuneration for services rendered?
    Mr. WARDLE: My attention has been called to this statement. I am aware that dressmaking establishments in the West End are in want of hands. The main difficulty in satisfying their requirements is that the demand is mainly for skilled and experienced hands, while the supply, consists largely of women, who lack the requisite skill and experience. I have, however, for some time past been in communication with representatives of the trade with a view to seeing how far the difficulties can be remedied.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that dressmakers are prepared at the present time to pay from 24s. to 25s. a week to unskilled hands and to teach them their trade, and will he endeavour to bring these dressmakers and the unemployed women into communication?
    Mr. WARDLE: They are constantly in communication.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No; they are not.

    PAPER SUPPLIES.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether he obtained evidence from the paper trade that British mills are now unable to supply all the paper which is required?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Inquiries were made before a decision was arrived at. The conclusion reached was that the mills are not at present in a condition to supply the quantity of paper estimated to be required, nor could they be placed in a condition to do so for some time to come. This especially applies to descriptions of paper known as newsprint, bag papers, and strawboard.
    Lieutenant-Colonel HOPE: Will the hon. Gentleman say from whom inquiry was made, and whether the paper mills have not now huge stocks of which they cannot dispose?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say offhand from whom the inquiries were made.
    Lieutenant-Colonel HOPE: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the paper mills have large stocks of paper on hand?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They may have of some kinds of paper.

    REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers who are repatriated prisoners of war are entitled to have refunded to them the private moneys which were kept back from them by the Germans when they left the prisoner-of-war camps in Germany?
    Mr. FORSTER: Arrangements have been made to refund to officers the balances retained by the Germans when the officers were repatriated in all cases where sufficient evidence is forthcoming as to the actual balance due.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE (WAR SURCHARGES).
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received any complaints regarding the charges now being

    1079
    made as war surcharges with respect to the installation of new telephones; whether he is aware that in one case in Manchester a payment of £12 10s. was demanded before the installation would be proceeded with, although the usual surcharge while the War was on was £4; and whether, in the interests of the trade of the country, he will consider the possibility of reducing these charges?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The general question of the surcharge on new installations is under consideration. The surcharge is at present based on the out-of-pocket expenses involved in providing the line required, £4 being the minimum payment. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of the case to which he refers I will have the correctness of the charge verified.

    BLOCKADE OF ENEMY COUNTRIES.
    Mr. GERALD FRANCE(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact, as stated in the Press this morning, that the blockade of enemy countries has been completely lifted, and if it is possible to make a statement, for the benefit of those engaged in export trade?
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: The House is probably aware that the blockade of Turkey, Bulgaria, and German-Austria has been raised. There is no foundation whatever for any statement that the blockade of Germany has been raised. I should welcome an opportunity to make a general statement on this subject.
    Mr. FRANCE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity to-morrow evening, on the Debate on exports, to make the statement he has referred to?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like to be able to do so. It must depend on the trend of the discussion raised by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution.
    Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: Does that mean that the mail and cable censorship between the United Kingdom and these countries is abolished?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is quite another matter, and I am afraid I cannot answer. It concerns another Department.

    CAVENDISH CLARKE'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
    Message to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Cavendish Clarke's Divorce Bill [Lords].—[The Lord Advocate.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added to Standing Committee D the following Members: Mr. MacVeagh, Captain Redmond, Mr. Donald, and Mr. Reid.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Lieutenant-Colonel Burgoyne; and had appointed in substitution: Lieutenant-Colonel Pownall.

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Lieutenant-Colonel Sir John Hope; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke.

  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee E: Sir William Pearce; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Thomas Williams.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added to Standing Committee E: Sir Hamar Greenwood (in respect of the Dogs' Protection Bill), Sir William Watson Cheyne, Mr. Holmes, and Sir Philip Magnus.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added to Standing Committee E the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Nurses' Registration Bill): Major Astor, Major Barnett, Mr. Briant, Sir William Watson Cheyne, Mr. Dugald

  1081
  Cowan, Mr. Joseph Green, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Sir Edgar Jones, Mr. Lyle, Lieutenant-Colonel Raw, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Frederick Roberts, Sir Samuel Scott, Colonel Wedgwood, and Sir Robert Woods.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee O: Sir William Ryland Adkins.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they agree to the Amendment made by this House to the Amendment made by the Lords to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to remove disqualification on the ground of sex for admission in Scotland to the practice of the Law." [Advocates and Law Agents (Qualification of Women) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    EX-SOLDIERS' PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND ALLOWANCES.
    To call attention, this day two weeks, to the present scale of gratuities, pensions, and allowances to men who have been in His Majesty's Forces and their dependants, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Hogge.]
    OUT OF WORK DONATIONS.
    To call attention, this day two weeks, to out-of-work donations, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Hurd.]

  MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Progress 28th March.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Debate resumed on the Amendment to the Question—
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Ministry of Ways and Communications, it is expedient—

  (1) To authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament—

  (a) of an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds to the Minister of Ways and Communications, of annual salaries not exceeding one thousand five hundred pounds to the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry, and of such other salaries, remuneration, and expenses as may become payable under such Act;

  (b) of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee, to make contributions to pension or superannuation funds, and to make advances and other payments authorised under such Act;

  (2) To authorise the creation and issue of securities, with interest to be charged so far as not met out of other sources of revenue on the Consolidated Fund:"—

  Which Amendment was, at the end, to insert the words,
  "Provided that no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of capital expenditure required to complete the undertaking has been approved by the Treasury."—[Colonel Gretton.]
  Question again proposed,
  "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. R. McNEILL: On Friday last this matter was under the consideration of the Committee, and those who were present
  1096
  on that occasion will no doubt recall that there was a very general expression of opinion from all parts of the House that, whether or not this particular Amendment was the best way of putting it, some sort of limitation ought to be placed on the expenditure of the Ministry, and there was a general demand that some sort of estimate should be offered by the Government before this Money Resolution was carried. So general was the expression of opinion that the Minister who was at that time in charge of the Resolution consented to Progress being reported in order that, as he himself put it, the matter might be further considered by all parties, no matter whatever view they might take of the proposal before the Committee. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has given that further consideration which the reporting of Progress provided an opportunity for. But I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes), who is the Minister-designate of this Department, is now in his place, and I suppose we may expect from him some explanation of the very unlimited financial obligations which this Money Resolution will entail unless this Amendment, or something like it, is put in. I do appeal both to the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman that they will now make some concession, at all events, to the very general feeling of the Committee—a feeling which I have great confidence is not less strong than it was on Friday, perhaps in consequence of the fact that there is today a much larger attendance of Members. Any hon. Member of the Committee who has given the most cursory examination to the Bill to which this Resolution refers will have seen that the powers which the Minister will have to exercise are almost unlimited, and there has been in the Press this morning a schedule of some of the powers which, under the various Acts which will be overriden by the Bill now before the House, will be transferred to the right hon. Gentleman. We have only got to examine that summary of the powers conveyed to see the perfectly boundless character of the financial possibilities which this Bill opens up.
  It was said by the representative of the Government on Friday, when we were last considering this matter, that it was quite impossible for the Government to give any sort of estimate of the likely expenditure; the only figure mentioned at all by the Home Secretary was £10,000,000 or

  1097
  £15,000,000 as the possible expenditure, and he said that that was a reductio ad absurdum of the expenditure which would be likely to be incurred. Commenting on that statement on Friday, I said that although that gigantic expenditure might appear a reductio ad absurdum in the eyes of the Home Secretary, I was not at all so confident that it would appear a reductio ad absurdum in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman who would have the spending of the money. That is really the position which we, who have been taking some exception to the unlimited character of this Resolution, have put before the House, and we are waiting to know what the Government are going to say about it. Several hon. Members expressed with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister-designate in his absence what I am sure they would all be perfectly ready to say in his presence, to the effect that he is a man of the largest possible ideas, in the matter of expenditure and other things. I think the expression I used was that he was a man of very grandiose ideas. He is a Napoleon in administration, and he has been represented to us on all sides as a superman. I have very little doubt that he is, but his expenditure is likely to be superhuman, and it is in order to exercise some sort of control over that expenditure that I and others who have expressed an opinion on this Resolution are anxious to press the Government to put some sort of limit or to give some sort of estimate of the amount of expenditure that we might find ourselves rushed in for in the course of the financial year. The Home Secretary said that to give any estimate was impossible, but I do not think really that that is a proposition that any member of the Government can venture to stand by. During the War it might very well have been said that it was impossible to give an estimate. There, there were certain matters that had to be done as quickly as possible, no matter what they cost, but there are a vast number of matters which the right hon. Gentleman will have in his charge which may be very desirable things to do, which the House and the country would like to see done, but which it may very well be a matter fox discussion whether they should be done this year or next, matters which, however desirable, are in no sense matters of urgency, which ought to depend upon the cost which will be involved, and on the whole financial
  1098
  position of the country. I am very much inclined to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will be very impatient of considerations of that sort. I believe him in matters of transportation to be a great idealist. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman has visions, visions of what this country might be made by a perfect system of railways, light railways, improved roads and canals, vast systems of interlocked and co-ordinated transportation, by steamers, by motor cars, by rails and so forth, visions which I am perfectly certain the country and the House would be delighted to see realised, and I believe that they are confidently going to place in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the carrying out of the measures necessary to realise them. But it does not follow from that that we are going to allow the right hon. Gentleman to realise the whole of that vast idea in one financial year, or even to start the necessary measures, at perfectly regardless cost, merely because he sees that vision before him and because he knows that in its proper time and place and according to its proper method he is confident of the support of this House and the country. What I do say is that, that being the character of the right hon. Gentleman, the House and the country ought to exercise some sort of control over the methods which he will employ and the expenditure to be involved from time to time.
  4.0 P.M.
  A good many years ago I remember there was a story which had great vogue in this country. It was written by the late Dean Farrar and was the story of a very virtuous little boy, and the title and the sub-title of the book were "Eric, or Little by Little." That was a story, as I say, of an extremely virtuous little boy. He had all sorts of virtues, but he had one or two little naughtinesses which had to be eradicated from his character, and if I recollect rightly eventually he became an ideal specimen of British humanity. What I am afraid of is that our hero of to-day will not be so content to go little by little. I am afraid that he will go by leaps and bounds, and it is in order that the House may exercise just that measure of discipline and control which was necessary for the perfect development of the character of Dean Farrar's hero that I think this Resolution ought to be amended in some such way as has been proposed. I am bound to say, so far as the form of this Resolution is concerned, that I am painfully ignorant. I really do not know

  1099
  exactly what this Resolution means in some respects, and I want to know. In paragraph (b) of the Resolution I see that the Ministry can authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee. It is quite well known that the right hon. Gentleman has been rendering most inestimable services in the past to the railway companies of this country, and I think it is very general knowledge—I do not complain of it at all—that the railway company which he has been serving has made a personal grant to him of £50,000 on his parting company with that railway company. I do not myself quite understand the transaction. I should have thought that a grant of that sort would have been in the nature of damages which the right hon. Gentleman would have recovered if he had been expelled by the railway company, but the railway company, I understand, were quite willing and anxious to retain his very great services, but when he severed his connection with the railway company in order to take up a very honourable and important post in the Ministry with a salary which is mentioned in this Resolution, the railway company made him a grant of £50,000. I dare say the railway company knows best what his services were worth, but what I do say is this: the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the railways at the present time are costing the country £100,000,000 a year. Therefore that £50,000 ultimately comes out of the taxpayers' pockets in some form or other, however it may be in the book-keeping of the company. What I want to know, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us, is whether this paragraph (b) in any way covers that payment—whether, in fact, there is a guarantee by the Government of that £50,000 or whether it is covered by the Resolution? I do not know whether that is so or not. I should be glad of an explanation on that point. Apart altogether from that, I do want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman and on the Home Secretary, who spoke on Friday last, that it is quite impossible, as I submit, that the Committee can allow a Resolution of this sort to be carried without any sort of estimate of the cost or any sort of safeguarding of Parliamentary control over the enormous expenditure which this Ministry will mean.
  Mr. A. SHAW: I rise certainly without the slightest personal animosity against the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Geddes), and I am quite sure there is no personal animosity entertained towards him by any Member of this House. I speak as a supporter of this Bill and as one who means to vote for it at every stage, roads and all, even against the wishes of one or two of us who have been engaged in trying to get the Government to take a more moderate view of this Resolution. It was unfortunate I think that the last discussion on this matter was on Friday, and when consequently the great majority of Members here to-day were unable to be present. I listened to the speech of the Home Secretary, and here I may say we very greatly appreciate the fact that the Minister of Ways and Means has seen his way to be present. On the last occasion some of us thought that his absence was accounted for by the fact that the ice was rather too thin, and that the Government were keeping him safely on the bank while we in the House admired the light and graceful gyrations of the Home Secretary. We are glad to see him here to-day prepared, if necessary, to take the plunge. In effect the Government told us on the last occasion: "We cannot form any idea as to how much money we want, because we do not know what we are going to do." That is really a very serious situation, especially at the present time. I really do not know anything of the kind which has occurred since the days of the South Sea Bubble. In those days of the eighteenth century hon. Members will remember that one of the concerns which appealed to the public for subscriptions had in its prospectus this description, "To engage in a secret undertaking which shall be hereafter be made public." That, judging from the very able speech which the Home Secretary made, is an apt description of the present situation. What would be said of any private undertaking which proceeded on the line on which the right hon. Gentleman is asking the House of Commons to proceed at this moment? Suppose they came before the public in their prospectus, and said, "We have no definite plans: we have a general idea and big ideals, but no definite plan and no estimates. We cannot place before Parliament or the Treasury or anyone any estimates, but there is one definite thing we can say,

  1101
  and that is that the liability of the subscribers will be limitless." That is really the position to-day, and that is the story which was told by the Home Secretary last Friday.
  The Minister of Ways and Communications got rid of a great deal of the opposition to this Bill by a very adroit move. He said that he would forego the power to act by Orders in Council, and we were all very pleased. Now we find that certain very important matters are to be carried out without even the minimum of security which Orders in Council offer. We find, for instance, that among other things which the Minister can do without any semblance of Parliamentary control is to establish, maintain, and work transport services by land and water, so that the House will thereby be deprived of any influence whatever on the nature of the administrative action which the right hon. Gentleman takes in this direction. I do not wish to harry the right hon. Gentleman in any way, but I do venture to make this specific proposal. Those hon. Members who were placed on the Standing Committee when the Health Bill was under discussion will remember that some of the points which are becoming very important now were considered then. There the Minister was to take power, and there also there was felt to be a necessity for Parliamentary control. A very excellent Motion was moved by an hon. Member who spoke on this Debate last Friday, and it was accepted by the Government. There are, short of legislation, two methods by which the right hon. Gentleman can carry out his administrative actions, and yet secure a semblance of Parliamentary consent. The first is the method, which I am told he has abandoned, of placing on the Table an Order in Council, when the administrative Act becomes operative unless Parliament intervenes. It is the second method on which I would ask him to be so good as to let us have his opinion. I am quoting from the speech of the President of the Local Government Board in Committee on the 25th of last month. The point which arose there was made in this manner. An Order in Council of a particular kind was invented ad hoc, and I would recommend that to the serious consideration of every Member. I will just quote a passage from the words which were used:
  "An Order shall not take effect until both Houses by Resolution have adopted the same and
  1102
  shall take effect subject to any modification and adaptations which may be agreed to by both Houses."
  Here we have a very important Bill which is not going to be considered in Committee by this House, but is going to be considered by a Standing Committee, and therefore this Committee of the Whole House has the right of some sort of guarantee from the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will consider very carefully with regard to the great administrative powers which he is taking in this Bill whether there are things which he wants to do which are really of a semi-legislative character, that should be done by Order in Council which shall lie in draft on the Table of the House before being submitted to His Majesty. That would give the House the opportunity of amending and modifying, and would, I think, secure what really we wish to secure by this Amendment—effective Parliamentary control at every stage with a minimum of trouble to the Minister and a minimum of waste of time to the House. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider that. In the situation in which we stand, with this vast Ministry, I think it is a proposal which will commend itself increasingly to the House and Government. I appeal to my friends, especially those on the Labour Benches, to reflect seriously before giving a blank cheque to the Government, and setting up this Ministry without any vestige of Parliamentary control It is really very important that the results of this vast expenditure should justify the expense, and for that reason care and forethought are necessary at every stage, and Parliamentary care is necessary at every stage. It is all very well, and easy to say: "Vast expenditure can be incurred because this is a great and a good measure," but I ask them to consider that every penny of the money which is required to finance this enormous undertaking comes out of the pockets of the taxpayer, and out of that general fund which is available for creating productive industry and employment. Therefore, they in a special degree and every Member of the House ought to keep a stern eye ort the financial position. I think that if some procedure of the kind I suggest had been adopted with regard, for instance, to the case of Loch Doon, if the proper estimate had been placed before the Treasury or if the undertaking first had been subjected to Parliamentary criticism of the kind we desire, the nation would have been saved a colossal monument of public waste.

  1103
  This House is really the only guarantee the nation has that this vast expenditure will be really productive, and this is the only chance of insisting on its supreme duty, which is to husband the public resources. I go further. I think that in doing so lies the real secret of successful reconstruction, because if the House of Commons does its duty in that respect then every penny which is spent will be productive of public good. But if the House of Commons shirks its duty then we may see in a few years from now the country strewn with skeletons of derelict undertakings, and the country will then sigh in vain for those real reforms which could have been undertaken had the public resources been prudently husbanded now.
  The MINISTER (Designate) Of WAYS and COMMUNICATIONS (Sir Eric Geddes): The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Kent (Mr. R. McNeill) has elected to bring to this Debate a personal matter connected with myself, and I would ask the permission of the Committee to make a very brief statement, not on the subject. The suggestion which was made, I understand, was that the powers which it was sought to give to the Minister of the new Ministry of Ways and Communications might, inter alia, be used by myself if I was Minister, to cover a payment which the hon. Member said had been made to me by the company which I lately served. He was strictly incorrect in the statement he made that the payment had been made, but I have a written agreement from the North-Eastern Railway Company, one of the terms of which was—it was made before the War—that, in the event of the nationalisation of railways, certain compensation should be paid to me under certain conditions. When I was invited to join the Government, and when the Prime Minister asked me to be the Minister-designate for the new Ministry, it was obviously improper—and I am sure the Committee will see the point—for me to have any personal financial interest in the question as to whether the railways should be nationalised or not. Under that agreement, had they been nationalised, I was advised that the payment that would have been made to me was far greater than the payment I received. Manifestly, for me to have any power to influence or to give an opinion for the Government upon the question of
  1104
  nationalisation, whilst a considerable financial stake of my own was dependent upon whether or not the railways were nationalised, would have been highly improper. Until I did make that settlement with the North-Eastern Railway Company I never on any single occasion entered the counsels of the Government, or the Cabinet, or any Minister, on the question of railways. As to whether that payment would in any way be affected by the powers I sought in this Resolution, I can only say this: that if by any chance they did come in, I most certainly would have nothing to do in settling the payment. I believe they cannot possibly come in, because it was settled by the North-Eastern Railway Company in their last financial year, and was reported to the shareholders' meeting. The whole question is, therefore, closed.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Turning back to the Question before the Committee, I think, perhaps, we may as well bear clearly in mind what are the opportunities for judging the finances of the country in connection with the proposed new services. I think, too, that the Leader of the House, from his remarkable knowledge of the House, will not be far off having come to the conclusion that there is a very strong body of opinion here that declines to give these too wide and too sweeping powers to any Ministry. So far, I think, we are all more or less in agreement. I speak as one who is a whole-hearted supporter of the Bill. I have no right to speak for them, but I am quite sure that hon. Members of this House who are members of the Labour party have no idea, in their support of this Bill, any more than I have, of giving a blank cheque to anybody. We are all in agreement that if this thing is to be carried out it ought to be carried out on ordinary, reasonable, business lines. I want to point out to the Committee that the discussion of such a Resolution as this is practically the only opportunity which really exists of exercising the financial control of the House of Commons over great expenditures. There may be other opportunities upstairs. There will be an opportunity upstairs in the course of this Financial Resolution when it comes into the Bill, and an opportunity when it comes down on Report. But now it is, from the start, that as a rule is the opportunity which the House has of controlling the question of financial expenditure on this or on any other Bill. It used to be almost a formal matter. My right hon. Friend

  1105
  opposite will recollect, long before I came into the House, that the Money Resolution was always passed without any discussion. Of recent years, however, under the pressure of Government business and the use of the Committee upstairs, the Money Resolution has become of real importance. I therefore just want to make that point, that it is of great and growing importance that these Money Resolutions should be most carefully considered by the House of Commons before they part with them.
  What is the proposal here? So far as I understand it, it is not necessarily to be settled by this Amendment here at all—though I want to be quite clear upon that. I agree it is extremely difficult, in one sense, on such a matter to show in the Financial Resolution what is proposed. Perhaps in some senses it would do more harm than good. The proper way to amend such a Resolution as this is rather upstairs in Committee than down here. That I agree to. But the importance is that we should get from the Government or the Minister in charge of this measure, or similar measures, some declaration now, and at the regular time, as to what he or they mean to do. So I repeat again: now is the time to get an undertaking from the Government as to what really they are going to do. As the thing at present stands I do not think there is the least doubt at all that they are making the Minister under this Bill a financial dictator for any sum which he may think fit to expend during the next two years on new services. Is the House of Commons willing that that should be done? I do not think it is!
  A suggestion has been thrown out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. A. Shaw) as to what happened upstairs in connection with the Ministry of Health Bill. It was useful there, and it was important. Perhaps what took place there to some extent might lead to financial control here. But that would not go far enough for this matter—of that I am quite sure. We cannot stand still. The next two years will be years which will decide what this Ministry is to be, and how these powers under this Bill are going to be exercised. You Jay down your ground plan of these things and the country will be committed to it. What has been the real practice of the House in regard to the great spending Departments? We know the Army and the Navy have to have Estimates laid The House insists upon its control over them. Take the Post Office and the matter of Post Office contracts.
  1106
  Whenever the Post Office wants to buy a new post office, or to add to one already existing, the Department has to promote a Bill which goes to Committee. Until these various safeguards have been applied in the matter of the control of Parliament power is withheld from the spending of money. In view of the unknown financial commitments which the Minister may put forward, we should look carefully into this matter. My right hon. Friend is a most able man. He has a great grasp of the whole situation in its vast comprehensiveness. I am quite certain, however, that, with the best will in the world, we will not be able to discharge our duty as the financial trustees of the country if we did not take care to see that he, or any other Minister, does, in a substantial sense, conform to the principle of the safeguards of the House, that this House has for so long insisted upon, before passing any measure for granting money.
  The particular Amendment before the Committee can hardly be reconciled with the development of these schemes, as I previously said. It might in practice be found to be very hampering. But what I do most strongly press on the Minister in charge of the Bill, and upon the de facto head of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman for the time being responsible, is that whether they can or cannot accept Amendments to the Resolution a large number of the Committee—whether a majority or not I do not know—are very anxious that there should be a specific, definite, clean-cut undertaking by the Government that they will submit in Committee upstairs some safeguard which shall give due authority over the Minister so that he shall be compelled, before committing the country to vast and unknown schemes of expenditure, to present estimates. We shall thus know where we are going, and, knowing, we shall go on with determination to carry the thing out. That is the point which I venture, with much respect, and with all my strength to press on my right hon. Friend. It is of immense importance to give these unlimited powers, as sought by the Bill, to realise that it is a blank negation of the whole theory of Parliamentary responsibility. Are we going to do that now? If ever there was a time that there should be the strictest economy and most careful inquiry into expenditure it is now.
  Mr. THOMAS: An appeal has been made to the Labour Members specially to consider this matter. I do not know why

  1107
  the appeal should have been made specially to us. We have given no indication whatever that we are unmindful of Parliamentary control over finance. We have never indicated in the least that we were in favour of a blank cheque. I spoke on behalf of the Labour Members on the Second Reading, and made it perfectly clear that, whilst we were in favour of the principle of nationalised services, we certainly were not agreed blindly to accept any figures. On the other hand, it is regrettable that the personal side should have entered into this matter at all. I was well aware of the arrangement with the North-Eastern Railway Company. Seeing that it has been raised I may say quite frankly that I did not intend ever raising it in this House, because I knew perfectly that the right hon. Gentleman's regard for his public duty and his public character was a sufficient safeguard in the matter. Seeing it has been raised in an entirely different way, may I say that what I would have desired to know from the railway company was why they could give the right hon. Gentleman this sum of money and could not give the porters a few shillings a week more. At all events that was my method, as distinct from the Parliamentary method of raising the matter. The right hon. Gentleman must be very flattered after the many compliments paid to him as a superman. I am not going to offer any more compliments because the right hon. Gentleman has a difficult task. If he succeeds we will all be delighted. Till then I want to apply myself to the Motion now before the House. My hon. Friend suggests that the Army and the Navy are in a somewhat analogous situation. With the greatest respect to him I am going to submit it is nothing of the kind. Supposing as an illustration under this Bill it is decided to purchase the railways. Supposing the Government come down to the House and say that we anticipate that the purchase of the railways will amount to a certain, amount of money, and in that way they budget for that amount. I put it to the House that that would be a highly dangerous proceeding, for the simple reason that it would hamper their own bargaining power on behalf of the interests of the country.
  If they put an amount which they thought sufficient to make a deal with the railway companies or those negotiating for them, they would know perfectly well what
  1108
  amount of money Parliament had in mind for the purchase. If it was under-estimated they would be blamed for want of foresight in the matter. I think it is a fair debating point to show that this is not analogous to coming down and saying, "We are going to build eight battleships and they will cost so much money." On the other hand, I do think we can get over the difficulty by a guarantee that before there is any expenditure, either for purchase of the railways, canals or roads, this House ought to have a determining voice in the contract and the amount to be paid. I think that is at least something we are entitled to demand, and something which would not interfere with or hamper the right hon. Gentleman in his work. I feel sure he could give that guarantee. I know it is impossible for him to give any figure for an undertaking that he may not take over, and which experience may show is unnecessary. That is something which we are not entitled to ask, but we are entitled to say that if the railways, canals, or shipping are to be purchased, this House must determine the terms of the contract and have the final voice in the amount to be paid. That is a fair proposition and one which could be met from the other side.
  I want to say, as far as our party is concerned, we resent the suggestion that we are unmindful of expenditure. During the War I took the opportunity of pointing out how dangerous it was to go on living on borrowed capital. I have repeatedly pointed out to the workers that one essential is to get the trades of this country started and our exports developed. That is the view I hold, and I am not unmindful of my responsibility, and whilst I am whole-heartedly in favour of the general principle of this Bill, and being, anxious to help in every way we can, we recognise the difficulty of giving any fixed estimate, but I believe the suggestion I have made would help us out of the difficulty and at the same time ensure Parliamentary control.
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am sorry and surprised at the remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill). I am sure he did not make that remark from any sense of personal feeling toward my right hon. Friend. As a matter of fact, I knew of this arrangement, and I would like to tell the House how it strikes me. It was a compromise made by the North Eastern Railway Company, in consequence

  1109
  of a contract entered into by my right hon. Friend when he accepted the position. As I understand the position it is this, that if under these circumstances he had left the railway company without becoming a member of the Government, he would still have received the money, or at any rate he would have received compensation. I put this to my right hon. Friend opposite, and I do it seriously as something which we ought to keep in mind, that it is not very easy to get competent men to carry on the business of this country, and I think it is absolutely monstrous to suggest that because a man agrees to serve the Government he is to be deprived of perpetual contractual obligations.
  Mr. R. MCNEILL: My right hon Friend has absolutely mistaken the purport of my remark. I never suggested that there was anything improper, but as this Resolution deals with the right hon. Gentleman's salary in terms, it seems nonsense to talk about bringing in the personal equation. What I asked was, whether this Resolution covered that particular transaction?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very glad to hear what my hon. Friend has just said. I have already stated that I thought he did not do it from any feeling of personal animosity, but I cannot help feeling that a statement of that kind might give the impression outside that my right hon. Friend, in consequence of becoming a member of the Government, was receiving the large sum of money which otherwise he might not have got if he had not taken up that position. There has been a great deal of talk about a superman. The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to fill the position created under this Bill. It was with the greatest possible pleasure to the Prime Minister, in which I joined, that my right hon. Friend did agree to take this position, and whether he succeeds or fails I wish the House perfectly to realise that it is not his doing that he is in that position, but it is because we, who are responsible for the Government, believe it would be in the highest degree in the interests of the country that we should persuade him to take this position.
  As regards the subject of our discussion, I am not at all surprised that the House desires to get some greater certainty than they have got up to now that there should be proper control over the expenditure of this money. There are, however, some considerations which the House ought to take into account at the outset. Undoubtedly
  1110
  this whole Bill is something which in ordinary times no Government would be justified in asking the House to pass. The whole justification for it, and I think it is sufficient, is what I said on the Second Reading, that, owing to the arrears due to the War, and because of the War, our whole transportation system has been left utterly neglected, and the problem with which we have now to deal is precisely the same as we have been dealing with during the War, and, if it is to be dealt with without delay, we must take a rough-and-ready method. That is the justification for this Bill. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend is to have a perfectly blank cheque in the expenditure of the money. I would like to say that to some people there seems to be no connection between economy and the expenditure of large sums of money for certain purposes. I do not agree. Very often a large expenditure may be the truest economy. In my belief, if we were to allow our transportation system to go on by the ordinary methods of peace, it would in the end be found to be the most wasteful method you could conceive of dealing with such a subject.
  The financial obligations of this House have been referred to, and I do not think anyone realises that more strongly than I do. I think they are the greatest danger in front of us at this moment. I have already said that I do not think the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer was an easy one during the War, and I am sure it will be far more difficult now, in view of the problems which have to be faced. Nevertheless, I have faith in the common sense of my countrymen in a case like this. We all see the difficulty of getting money to carry on the Government of the country, and some people would be inclined to say, under these circumstances, the first thing you have to do is not to spend a single penny upon anything you are not forced to spend it upon. I believe this country might be brought to bankruptcy by extravagance, but I am equally certain that if we took that view and said that we are going to neglect altogether these reconstruction problems, and not spend a penny on them, we should be brought to ruin by that policy. That is the standpoint from which we approach this Bill.
  The Bill has two distinct parts. The first part enables this new Ministry to prepare schemes after adequate examination and with outside knowledge of the facts for a permanent system of trans-

  1111
  portation, and as regards part of the policy my right hon. Friend realises that so far as the permanent system of transportation is concerned this question does not arise at all, because every permanent scheme must be submitted in a Bill and receive the approval of this House before it can be carried into effect. The other section of this Bill, and I think it is not less important, deals with the more immediate problems and methods of improving transport that can be done at once and which should be undertaken without delay in order to remove all those impediments which would prevent them being done quickly. It is only in regard to that part in two years' time that the question of this Resolution arises.
  I would like to tell the House exactly what is the position. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I expressed the opinion more than once in this House that when a Money Resolution was brought in there ought to be a statement made as to the amount involved, and I have always taken that view. I have said that not as a formality, but as a reality. The object of that was not to have a figure as a mere formality, but to compel the Department introducing the Bill to make estimates and calculations as to what they would cost, so that the Department, the Government and the House as a whole should know exactly what financial obligations the Bill involved. That is one thing, but our view is that it is absolutely impossible to put any limit which is the result of anything but guesswork in this case. I can convince the House of that in a moment. What is the kind of statement which my right hon. Friend will give? In the first place, the Board of Agriculture have a number of schemes for rural transport, but until the Department is set up they cannot be accepted. My right hon. Friend could not tell how many he is going to adopt of those schemes or how many will be turned down, or what the amount of money involved would be, and yet I am sure the House would agree that if this Ministry is to be set up at all one of its chief functions would be to try and improve rural transportation.
  In the same way with housing. How can he give any figure as to what may be needed for transport in connection with the new houses that are to be set up? He said in his Second Reading speech that one of the economies, the biggest economy, which he hoped to bring into effect at
  1112
  once would be secured by making general use of private wagons. That means, of course, in some way or other getting control of these private wagons. Of course, they are of enormous value. Very likely it will be that in this period of two years there will be no purchase of them at all and that they will be leased or used in some such way, but it may be found that the most economical method is to buy them, not the whole lot but some of them. How can my right hon. Friend to-day make any estimate of the amount of money that will be required? He knows the total value, or approximately the total value, but he cannot possibly know how many of them he is going to buy or how many will be required for the purpose.
  Mr. THOMAS: Or how many are worth buying!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the Committee follows my argument. It is impossible to make the calculation. Then take another uncertainty. For four years the railways have done nothing to improve their lines. For two years longer they are to be under Government control and receive the same rate as in 1913. Is it not quite obvious that while uncertainty exists as to what is to be the ultimate fate of the railways it will be very difficult for them to get the capital necessary to do the absolutely essential things if they are to be brought up to a proper standard? It is part of the scheme of this Bill that during the two years this kind of thing should be done. That does not mean that the State is going to spend money, but it may mean that the State will have to guarantee the interest on the loans for this purpose or something of that kind. I am sure that I have said enough to convince the Committee that whatever other method there may be of getting control it is absolutely useless and futile to try to get it by putting in a maximum figure which would have to be entirely guesswork, which would probably be far greater than that which we should spend, and which would give no guidance to the House in the matter. It does not end there. There must be control even during these two years, and the Bill of course provides for Treasury control. It has nothing to do with the point which is interesting the Committee at the moment, and which is of vital importance, namely, that whatever control the Government may have the House of Commons will be left help-

  1113
  less in the matter—I do not think that would be right for such large sums of money as might conceivably be involved —but I think it would be right to state what is our idea as to the method in which the Treasury control could be exercised. I sympathise with the desire of the Committee to have something put in the Bill, and I have discussed it both with my right hon. Friend and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We came to the conclusion, for the reasons which I have given, that it is impossible to give any figures, but as regards the control by the Government, Treasury control, which at any time is not negligible—it is very real when it is not superseded as it was largely during the War, by special arrangements, and I confess that if I were my right hon. Friend I should be afraid of Treasury control unduly hampering me in carrying out my operations—it is obvious that if schemes such as I have outlined are sent to the Treasury to be dealt with by their ordinary officials it will be extremely difficult to have the work properly done. Some special arrangement will have to be made, and what is contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he should secure a Treasury representative competent to deal with these questions, a man of real capacity, who would be put into this Department, who would watch every phase of the financial aspect of it, who would be in no sense under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Ways and Communications, but who would be absolutely a Treasury official, I hope a big official, whose duty it would be to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these matters. At all events, I can assure the Committee that in one way or the other the Government will take care that the Treasury control is a real control, and will absolutely supervise all the expenditure.
  I admit that is not enough to satisfy the Committee. It was pointed out in the Second Reading Debate that, taking the Bill as it stands, my right hon. Friend would have power during these two years to initiate schemes, perhaps as big as another Great Eastern Railway. Speaking literally, I suppose that is true. It is obvious that is a power which should not be left to my right hon. Friend or any Government Department. The Government are quite agreed about that. The sole problem, therefore, is what is the best way of retaining the control of the House of Commons in cases of that kind without unduly hampering the work which this
  1114
  Ministry has undertaken to do. I have discussed it with my right hon. Friend. It is a question which, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, can be best discussed in Committee upstairs. The Government really attach the greatest value to this Bill. We think that it is an essential part of the whole of the scheme of reconstruction on which we are acting. We could not accept any alteration which in our view took away the comprehensive nature of the transportation problem or imposed restrictions which prevented the work being done. Within those limits, we are as anxious as any Member of the House to get the Ministry on a proper basis. Perhaps it may be found, when the thing is discussed upstairs, that some other arrangement may be better, but we contemplate in every case of expenditure of a large sum of money on any particular scheme—I put it, say, at £1,000,000, not in any particular year, but upon the whole scheme, submitting the matter to the House of Commons. If one were trying to get away from this obligation, he might divide it into a lot of smaller amounts. That is not what we mean. Wherever there is a scheme which involves as much as £1,000,000 we will, before it is undertaken, submit it to the House of Commons either in an Estimate or in some other way. I can assure the House that it is a mistake to assume that it only applies to Members who are interested in economy. We are very much interested in it, too. We do not desire, and certainly no Chancellor of the Exchequer would desire, to see the control of the House diminished. We wish anything that can be done without impairing the objects which this Bill has before it to be done, and I hope that what I have just said will show that we do desire to meet the House of Commons, and that we are determined to prevent such extravagant possibilities as have been talked of. I hope the House will accept that explanation and allow us now to have the Resolution.
  Sir E. CARSON: I think the Members of the Committee will agree that the discussion on Friday and the discussion today have been very useful. I suppose I have become an old-fashioned Member, but for myself I do feel the greatest anxiety as to the way in which we are loosely dealing with finance in all these great reconstruction problems. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that on reconstruc-

  1115
  tion we must spend money, and there does not seem to be any doubt that it will come to a good total; but this Bill, to put it in plain language, means that the Ministry you are setting up can establish, maintain, and work transport services by land or water without any interference whatsoever by this House. That is the way the Bill stood, and you might just as well enact that the Board of Admiralty shall take all steps necessary for the naval defence of this country, and tell them to go ahead, because they must not be hampered as regards finance. It seems to me to be of great importance that the House should maintain its control over finance, for this reason: While a great deal of expenditure may be necessary for the purposes of this Bill, it is impossible that you can incur that expenditure without considering the expenditure of the country as a whole for the year. You cannot say, "This is necessary expenditure, and therefore it must be done." You have to say, "How much can we afford, having regard to necessary expenditure in other quarters?" Therefore, I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend has taken this matter seriously, and has made what I consider are certain concessions which the Committee may very well consider. The Leader of the House emphasised some of the smaller matters with which my right hon. Friend the Minister will have to deal when the Ministry is set up. We, however, are afraid of those undertakings which come in under the words that I have quoted. There is no question, on the Bill as it now stands, or as it is proposed to stand, that the Minister can run a railway wherever he likes, and that ho can set up such places as Richborough, which has cost a great many millions during the War, and where he or somebody has made permanent provision for some 18,000 men in the magnificent houses which have been erected. I do not know what the future of such a place is going to be. He could, under this Bill, as I understand it, set up shipyards, or he could start a fleet of steamers round the coast. Those are all very good things in their way, but they are gigantic ventures which the House has a right on every occasion to examine.
  5.0 P.M.
  I, myself, have never seen what is the real difficulty of submitting these questions to the House. Of course, there is a difficulty in making estimates, and knowing at the moment how much you will have to expend, but an hon. Member opposite on
  1116
  Friday made a very good suggestion, when he said that all we asked was that from time to time the Minister should come to the House and get authority for such expenditure as up to that time he had estimated. I cannot see where the difficulty comes in. There is a difficulty in estimating, but the moment you have framed your Estimate there is no difficulty in coming to this House and asking for a Vote on Account. I am sure the House would at once grant it, and, although I am quite prepared to admit the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman takes away a good deal of our hostility, I do still hope that in Committee upstairs some even better method of obtaining control by this House may be meted out than is foreshadowed by the speech of my right hon. Friend. What I understand my right hon. Friend to promise is this. There is to be a special Treasury Department within this Ministry, that is, a special representative of the Treasury of high authority, unconnected with the Ministry, in no wise under the orders and commands of the right hon. Gentleman, whoever he may be in charge of the Department, that that representative of the Treasury will be entitled to go in and see all these Estimates and all the proposed expenditure, and to take the matter over and discuss it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if necessary, will consult the Government, having regard to the necessary expenditure for the year. So far so good. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will he have power to veto it?"] I understand, of course, that the Treasury official will have full powers; otherwise he will be of no use. If he were merely to be there as a figure head, and had no powers, of course he would be of no use. Before he authorises any expenditure, he will have to go before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and acquaint him, for I assume the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to budget for it.
  Colonel THORNE: Surely he will not have the right to veto?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my right hon. Friend understands it. The official will not have the right of veto, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will.
  Sir E. CARSON: Exactly what I thought, and what I thought I was expressing. Then, as I understand, any estimated expenditure of £1,000,000 and

  1117
  upwards will be submitted specifically to this House. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be open to argument as to whether a £1,000,000 is not too high. Of course, I am not going now to discuss whether it should be £1,000,000 or £500,000, but when this matter comes before the Committee upstairs, I think it will be well worth while for the Committee to consider whether £1,000,000 is not too high. However, for my part I am very glad we have had this discussion. I believe that, according as the Bill receives more and more consideration, and is more and more thoroughly understood, the Committee will find that they will require far more safeguards than have been outlined up to the present moment. But, at all events, so far as this Resolution is concerned, we have received some consideration at the hands of the Leader of the House, and I am very glad the Debate has taken place.
  Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: The statement of the Leader of the House has relieved anxiety to a very great extent, and, as regards any further relief, I am quite prepared to leave the matter to the Committee upstairs. I am quite sure the House has no idea as to the extent of the responsibility which they are placing upon the Ministry. The Minister, with a stroke of the pen, might take the whole of the wool trade away from London. The Continental trade could all be brought to railway ports on the East Coast under this Bill. Although on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast put the question as to the control of shipping, the Minister in embryo stated that there was no intention at all of controlling ships. Under this Bill the whole of the Continental shipping could be brought to one railway port. Then take the Irish trade.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is not the occasion for a general discussion upon the Bill or the powers given under the Bill. We are dealing solely to-day with the financial aspect.
  Mr. STEVENS: I was trying to keep myself to that. In each of these cases there will be an expenditure necessary on behalf of the Minister, and I am sorry that you, Sir, should have thought I was trying to get beyond that. The expenditure must be, and will be, made by the Minister. I have only named two or three matters, because I do not wish to delay the House;
  1118
  but the trade of this country could be upset, the coast-wise trade taken away altogether, if the Minister so desired, by expenditure under this Bill, without this House being cognisant of it. One million pounds is not sufficient. I am prepared to leave the matter now to the Committee upstairs, but I do not want it to be thought that I have reason to be satisfied altogether with what the Leader of the House has proffered.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), who opened this Debate to-day, seemed to me to have only one purpose in his mind, and that was to attack the right hon. Gentleman the Minister-designate of the Department, because, as he stated, the right hon. Gentleman possessed certain intellectual qualities. He charged the right hon. Gentleman with having too much imagination. I would respectfully point out that if there is one thing wanted to-day in statesmanship it is imagination. He charged him with being a visionary. I should think that if the British Empire wants to get out of many of its difficulties it wants men of vision. The right hon. Gentleman has the imagination to think and the vision to conceive great plans, and, in my judgment, any man in this House, whether he is dealing with big, wide Imperial questions, or whether he is dealing with economic and industrial plans for the transformation of society, if he has these qualities the House of Commons has a right to recognise and appreciate them. I am not here for the purpose of expressing an opinion upon the merits of this Bill. I venture to say there is not a reactionary in this House who is not opposed to this Bill. If it were not for the constituencies everyone of them would have attacked the Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Captain Guest), the most amiable' man in the whole House, looked at them in a very terrorising way, and they immediately walked into the Lobby to support this Bill. If I thought this Bill a bad Bill, I would vote against it. If I thought this Bill a good Bill, I would vote for it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) and the hon. Member for Canterbury do not want this Bill at all. They did not vote against it, and they come here, and by a Parliamentary subterfuge, and upon a question no doubt important but comparatively subsidiary, I they make an attack upon the right hon. Gentleman.

  1119
  I am not at all satisfied with the compromise which has been suggested by the Leader of the House. The proposal here, so far as I understood it, was that Parliament should have control over the cost of the schemes which would be conceived out of the large vision and great imagination of the right hon. Gentleman. Instead of pressing for Parliamentary control, you have thought right that there should be a Treasury watch-dog, and the right hon. Gentleman is not to be hampered or encouraged, as the case may be, by the application of informed and intelligent criticism to the schemes which he adumbrates, but some clerk from the British Treasury is to be constantly barking at his heels and preventing him from giving free play to that experience and enlightened judgment which inspires him to bring forward such schemes as he may bring forward in the public interest. I do not think that is a solution of the question. I think it is an insult to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman first of all stated that this Treasury official would have a veto, and then said, "No: he will not have a veto, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a veto." But, surely, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer sends him there, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be bound to act upon the advice which is given by his representative, who will be continually in the train of the right hon. Gentleman! My opinion is that if you are going to deal with this great reconstruction policy, there ought to have been sufficient trust in the Minister. I do not see why the traditional revolt of Englishmen against imagination, or the application of one's imagination to great conceptions, ought to be a reason why these great conceptions ought not to have a chance. Therefore, because I believe, as an Irishman, in vision, because I believe in imagination as an essential part of our statesmanship equipment—never more needed than it is now, not only in our industrial and economic concerns, but in our great international and Imperial concerns—so far from thinking that the right hon. Gentleman should be assailed because he has imagination, and because he has vision, I am here, the one and only figure in this House, to plead for their recognition.
  Colonel GRETTON: I much regret that there should have been any personal element introduced into this Debate at any stage. I desire entirely to dissociate
  1120
  myself from anything that has been said on that point. The reasons for putting forward my Amendments were entirely financial, and there was no other motive behind my action. As a matter of fact, I am supporting the Bill, and am prepared to back up the Government in carrying their proposals through with adequate financial provision. The hon. Member who has just spoken has put his finger on the weak spot in the undertaking given by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in charge of the Treasury, proposes Treasury control of one Department by a Minister who is in another Department. The Government may override that control, or enforce control over the Minister in the other Department, but under the circumstances I am prepared to accept the offer of the Government. As regards the second proviso, which I do not propose to move, I am glad that the Government have indicated their intention to deal with it as a Committee point upstairs, and I am satisfied to leave it at that. I quite understand it is the intention of the Government that there should be adequate financial control over large capital expenditure, and that large expenditure on new undertakings should be submitted to the House of Commons. I think the Government concession is a substantial one, and ask leave therefore to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD: I have been seventeen years a Member of this House, and every year I have endeavoured to take an intelligent part in connection with the estimates of expenditure. I have always been an advocate of the principle that the elected Members of the House of Commons should have a voice in controlling the expenditure of the country, and, although that was impossible during the War, I still adhere to the principle, and I am entirely unable to see why, even in this new venture, the same policy should not have been adopted. What was there to prevent this new Department from bringing up an estimate of what it was going to spend during the next twelve months, and what is there to prevent it bringing up a supplementary estimate if it finds it has not asked for sufficient money? In past years there has never

  1121
  been anything to prevent that being done; indeed, Governments have been able to get large sums of money voted for one purpose, and to use them for another, and then get the matter put straight after a full explanation to the House on the Consolidated Fund Bill or the Appropriation Bill. Here we have an entirely new Department, and in inaugurating this new Ministry we are asked for two years, as I understand it, to allow the Minister to spend as much as £999,999 on any scheme whatever, without the sanction of the House. I understood the Leader of the House just now to give a pledge that if the expenditure was going to amount to £1,000,000 or more we should be given an opportunity of expressing our opinion on the proposal, but if the proposed expenditure did not reach £1,000,000 on any one scheme then we should not be given that opportunity.
  The Leader of the House referred just now to the question of wagons. I would like to ask a simple question, the answer to which might go a long way towards solving my doubts on this matter, and I will take for the purposes of illustration the subject of wagons. I want to know, if we pass this Resolution in the form it stands on the Paper, will the Ministry in charge of the Department have power to buy £999,999 worth of wagons without coming to this House for sanction? There are thousands of people who own wagons, and I should like to know if the Minister will be able to pick and choose the wagons and to purchase them of whomsoever he pleases. Let it be remembered that it might be a serious matter for some owners of wagons to be deprived of the use of them, and an enormous advantage for other people to be allowed to retain their wagons. There is, in fact, any amount of room for most appalling transactions to take place in this way, and I want to know, if we pass this Resolution, and accept the promise of the Leader of the House, will it give the Minister at the head of the Department power to buy wagons to this extent, to pick and choose some people's wagons and to leave other people in the lurch. Can I have a straight answer to that question?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Home Secretary, who, I take it, has charge of the legal side of this Bill, whether he will table Amendments for Committee which will carry out the undertaking of the
  1122
  Leader of the House, so that in Committee we shall have something definite to work upon?
  Mr. SHORTT: Naturally that will have to be done.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: May I ask to be allowed to have it placed on record that I am against the Resolution?
  Colonel THORNE: It will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Surely the Reporter will take notice of your request.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Wednesday).

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Sir D. MACLEAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill moves the Second Reading, may I ask him whether, seeing it is now half-past five, and the Debate will have to be interrupted at a quarter-past eight, he thinks it advisable now to embark on this very important discussion? There are several other very useful Orders on the Paper which might be disposed of between now and a quarter-past eight.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): On that point the general understanding which I arrived at with my right hon. Friend, and in order to meet the convenience of the House, was that if the discussion on the Financial Resolution just concluded was over by half-past five we might begin this Debate. We know how very important this matter is, and if it is the desire of the House, and convenient to it, I shall be willing to go on with it now. But in view of the fact that the discussion must necessarily close at a quarter-past eight, perhaps it might be convenient to take instead of it the smaller Bills on the Order Papers both to-day and to-morrow, and to take this Bill on Monday and Tuesday next.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I think, in view of the importance of this Bill, and realising how important it is the country should know what my right hon. Friend has to say with regard to it, and it being quite obvious that any statement he makes at this hour will not have the same chances

1123
of appearing in the public Press throughout the provinces as it would have if he started making it at four o'clock, it would be as well to adopt this suggestion. I have no desire—on the contrary, I want to help in every way I can, but I do suggest that the House will not have really adequate time to consider the matter if we start on it now.
Colonel THORNE: This Bill is very important, and as the right hon. Gentleman has come here with his material, I think it would be very much better to proceed with the Second Reading now and to continue the Debate until 8.15. I take it the Government will give Monday for the discussion on the Second Reading, and I think that would be just as convenient as giving Monday and Tuesday. We want very much to get on with the business. We want to show the country what is going to be done in this matter. Everybody knows the country is waiting for this Bill very anxiously.
Dr. ADDISON: I am entirely in the hands of the House. I think myself, in view of the fact that the discussion would have to close at a quarter-past eight, it would be better in all the circumstances to take the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. I do not think that the short delay will make any difference in the real progress of the measure, and I gather from what I hear that that is the general sense of the House.
Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I hope that that is the course the right hon. Gentleman will take.
Colonel THORNE: On the understanding that when Monday comes the Bill will not be put off again.
Sir T. WALTERS: It would be most unfortunate if this very important discussion were taken in a comparatively thin House and with very little chance of being fully reported in the public Press. I hope, indeed, the Government will give us two clear days for it. They will do so if they realise what the country thinks about this Bill.
Dr. ADDISON: Then, shall I move that the Debate be adjourned?
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has not commenced his speech. The Bill will be put down for Monday.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND—SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
In making this Motion, I would remind the House that the superannuation of teachers is no new thing in Scotland. We have a comprehensive scheme in existence to-day which embraces all classes of teachers and which has been in operation since 1911. That scheme is a contributory scheme, the contributions being provided by school boards and managers, by teachers, and also from the Scottish Education Fund. That scheme, so far as I know, has worked to the satisfaction of all concerned with it. What then, it may be asked, is the reason for this Bill, which proposes to change the scheme which is now in operation? The answer to that question is perfectly simple. Last year the Government introduced and passed a Superannuation Act for England, which I think comes into operation to-day, under which much more generous provision was made for English teachers than was made for Scottish teachers under the existing scheme in Scotland, and under which, moreover, that provision is made free of cost—that is to say, without any contribution whatever on the part of the teachers themselves. It therefore appeared to me to be quite obvious that the only course one could pursue, having regard to Scottish interests, was to introduce a Bill which would make as generous provision for the teachers of Scotland as the English teachers now enjoy, and which should, moreover, be made to the teachers of Scotland free of cost. This is a Bill to enable that to be done.
Then the next question which arose was as to the method to be followed in introducing such a Bill as this. There were two courses open. The first was to follow the lines of the English Bill of last year. But the organisation of the system of education in Scotland is so fundamentally different from the system in England that it was very soon found that it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to produce a Bill upon those lines which would be suited to the conditions of Scotland. Moreover, to put a Bill which applies to Scotland into an English mould is not only difficult but even distasteful. Accordingly, I resolved to follow

1125
the precedent of 1908. That was the other alternative, to follow the precedent set in 1908, when the contributory scheme to which I have referred was launched in the Act of that year. That scheme was drafted with a single eye to Scottish conditions, and after full conference and deliberation with all those who were concerned, including the teachers themselves. In the present Bill, accordingly, I ask the House for authority to carry out, in the same manner as the contributory scheme was carried out, a non-contributory scheme under such general directions as the Housie may think proper to impose. I am well aware that an integral part of this scheme is an Order in Council, and I am also well aware of the views entertained in the House with regard to Orders in Council. But I want to put one or two considerations which may convince my Scottish colleagues who are familiar with the conditions that this is the best and, indeed, the only proper way in which to proceed. In the first place, unless that procedure is to become altogether obsolete, and we are to do away with Orders in Council altogether, I cannot imagine a more suitable case for putting that system into operation than the one we are now considering. Further, in doing so, one is exactly following the precedent which was set in 1908. The scheme has worked exceedingly well in practice. It has been found necessary from time to time to amend the scheme in order to meet emerging difficulties and changes. That has been done, to the entire satisfaction of all concerned, by means of subsequent Orders in Council. But if anything more should be said on that matter, I would say that before the Committee upstairs to which I suppose this Bill will go—the Scottish Grand Committee—parts from the Bill, I hope to be able to lay before them a draft scheme—not a complete scheme, because I think that would be impossible—so that they should clearly understand the lines upon which it is intended to proceed.
May I just anticipate for a moment or two, in a most general way, the kind of thing we have in mind? First of all, with regard to teachers who retire after the prescribed date—the date which will be prescribed under this scheme; I hope that it will be an early date—the provisions, will follow, in broad outlines, those in the English Act—that is to say, the award of annual superannuation allowances, of lump
1126
sums, of gratuities, and of death gratuities will closely resemble the provisions of the English Act. But I should add that the conditions qualifying for these awards will be expressed in terms of the existing Scottish system, which has been tried in practice and found successful in practice, and under which, as the House will readily understand, certain vested interests have already grown up. That is all I desire to say with regard to teachers who retire after this scheme comes into operation. I want to say a word or two with regard to another class of teachers in whose welfare I know that my Scottish colleagues are deeply interested—that is to say, teachers who have already retired before this scheme comes into operation. I know that their claims have excited attention and sympathy, and I am sure that every Member from Scotland is familiar with the conditions under which they exist to-day. These are really the veterans of the teaching profession, and their position to-day requires most careful and sympathetic treatment. To-day, for reasons which I will not discuss in detail, there are many of these men who, after long and faithful service in the profession—some of them forty years and more—are in receipt of allowances which are not only entirely inadequate to the service they have rendered, but entirely inadequate to provide them with the bare necessities of life as things are to-day. Some of these teachers, owing to the generosity of the managers and for other reasons, have satisfactory allowances; but there are others, of no less personal merit and who have rendered no less efficient service, who are to-day endeavouring to exist on what I must describe as a beggarly pittance. Accordingly, one of the chief intentions of the present scheme is to bring that class of teachers within its ambit and to provide them with more suitable reward for their services. The problem is a complicated one for the reasons I have indicated. Some of these teachers are fairly well-off, owing to the generosity of their former managers, and some are not so well off. Therefore it would be impossible to deal with those cases in a Clause of a Bill such as the English Bill of last year. Hence I invite the House to proceed as was done in 1908, after close consideration of the particular circumstances of this class of teachers and after full consultation with all those who are interested.

1127
I wish to say a word with regard to the finance of the Bill. The House may remember that the Treasury, in agreeing to Section 21 of the Scottish Education Act of last year, excepted superannuation. They undertook, however, to give for Scottish superannuation, if a scheme were devised for that purpose, eleven-eightieths of the expenditure in England for superannuation allowances. Clause 7 of this Bill sets out that arrangement. In short, the principle of the eleven-eightieths, which is at the foundation of the Scottish Bill of last year, is now made to apply to superannuation as well as to the other purposes of the Bill. The cost of superannuation, so far as we can judge, will not be materially different in the two countries. Accordingly eleven-eightieths will meet the requirements of the Scottish case, in so far as those can now be foreseen. If there should be a deficiency, that will be met from the Education (Scotland) Fund. If, on the other hand, there should be a surplus, then the fund will receive a corresponding benefit. Of course there are considerations which justify, if it were necessary to do so, the non-contributory principle. The real problem is what advantages by way of salary and by way of superannuation can one offer in order to induce into the teaching profession men of high education and of culture, whose efficiency will be of the first importance to the nation in the future. If substantial salaries are offered and substantial superannuation benefits free of cost, we may reasonably hope to attract into the teaching profession recruits of an even better class than hitherto—men who will devote their lives to the teaching profession with some hope that when their declining years arrive due provision will be made for them. There are other consequences which follow from the non-contributory system which the Bill proposes to set up. For example, teachers will be relieved of the necessity of contributing 4 per cent. of their salaries, as they do to-day. In other words, the salaries of the teachers all over Scotland will be increased, not nominally, but really by 4 per cent per annum. Moreover, the education authorities will be relieved of their contribution of 2 per cent., which is the contribution they make to-day, and the rates to that extent will also be relieved. Then the Education (Scotland) Fund will be relieved to some extent of the payments
1128
which are imposed upon it under the existing scheme. Therefore the free balance of the fund that will be available for distribution among education authorities will be larger than it is to-day. Accordingly, I venture to think that the non-contributory scheme which has been adopted in England and which even a sense of fairness would lead us to adopt in Scotland will also be found to be beneficial to the teaching profession and to the public as well.
The Bill is an urgent measure. We cannot afford to lag behind England in this matter. But apart from that, the need of the teachers, as I have indicated, is very real, and ought to be met promptly. The Bill also is a timely Bill. We are entering in Scotland, as the House knows, at the present moment on a new educational epoch. This month new authorities are to be elected, powerful and responsible authorities, both in the counties and towns of Scotland, and better conditions for teachers appear to me at least very fittingly to synchronise with this new educational departure. The efficiency of the teacher—I have said this before in the House, but I venture to repeat it—is in proportion to his freedom from financial anxiety, and the efficiency of the pupil is in proportion to the efficiency of the teacher.
Mr. ADAMSON: And his financial anxiety as well.
Mr. MUNRO: It may be so, but I am not quite sure that I follow my right hon. Friend. The efficiency of the race, I would venture to add the efficiency of the youth of the future will depend upon the training which they receive in school to-day. Having regard to these considerations, I hope I have said enough to induce the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. After it has been read a second time and it goes to the Scottish Grand Committee, I hope, in conference with that Committee, to reach a solution of this problem which will be of advantage not only to the teaching profession but to the public as well.
Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend quite truly said that this measure, which he has introduced in a speech which is not only instinct with knowledge of the subject but with great sympathy, is one which will be welcomed not only by the Scottish Members but also by the teaching profession in Scotland and by the Scottish people. I am very glad indeed that teachers who have been superannuated before, the

1129
passage of the measure are to be included within what I hope will be its generous scope. In the second place, we all welcome the promise which my right hon. Friend has made that the scheme will be first submitted to the Committee, because hitherto the practice has been to have schemes of this kind simply laid on the Table, and then all that hon. Members can do is to accept or reject them. This is a new departure, as far as I know, and one which I am certain the House ought to welcome, and the Committee upstairs will now be able to discuss this in draft, and indeed to have that measure of control over its various proposals which Parliament ought to have. With regard to the already superannuated teachers, I should like to say how wise it is that they should be brought within the ambit of this measure, because, after all, what you want to do is to attract into the teaching profession the best class of young men and young women that is obtainable in Scotland. For the future their prospects will be better. But I am certain you will give an added inducement to them to undertake this great task of educating the young if they know that the old teachers are being at any rate justly dealt with. They will say that is something like justice. Generosity apart, all they want is justice, and if they see justice done to the old people that is an earnest with them that they will when their time comes, having finished their part of this undertaking, be dealt with justly too. These are days in which we all preach economy and do not practice it. But any sum, I am certain, which is allocated by the State towards this object will come back a hundredfold in the sense of security and of the meeting of the claims of justice which must react upon the teachers' work. Never was it so important that the youth of this country should be educated according to the highest standard, and you will get the best out of your teachers if you give them not only security of tenure but also justice in their pay. I am certain that the Committee upstairs will welcome very much the opportunity, in so far as lies within their power, to make an even better measure than is foreshadowed by the Clauses now contained in the Bill.
Mr. J. JOHNSTONE: I wish to congratulate the Secretary for Scotland on this Bill, which I am sure will be welcomed by all shades of opinion. The fact that now superannuation allowances are to be made non-contributory, and that you have
1130
a new education authority coming into, being very shortly, will mean that the example shown by the Government in giving this Bill to Scotland will be followed by the new education authority, and that will do something still more to elevate the teaching profession in Scotland to a higher place. I am sure nothing could be better in any country than that we should have the best men and women engaged in the teaching profession, and the fact that this Bill will give a better outlook for teachers in the future will tend to attract to the teaching profession in Scotland the best men and women. I am exceedingly glad the right hon. Gentleman has met the case of the retired teacher. In these evil days, when the cost of living is so high, he has been stressed by hard circumstances and this Bill will give him a measure of relief which will be greatly appreciated. I heartily welcome it.
Mr. A. SHAW: I wish to join in the chorus of congratulation which has been tendered to my right hon. Friend. I am sure the teachers of Scotland, especially that small class of retired teachers, who cannot organise, who have no voting power, who cannot make any great appeal to this House, have in my right hon. Friend a very warm friend and supporter. One is sometimes rather struck, in approaching on their behalf that great Scottish Education Department, which resides in a dug-out in the Scottish Office, by the somewhat cold attitude which is exhibited towards these teachers. I had a recent experience of that. The utmost that can be done, even under these abnormal conditions of the cost of living, for the retired teacher is to so increase his allowance that it is brought up to a total of £52 per annum, and I do not think in the existing state of affairs that is any too much. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend, under the scheme which he will submit in draft, will propose to increase it. But it is rather hard that when Scottish Members approach the Scottish Education authority on this matter there should be, I will not say a lack of sympathy but a certain tendency to say, "Well, at any rate, they manage to exist because they are still living, and you must remember that 5s. a week is all that an old age pensioner gets." I am quite sure that is not my right hon. Friend's attitude. I am sure he realises that the State is under a very

1131
special obligation to that class of men and women who have for so many years foregone other careers which would have been open to them. The education of the coming generation is one of the most important duties in the State. I, am glad the right hon. Gentleman is going to lay before us the draft scheme. That is an extremely novel and useful thing. I wish nothing for the Bill but a safe and speedy passage, and I would impress upon my right hon. Friend the special need of seeing that all those who are devoting their time to the education of the coming generation have something more to look forward to in their old age than trying to make both ends meet on 20s. a week.
Mr. STURROCK: I rise to support every word that has just fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw). I feel that all classes of opinion in Scotland are most heartily in favour of the utmost generosity being accorded to the retired teachers. I trust my right hon. Friend will do all in his power to expedite the passage of the Bill, for it has been too long deferred and circumstances are rendering it very necessary now. I should like him to have in view Clause 4, which seems to me to place an unfortunate class of retired teachers in a peculiarly hard position. Clause 4 deals with those who are mentally unfit as the result of their work, and the terms of the Clause are such as to suggest that all that their dependants are to enjoy is something in the nature of charity, to be granted by the Department under the scheme. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the Clause, and to place the case of these teachers on a better footing than it occupies in the Bill. I associate myself with every word that has been said in general support of the Bill, and I only trust we may soon see it placed on the Statute Book.
Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to associate members of the Labour party and myself with what has been said regarding the introduction of this Bill. I think the Scottish Secretary is to be commended for introducing it, and for making an effort to put the teaching profession in Scotland on the same footing as has been done in England. I also appreciate very highly the fact that he has arranged in this Bill for dealing fairly and generously with the veterans of the teaching profession. I am sure this measure will not only be welcomed by the teaching profession, but will,
1132
generally speaking, be welcomed by the whole of the Scottish people. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the efficiency of the teacher is in proportion to his freedom from financial worry, and also that the efficiency of the scholar is in proportion to the efficiency of the teacher. He did not seem to catch my point when I said, plus the scholar being provided with the wherewithal to keep him in a fit condition for receiving the teaching. That can only be done by the parent or guardian being in the same position as the teacher in having finances sufficient to enable him to put the scholar in that position. I welcome the Bill very heartily, and hope it will find a speedy place upon the Statute Book.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

INTESTATE HUSBAND'S ESTATE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 24th March.]
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Application to Court by Widow in Right of Estate Under the Intestate Husband's Estate (Scotland) Act, 1911.)
Where a widow is entitled to the whole or part of the estate of her deceased husband, in terms of the Intestate Husband's (Scotland) Act, 1911 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), she may present in the Sheriff Court of the county in which her husband was domiciled at the time of his death, or, if the county in which he was so domiciled is uncertain, in the Sheriff Court of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh, a summary application in the form of the Schedule to this Act, or as nearly in such form as the circumstances of the case permit, appending an inventory giving such particulars of the estate as are indicated in the form of inventory in the said Schedule.
Mr. A. SHAW: I beg to move, after the word "Edinburgh" ["Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh"], to insert the words
"or in the Sheriff Court of Aberdeenshire at Aberdeen."
6.0 P.M.
Under Clause 1 of this very useful Bill a widow is able to get possession of her deceased husband's estate in a less circuitous manner than she is under the present law. If the husband is known to be domiciled in any county, she applies in the Sheriff Court of that county.

1133
If the county of domicile is uncertain, then she has to apply "in the Sheriff Court of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh." This Amendment is to give at least one alternative to the widow who is domiciled in the North of Scotland. There are very many widows who are domiciled in the North of Scotland, and when the decease of the husband takes place it would be necessary for these widows, in a great many cases, to go to the expense of coming South to Edinburgh if the husband's domicile is uncertain, and to consult a solicitor there, and perhaps appear in the Sheriff's Court. The Amendment suggests the alternative that if the widow is domiciled in the North of Scotland and the husband's domicile is uncertain, she should be able to appeal to the Sheriff's Court at Aberdeen. I move this Amendment on its merits and because it offers an opportunity to the Solicitor-General to say a few words in favour of Inverness, and I have no doubt my hon. Friend (Sir W. Sutherland) will say a few words in favour of Oban. At least one alternative should be offered, and a widow should not be forced to incur the expense and trouble of travelling to Edinburgh in order to go through the legal formalities. I think a little more explanation is due from the Solicitor-General. There occurs a variety of legal phraseologies which are unfamiliar to Members who come South of the Tweed. In Clause 3 we have the widow referred to in terms which require explanation, and I hope the Solicitor-General will remember that he is really asking an ignorant—and I use the word in no offensive way—happily ignorant English Parliament to legislate on Scottish legal matters. The widow is referred to as the "executrix dative qua relict." Later in the Bill and in the Schedule she is referred to as the pursuer, and these terms, I think, should be explained to English Members.
Sir W. SUTHERLAND: I do not know whether the cases are many in which this uncertainty about domicile will arise, but if there be many, and if there be many in the Highlands, it is pretty obvious that neither Edinburgh nor Aberdeen will suit the people very well. To my own Constituency, the Western Islands, and the constituency of the Solicitor-General, Aberdeen is an alternative more difficult of access in many cases than Edinburgh. My hon. Friend who has
1134
moved this Amendment is a Lowland Member, and is advancing the claims of what is essentially a Lowland city—the great city of Aberdeen—but in regard to the Highlands there is a very important centre which can be got to much more easily, and that is Oban, the most important town in the Western Highlands, and a very great centre for access and egress for the people in the Western Highlands. I think the Solicitor-General, who is a Highland Member and knows something about the geography of that part of the country, will realise that point.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison): I am sure my hon. Friends have moved this Amendment from the motive of helping the widows who live in the constituency they represent or in the portions of Scotland in which they are interested. Speaking for the authorities in this matter, we certainly sympathise with every Amendment that would aid the administration of this somewhat technical Statute, but I am afraid there are good reasons why this Amendment cannot be accepted. The number of instances where the application of the Amendment would take place is extremely limited, and is becoming more limited every year. Fortunately, we are able now to ascertain with almost inevitable certainty the domicile of most of the inhabitants of Scotland who die in that country, but there remains a very small class of cases in which there is either some uncertainty about the domicile, or in which no certain domicile can be ascertained. To meet these cases it is necessary to prescribe one Sheriff's Court which will contain all the records pertaining to that class of intestacy. I think the House will see that it would not be desirable that the widow, in a case where the domicile was uncertain, should have the right to apply to one or more Sheriff's Court, because if the widow was not satisfied with the judgment of one sheriff she might then apply to another, in the hope that he might take a more reasonable view. Of course, we cannot have a conflict of jurisdiction in connection with the administration of intestate estates. There is another reason which I think will satisfy my hon. Friend, and that is, that an intestate estate must be administered in one sheriffdom, and in one Sheriff Court, and that must be the Sheriff Court where, to use an English phrase, probate is issued. This is provided for by Statute, in Section 3 of the Confirmation of Probate Act (1858), which

1135
prescribes that the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh shall deal with the administration of the estate of all persons who die without any fixed domicile. It seems to us that it is essential that the administration of this particular share of the estate which is given by Statute to the widow, should take place in the same Sheriff Court which issues confirmation in regard to that particular estate. While I appreciate entirely the motives which have induced my hon. Friends to suggest this Amendment, I think I have given good reason why it cannot be accepted.
Mr. SHAW: I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his extremely lucid explanation. I think the objections he has raised could have been got over by a certain form of words, but after the explanation he has given, and having regard to my desire not to delay the passage of this Bill, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 (Procedure in Application to the Court); 3 (Effect of Decree of Court); 4 (Saving); 5 (Repeal); 6 (Construction, Citation, and Extent), and Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move,
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
I think it is probably unnecessary to rehearse the considerations which render the establishment of a Ministry of Health desirable. They are quite familiar to the House, and they do not admit of serious challenge or controversy. I shall accordingly confine myself to explaining as shortly and as clearly as I can the main features of the Bill. If I have to refer, as I shall have to do more than once, to the Secretary for Scotland, the House will understand that I am referring to the official who is so designed, and not to the present holder of the office. One of the first and most important questions which arise in connection with this Bill is this: Should the Secretary for Scotland be the head of the new organisation or should there be a separate Minister of Health?
1136
While I quite recognise what I think are the superficial attractions of the latter proposal, I have no hesitation whatever in adopting the first, and in embodying it in the Bill. Health, no doubt, is an important subject. But so is education, so is agriculture, so is fisheries. If you set up a separate Ministry of Health, each of the Departments which I have just named would have an equally good claim to a separate Ministry, and to give effect to such claims is obviously not practical politics to-day. Moreover, I think it is of the first importance that the head of the new Health Department should be a Cabinet Minister, who will have the right to speak in the inner councils of the nation, and who will also be in close and intimate touch with the Treasury. The Secretary for Scotland in normal times answers these requirements. A separate Minister of Health certainly would not, because I think it is not conceivable under existing conditions that you should have two Ministers from Scotland, both of whom would be in the Cabinet.
Mr. MacVEAGH: They are nearly all from Scotland.
Mr. MUNRO: I mean those representing Scottish interests—the interests represented by the Secretary for Scotland and the interests represented by a separate Minister for Health. If you had two Ministers under these conditions I do not think we could reasonably hope that both would be included in the Cabinet. It may be quite reasonably said that the Secretary for Scotland has already a large number of duties to perform, and is it really proposed to add to these duties by imposing on him yet another? My reply would be that it is, if at the same time you supply the Secretary for Scotland with a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. This the Bill proposes to do. I think that this should have been done long ago, but it is better late than never. The Bill provides that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary shall be responsible, under the Secretary for Scotland, for the administration of the new Health Board. What will be the relation of the Secretary for Scotland and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Health Board? Under the provisions of the Bill, the Secretary for Scotland is to be the President of the Board, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary the Vice-President. The Board to-day, as my Scottish colleagues will know, consists of three appointed mem-

1137
bers, one of whom must be a medical man with a public health qualification, and another an advocate of seven years' standing, together with three members who are ex-officio members—namely, the Secretary for Scotland, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and the Permanent Under-Secretary for Scotland. We propose that the latter two ex-officio members shall no longer be members of the Board. Their presence has been valuable, but under the new arrangement I do not think that it would be necessary.
The three appointed members will remain members of the new Board. As regards qualifications, it is not proposed that the medical member shall necessarily possess a diploma of public health. Another member must be a lawyer, and the range of choice has been extended by including both branches of the legal profession. Formerly the legal member of the Board had to be an advocate, but under this Bill he may be either an advocate or a member of the solicitors' branch of the profession. It is further provided that ten years' experience of professional life should be a necessary qualification for this important post. Looking at the responsible character of the duties to be discharged, that is not too long. Further, it is proposed to include two of the four Insurance Commissioners, selected by the Secretary for Scotland, and, at any rate, one woman, while the chairman will be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland. I hope that the House will approve of the principle upon which it is proposed to select members of the new Board.
The next important question is, with what powers should the new Board of Health be clothed? I have endeavoured to make the transferred powers, which are to be transferred immediately, as ample and as comprehensive as possible, and in that I think that I am giving effect to the views of my Scottish colleagues as expressed to me when I had the privilege of meeting them in the Committee Room upstairs. In the first place, the powers of the Local Government Board and the Insurance Commissioners are transferred under Section 4, Sub-section (1) of the Bill. There are also transferred the powers and duties of the Privy Council under the Midwives Act, and the powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland under the Alkali Works Regulation Act,
1138
the Burial Grounds Act, the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Acts, the Vaccination. Acts, and of the Highland and Islands-Medical Service Board. These powers-will not be transferred by Order in Council, but in virtue of statutory enactment, if the House thinks fit to agree with the proposals made. I do not go into various details with regard to each Statute. It may be thought desirable to investigate and explain these matters more carefully upstairs.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I should be glad to-know what is in the mind of the Government with regard to the words in Subsection (2), paragraph (c), "any other powers and, duties in Scotland of any Government Department." Does he contemplate taking over—I hope he does—the power of the Home Office with regard to factories, and matters of that kind?
Mr. MUNRO: I would not like to commit myself to the precise duties which it is proposed to take over under that very general Clause. It is, I think, common form, and leaves it open at any time in the future by Order in Council, which will require the sanction of this House, to take over any powers which bear closely upon health functions. I cannot at the moment inform my right hon. Friend more definitely with regard to the particular matters which may be transferred under this general section. It would be a matter for consideration undoubtedly whether the administration of the Factory Acts comes within health jurisdiction, and whether it would be desirable to transfer these powers. If any of my hon. Friends desire further information on the points in the Clause I would suggest that this part of the Bill might be thrashed out in detail upstairs.
I want to say a word about the two specified powers which under Clause 4, Sub-section (2), it is proposed to transfer by Order in Council. The first is the powers and duties of the Scottish Education Department with respect to medical inspection and treatment of children. The other is the powers and duties of the Ministry of Pensions with respect to the health of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service. On the first point very careful consideration has been given to the suggestion that these powers should be transferred now. There are difficulties, both financial and administrative, which stand in the way of doing it.

1139
As regards finance the transfer of these powers now would involve the splitting up of the Education (Scotland) Department which was unified so recently as last year. And for what? The sole result, so far as I can see, would be that you would have two masters to serve instead of one—the Board of Health and the Scottish Education Department. There would be no change locally effected by the transfer. The Board of Health Department would have to work through the Education Authority, as the Scottish Education Department works through the School Board to-day. In other words, the Scottish Education Department would provide the money and would have no responsibility for the spending of it. That would be done by the Board of Health. I suggest for the grave consideration of the House that the disadvantage of the duality of control which would result from the arrangement suggested would more than neutralise any conceivable benefit which would be effected by immediate transfer. On the other hand, I do not for a moment rule out of account the possibility when wider areas are established in Scotland of having such transfer effected by Order in Council, but I do suggest that in the circumstances which I have mentioned it would be desirable that the matter should be left over for further and future consideration.
As regards (b) in Sub-section (2) of Section 4, namely, the transfer of the duties of the Pensions Ministry, I am assured that the schemes are not sufficiently developed at the present moment to admit of a transfer, though it may quite appropriately be done by Order in Council at no very distant date. There are one or two other matters to which it is necessary to refer at this stage. One is the provision for setting up consultative councils. That, of course, resembles the provision in the English Bill with which hon. Members are familiar. I have a very strong and firm belief in councils of this kind. I have found such councils of immense service in a very different region of administration, namely agriculture. I have set up advisory councils also under the Education Act last year. One entertains very high hopes of the beneficial advice to be received from these councils, which will keep the central body in touch with responsible and enlightened public opinion throughout the
1140
country. The Bill provides that on the consultative councils to be set up there shall be women as well as men.
A word finally with regard to the Poor Law Sub-section—Sub section (3) of Clause 4. It deals with this matter in precisely the same way as the English Bill deals with the matter. It is, I quite admit, a somewhat unusual type of Clause in an Act of Parliament. Still the House will probably think it right that it should be included. The Poor Law manifestly requires revision. But I think that it would be overloading the Bill and would impede its passage—as the Bill does not really admit of delay—to attempt to revise the Poor Law and include that within the four corners of this measure. The intention, however, is at the earliest possible moment to eradicate from health administration what has come to be known as the taint of the Poor Law. I wish it had been possible to deal under this Bill with local as well as central administration. Large areas in my humble judgment are as essential to effective health administration as they are to successful educational administration, and one hopes that the time is not far distant when that problem will be tackled again. In the meantime it would be a profound mistake to delay this measure by the insertion of provisions which might turn out to be highly contentious in their character. It is better, I think, to do one thing at a time and to take the more urgent things first. This is an important and an urgent reform, and I feel sure that recognising this the House will facilitate the passage of this Bill into law. I venture, therefore, to suggest that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading on the footing that it can be thrashed out upstairs in all details, when any suggestions—and I know how varied they are—and opinions by my hon. Friends as regards many of the provisions of this Bill can be put forward and argued out. They will certainly be very carefully and very fully considered.
Sir D. MACLEAN: It is a matter of regret to, I think, all Scottish Members here present that we should not have had a better opportunity of considering the Bill before having had to take part in the Second Reading. I do not blame my right hon. Friend for that. The Bill has come on quite unexpectedly, but I think that on the whole it would have been unwise for Scottish Members not to seize the opportunity of taking the Second Reading of

1141
the Bill and getting it up to a Grand Committee if possible before Easter, because those of you who know Parliament and its uncertainty know that the missed opportunity is the one which has gone and not the one which you may have. Therefore, despite the drawbacks which I certainly suffer from, because I frankly confess I had only seen the draft of the Bill, I think it is just as well to have the Second Reading this evening. My right hon. Friend, perhaps all unconsciously, has been adding another instance to the tremendous case which is piling up for Home Rule for Scotland. He read out a list of offices which he at present holds, and he asks us quite fairly, and with a good deal of force, whether under the existing state of things there is anything to be gained by adding another. Frankly I do not think there is. If you add another in the existing state of things you set up a separate Ministry in Scotland and derange the whole of the existing machinery, working as it is with great difficulty but, in a measure, which after all I am bound to say reflects great credit on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, and the Solicitor-General. I do not know how they do it but somehow the thing is done, not well done I think they will admit, or not as well as it ought to be done. But, of course, the only thing to do is to pile these offices up until the time comes when Scottish affairs can be dealt with by Scotsmen in Scotland, and until that we must make the best of things and take, as Scotsmen always do, what they can get always in the hope of getting more. As to the transfer which the right hon. Gentleman said he proposed to take the various powers under Clause 4 which follow the English model, I have not much to say, except to press this point upon the right hon Gentlemen. In the English Bill, at any rate as it left the House, it was not proposed to take within the scope of the measure the powers of the Home Office. I have not followed what occurred upstairs, and I do not know whether that was altered. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not!"] There is not the slightest doubt that there is the power in Clause 4, Sub-section (2, c), to transfer to this new Board in Scotland the powers of the Home Office in relation to factories and mines in so far as they affect health and well-being from the purely health point of view of the workers there. I do
1142
not know what the case is against it. In this matter, which vitally affects hundreds of thousands of men and women and young persons in Scotland, it is vitally important that in setting up this power, with all its multifarious responsibilities, that you should not cut out from it and leave under the dominance of a purely English office the question of the factories and workshops of Scotland and all those teeming industrial centres which we know so well. I hope, when we come to deal with this matter in Grand Committee, that my right lion. Friend will see that that power is translated into an effective undertaking to take from the Home Office, as far as Scotland is concerned, those purely health functions and place them under this Board.
There is another point as to which I think my right hon. Friend has been too modest, and that is the question of the relief of the poor and the machinery therefor in Scotland. The question is not nearly so complicated as in England. I was chairman of a Committee which considered this matter, and no one who sat on that Committee could come to any other conclusion than that in the English Bill it was too great a matter to deal with there. I really do not think the problem is anything like so complicated in Scotland. There may be points of contention, but there is a real opportunity now, instead of deferring it, of dealing with the whole matter, and there is no reason why you should not make a clean sweep of the whole thing. The system in Scotland is not nearly so interlaced with the whole of the Government Departments as in England. I notice that in the constitution of the Board it is provided that we are to have one or more women. I venture to think the time has come when we should start by saying two women. That is necessary, because after all women are becoming qualified in medicine in numbers which nobody ten years ago thought probable or indeed possible. Women have a dominant interest in the health of the home, and therefore I think the minimum number should be two. I think it is right that the legal member of this Board should be drawn from either branch of the legal profession, and not limited to the advocate side. The solicitor is in much closer touch with the problem and you can get a really good man drawn from either branch of the profession and quite competent to undertake the duties set out here. I say no more now about the

1143
constitution of the Board, which is a matter which can be more easily dealt with in Committee. The other point, that of finance, is one which should receive very careful attention. There will be a Money Resolution, and as to that I would remind the Lord Advocate of what I take is now the established practice of the House, namely, to hold on to Money Resolutions until the House has an adequate and proper statement from the Government of what the cost is to be in connection with the particular undertaking. I can promise him a much longer Debate than he would like on such a matter as this, unless the most careful consideration is given to the Money Resolution.
Mr. MACKINDER: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I did read this Bill yesterday, and therefore before the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, and I had the opportunity of consulting with some colleagues. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman and also with the Leader of the Opposition that in existing circumstances the demand for a separate Minister of Health for Scotland could not in those words, or by that name at any rate, be granted. I think the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman is conclusive, namely, that it is essential that there should be a Cabinet Minister in charge of this very important Department of Scottish administration, and that under existing circumstances it would not be hopeful if we were to ask to have two representatives holding Scottish offices. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has gone some considerable distance in the direction of meeting the demands made to him by providing in this Bill for an Under-Secretary responsible under the Secretary for Scotland for the administration of this Board. In other words, I take it that we are to have a certain amount of specialisation as between the Secretary for Scotland and the Under-Secretary—that is to say, that the Under-Secretary will be the man to whom people will go who wish to get into real touch with the administration of the Board of Health. The right hon. Gentleman accepts that interpretation, and then I am rather troubled, if that be so, by the insertion at the end of Clause 3 of the office of chairman. Though it is quite true that we cannot have a separate Minister for Health, yet there is a very great deal in the demand that was made for a change in the spirit of administration. On
1144
all hands you hear in Scotland that people are tired of this administration by Board. Unfortunately, this Department is to be called a Board. That is the name in the Bill, and I suppose you can hardly alter it. We would have preferred that it should have been known as a Department, and put on all fours with the Scottish Education Department, and that it should have had a Secretary as permanent head in charge of it, and then we should have some beginning of symmetry in the administration of Scotland in the institution of a Scottish Home Office and the first step away from this, administration by Board. There are a great many of us, in fact, I may tell the Secretary for Scotland the majority at any rate of the non-official members, and I am not quite sure that there are not a majority of all the Members from Scotland, who feel that it is essential that we should have even further specialisation in the extraordinarily heterogeneous duties of the Scottish Office, and that we should have a second Under-Secretary to divide with the Secretary for Scotland the duties of the Scottish Office. As it is at present, the Secretary for Scotland, though he is dealing with a small country, is dealing with the equivalent of no fewer than four Departments, at least, of the English Administration. Though he is dealing only with the affairs of a small country, that does not prevent those affairs from being extraordinarily different in their character and making a great demand on the brain of one man.
Our feeling is that if we can have something like a little administrative Cabinet in Scotland, presided over by the Secretary for Scotland, with his two Law Officers and his two Under-Secretaries, we may have something different from that merely bureaucratic administration which we have at present in Scotland. It should be possible under such circumstances normally to have one Minister present in Edinburgh, and that important local authorities wishing to get into touch with the Government of Scotland when they go to Edinburgh should not merely have to deal with permanent officials, but should be able to see one of the men whose names figure in the reports of Parliamentary proceedings when Scottish affairs come before the country, and that they should feel that they are getting in touch with the men elected by the people and chosen from among the representatives from Scotland. I know there are some of my colleagues

1145
who fear that by taking such a step we shall be deferring Scottish Home Rule, but my feeling is that you cannot and that you will not get Scottish Home Rule until you can have a scheme for devolution all round, and I am not in the least afraid that by making the administration of Scotland efficient in the meantime we shall be deferring that very great change in the administration of this country which is implied in the scheme which we ordinarily describe as Home Rule all round. Therefore, I venture to express the belief that we may safely take steps now to obtain a really efficient administration of Scotland. We are only going to get that by accepting the two principles—on the one hand a division of labour among the Ministers responsible, and, on the other hand, the abolition of that spirit of bureaucratic and board administration which has grown up in Scotland, because we had not an adequately manned Ministry for Scotland. Therefore, while we accept the proposal of the Bill that there should be an Under-Secretary responsible especially for the Board of Health under the Secretary for Scotland, I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there will be Amendments moved in Committee with the object of bringing this Board more into harmony with the Department of Education. Names in these matters count for something. People-in Scotland are looking for a departure from your system of boards, and we shall ask that we shall not have a Chairman but a Secretary as the permanent official at the head of this Department, because we want openly and definitely to depart from the spirit which has prevailed up to now, and we want to have this Under-Secretary for Scotland not merely nominally responsible for this Board, but actually and directly and personally responsible and interested in the working of the administration. We want a real Minister. We may have presently a Housing Bill which might be correlated with this, and your Under-Secretary for Health might deal with health and housing. You might have an Under-Secretary dealing also, on the other side, with such matters as agriculture and fisheries; and in order to impress upon the Scottish administration the general desire that there should be such a change I think, after careful consideration, it is possible that a large number, at any rate of the Committee upstairs, will desire to mark that by instituting if possible some other title than that of "Chairman." I notice
1146
especially also the salary which is to be separately assigned to this Chairman, thereby marking the importance of his office. We fear that that does signify that you are merely camouflaging the continuance of the present system by yielding to the pressure that has been put on you, and putting a double screen, not only that of the Secretary for Scotland, but that of the Under-Secretary, between you and the criticism which has been levelled at you. Therefore, while I would do nothing to impede the Second Reading of this Bill this evening, at the same time we do give notice that we shall have definite criticism upstairs with a view to action in the directions I have indicated.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am bound to say that in Scotland there is great dissatisfaction that, instead of the Secretary for Scotland with his many duties being made the head of a new Health Board, we should not have had a separate Minister of Health. I do not share with my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder) the view that the Scottish people detest a Board. That is not the feeling in Scotland. They do not care what the Department is, whether it is a Department or a Board, or whether you call the head of it a chairman or a president. What they do distrust in Scotland is the influence of the Scottish Office in London, and they want to work this Department apart from the paralysing influence of the Scottish Office here If in the provision that is made in the Bill for an Under-Secretary it is made clear that he will devote his whole time to health matters alone, that will reconcile us in Scotland to the fact that the Secretary for Scotland is to be the head of the new Department. But if the Under-Secretary is going to be maid-of-all-work, and to potter around in the Scottish Office here, it will not be at all to our liking and will create a most unsatisfactory feeling. If you are going to reconcile the Scottish people to not having a separate Minister of Health, you will do so by making the Under-Secretary under this Act a Secretary who will devote his whole time to the duties of public health. I am sorry to learn that the Secretary for Scotland is not disposed at the outset to transfer to the new Health Department in Scotland the medical inspection of school children. At the present moment a new educational authority is being formed in

1147
Scotland. The elections are in progress, large areas have been created, the whole of the Scottish educational system is in the melting pot, and this appears to many of us to be the very opportunity for the medical inspection and treatment of school children to be transferred from the medical authorities and handed over to the new Board of Health. I have had the privilege of being chairman of a committee. The old authorities have been tinkering, with medical inspection in Scotland for a few years past, but they have only touched the fringe of the question, and we should greatly appreciate it if at the very outset it had been decided to transfer from the Education Department to the new Board of Health the inspection and treatment of school children. While this was not provided in the English Bill, the Committee on that Bill have resolved that the medical inspection of school children will be handed over to the new Health Board for England, and what is good enough for England should be good enough for Scotland. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will carefully consider whether, instead of relying on that vicious system of Orders in Council upon some future occasion, he will not forthwith arrange for the Committee to give the same privilege in regard to the medical treatment of school children as has been granted under the English Bill. I hope that the setting up of this central authority in Scotland will lead to larger local areas being established in Scotland. We suffer just now in Scotland from having far too many small local health bodies. These should be grouped or merged into larger areas, with a population of not less than 40,000 or 50,000, instead of tinkering away with the small local health bodies that we have just now, who are not discharging their duties at all adequately. In regard to the appointment, of women on the Board, I prefer the terms of the Bill itself, "one or more." Representatives from Scotland waited on the Secretary for Scotland, and a lady member impressed upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should not put any limits on the number, but that he should put it in "one or more," so that sex should be no disqualification, and so that in time to come it might be possible to have all women, if necessary. In regard to the ex-officio members, and the Solicitor-General and the Permanent Under-Secretary being out of the new Board, I think that will work very
1148
well. The Solicitor-General attends so infrequently, and I am glad that this Health Board will be limited to one ex-officio member, and that two of them will disappear. The Secretary for Scotland has had many representations made to him in regard to this new Health Board, and I am bound to acknowledge that he has met us remarkably well. He has not gone the whole way, but he has shown an earnest desire to meet Scottish opinion and to do the best he could to gratify a strong desire in Scotland for a thorough-going Health Department that will do good work for the country and will improve the conditions of health there. If in Committee he will meet us a little further in order to improve the Bill and make it really workable we shall be very glad.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. J. TAYLOR (Dumbarton): I claim the indulgence of the House in making my first speech here. I do not know if I would have intervened in this Debate but for one remark made by the hon. Member who said that Scottish opinion was against the Secretary for Scotland being the Minister for Health. I entirely disagree with him. One section of Scottish opinion, the Insurance Committees, undoubtedly are, but the great local authorities, at a conference in Glasgow, and various congresses throughout the country passed resolutions in favour of the Secretary for Scotland and the Minister for Health being the Minister of State. It has been my privilege to attend most of the congresses that have taken place during the last 25 years, and as one who has been dealing with public health in a very large and growing borough, it has been my duty to face these problems and try and overcome the difficulties that lie in our way. All through we have felt that there ought to have been not only a co-ordination of the Public Health Acts, but that they ought to be under one head, and I agree that there ought also to be co-ordination of administration. I congratulate the Secretary for Scotland in having given way to the opinion of Scotland on many of the points that were originally in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has done the best he could to meet Scottish opinion, and I think he has done so very successfully. The constitution of the Board may not be all that we could desire, but I think it is about the best you could have

1149
in Scotland at the present time. We shall have the best of the Local Government Board, the best of the Insurance Commissioners, we shall have the Secretary for Scotland, with an Under-Secretary, and we are going to have at least one woman. I agree with the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, that we should not limit it to two, or even three women, but should leave it as it is now, "one or more women." The Scottish Members are of opinion that they know some women in Scotland who would adequately fill these positions. I am pleased that the Secretary for Scotland agreed to the alteration in connection with the constitution of the Board, and as well as an advocate, put in a lawyer, of ten years' qualification, because, after all, public health in Scotland has been administered by our own clerks and our county clerks, and they know far more about public health matters than does the Solicitor-General for Scotland, or some other advocate. I am pleased that in the Bill research work is included. That was excluded from the English Bill, I do not know-whether the Committee has reinstated it or not. In research work I think we have what is going to be the future of the medical service. Our medical service will be mostly engaged in preventing disease rather than curing it afterwards. I am pleased to see that under this Bill research work is to be carried on under the Ministry of Health.
While I say all that in favour of the Bill, I am disappointed that the Secretary for Scotland has not included the medical service of the Scottish Education Department. I think that as this is the time when you are going to make a change, that you ought to make it, and include every one of the Departments, because the local authorities have thought for a long time that the dual responsibility in treating children is not for the good of the children or for the nation. A child from one to five years is under the jurisdiction of the town council, in boroughs; from five upwards it is under the jurisdiction of the educational authority. That should be altered as soon as possible. And I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will see that that is included in the Bill when it goes upstairs to Committee.
Mr. ADAMSON: I rise to support, in a very few words, the Second Reading of this Bill. Taking a Second Reading at such
1150
short notice has certain disadvantages, but at the same time the question of the establishment of a Board of Health is of such an important character that I think everyone of us will welcome its introduction, even in the exceptional circumstances in which it has been brought in this afternoon. I hope, however, that the Secretary for Scotland will keep in mind the circumstances under which we are taking the Second Reading, and will give very careful and sympathetic consideration to Amendments that may be moved by the various Scottish Members when the Bill gets into Committee upstairs. My chief objection to the Bill is that it is of far too limited a character, if we are to deal more effectively with the health of our people in the coming days than we have been able to up to the present. I think the Secretary for Scotland would have been well advised to have taken a much bolder line than he has taken and to have sought to have set up a real Health Ministry. No social programme has loomed so largely and persistently before the public during the past two years or thereabouts than that relating to the health services and to the setting up of a Ministry of Health. The Bill that we are considering on the Second Reading to-night falls short, to my mind, of dealing with this question in the comprehensive fashion that the people of Scotland desire. I am also very strongly of the opinion, as has already been expressed by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Renfrewshire, that there will be considerable disappointment on the part of a large section of the Scottish people if an Amendment is not accepted providing for the appointment of a Minister who will give his full time to health and housing. The Secretary for Scotland, in his opening remarks, dealt briefly with the provisions made in the Bill. There are just one or two points of criticism which I want to make. The first is that in setting up this Board he has made no provision for Labour being represented. As he is very well aware, for a considerable time past it has been the custom, when new legislation has been introduced, to give effect—sometimes in a limited way, I have to confess—to the idea of Labour representation, and I hope I may have the privilege upstairs of seeing accepted an Amendment enabling Labour to be represented on the Board of Health. I regret, also, that no attempt has been made in this Bill to co-ordinate the local

1151
authorities. Unless we have some scheme of co-ordination of the local authorities, I fear we shall lose a considerable amount of the benefit which we should otherwise obtain from such a measure as has been introduced this evening. When one realises that we have in Scotland no less than 310 local authorities administering public health, and that under some of these local authorities the population drops down to as low as 500, one can see that there is not much chance of improving the public health service. So far as I am personally concerned, I would gladly welcome a scheme of co-ordination of the local authorities in connection with this measure. I do not think it will be possible to carry out the ideas of the people of Scotland unless we have very much larger areas than we have at present, and I would be quite prepared to support the establishment of these larger areas if the Secretary for Scotland were willing to give the same provision to those who represent the people on these larger local health boards as was given in the Scottish Education Act which was recently passed. But these are points which can be raised in Committee, and it will be for those of us who have ideas concerning them to put them in form of Amendments and discuss them with the Secretary for Scotland when the Bill comes before us upstairs. I therefore content myself with supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope that we shall have all these matters fully discussed upstairs by the Grand Committee.
Dr. D. MURRAY: The fact that this Bill has come on unexpectedly puts some of us at a disadvantage, especially an unsophisticated rustic like myself, fresh from the heather, who is not accustomed to speaking when suddenly called upon. But I can quite understand why my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, with the Scottish instinct for taking advantage of an opportunity, seized the occasion to get the Second Reading of the Bill. This is a Bill in which I take a very special interest. We should always remember that the health of the people depends, not upon Bills or Ministries of Health, but almost entirely upon improving the social conditions of the people at large. Neither this nor any other Bill will necessarily affect for the better the health of the people of this country at all. The health of the bulk of the population depends to
1152
a very large extent—more, perhaps, than is realised—upon the social conditions of the people. By this I mean sufficiency of food, sufficient and efficient housing, clothing, and all those other necessary things that are connoted by the term "social conditions." A Bill, a Ministry of this sort—I am adding a more dignified name than the right hon. Gentleman has given in the baptism of his child—is of very great importance as an auxiliary to these other efforts towards the improvement of social conditions. All the same, I gladly, if I may say so, welcome this Bill, and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the lucid way in which he has explained to us its general principles.
I am happy to agree with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire in believing that to do justice to the health requirements of Scotland we ought to have gone upon the same lines as England, and have instituted a Ministry of Health instead of a Board of Health. It is not that I have any objection to the term "board." We must admit that in Scotland we have no reason to object to that word "board" as applied to an institution of this sort. A testimonial from me may not be of very much use, but I happen to have been a medical officer of health and a medical inspector of schools, and I think I can say honestly, that not in any country can you find a more efficient, and a more progressive Board than the Local Government Board of Scotland. That, from my connection with it, is, at any rate, my firm conviction. The same applies to the other body with which the Secretary for Scotland will have to do, the Scottish Insurance Commission. It is not because I have any particular dislike for Scottish bureaucracy that I object to the term "Board of Health." But the health of the community should be considered one of the most important matters which the Government undertakes in these times. I know, and it is necessary to say so, that I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland does not argue for these various bodies to be retained in his own Ministry simply because he is Minister for Scotland, or because he wants to add to the authority and dignity of his office. But the matter is one for practical consideration to apply. I am not convinced by the argument he has brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman's strongest argument seemed to me to be the logical conclusion. When people want to defeat a suggestion

1153
of this sort they always try to frighten us with the logical conclusion to our argument. It is argued that if you institute a separate Ministry of Health, then the fishery people will want a Ministry of Fisheries, the lunacy people will want a Ministry for Lunatics, and the education people will be wanting a Ministry of Education. Not at all! I am all for the improvement of the status of the Secretary for Scotland. I believe we can make the office much more efficient if we allow the right hon. Gentleman time to do the work which he has on hand. The Secretary for Scotland must be what is colloquially known as a "Jack of all Trades"—and I think I ought fairly to add to that a "Master of None." I must, however, make amends for that last observation by saying that I think—and sincerely—that if any man could be a Master of all Trades in connection with the Scottish Office it would be my right hon. and learned Friend. But no man, no matter what his abilities, can with efficiency perform all the duties which are required at the present time from the Secretary for Scotland. Therefore I think the House would be adding to the status, dignity, and efficiency of the Secretaryship for Scotland if they separated this great question of health from his control.
We live in an age of reconstruction. If we are going to look at these things in a new attitude at all, in a new orientation, I think this is a splendid opportunity for putting this health of the people question upon a satisfactory basis, and giving it in charge ad hoc of a separate Minister. What is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, adding to his own difficulties. An Under-Secretary is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman for this particular work—although he did not say whether he was to be entirely confined to this work. However that may be, the Secretary for Scotland would still be responsible to this House for the work of the Under-Secretary, and the Under-Secretary would be responsible for the work of the Board of Health generally; so that it is rather a circulocutory arrangement. I should like to have something more direct than a Board of Health, and that you can only have by having a Minister of Health responsible to this House. I am not at all influenced by the argument that such a Minister would not and could not be a Cabinet Minister. If he were a suffi-
1154
ciently wise, progressive, and aggressive Minister much could be done. In past times some of those who have been outside the Cabinet have done better work in progressive legislation in this country than some inside the Cabinet, for when those who were outside got inside they appeared to some of us to be overwhelmed by the inside people, and we subsequently found that they could not do their work so well. It is on account of the very great and growing importance of this subject that I have pleaded for a separate Ministry of Health instead of a Board of Health under the Secretary for Scotland. I hope when we get into Committee the right hon. Gentleman will not turn a deaf ear to the proposals made in that direction in order to improve the efficiency of the work. I should have liked this Bill to be something in advance of the English Bill. In all these matters of progressive legislation we expect in Scotland to be pioneers and to show the people of England how the thing is, or should be, done. I should like the right hon. Gentleman, certainly in dealing with the machinery of a Bill for the public health, not only to have given us a skeleton, but also to have given us some flesh and blood, and perhaps to have infused a little spirit and soul into it. However, I am glad he has put a little flesh and blood into the Bill.
He has taken up the question of research and made it a distinct section of the work of the Ministry of Health. I am very glad that he has put that in the forefront of the Bill. I have no doubt, from what I know of the two bodies which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to bring into the Bill, the Local Government Board and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, that the Research Department of the new Ministry of Health will be a progressive body, and will take advantage of the splendid facilities and opportunities of our Scottish universities, of our Scottish hospitals, and other auxiliary bodies, in order to promote medical research in the interests of the health of the people.
If I may give a bit of autobiography to make my point a little clearer, may I say that I was a Parliamentary candidate some twenty-four years ago, and that the first plank in my platform, as the Americans say, was that the Government of this country should have more to do with the health of the people, and especially with matters of medical research. I shared the fate of all pioneers. I am glad, how-

1155
ever, to say that research has come into its own, and that we see it in the Public Health Bill for Scotland. I am very glad, also, that the right hon. Gentleman is taking into his Bill the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board. That is a board which has done very good work in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. It is a real, live, human board. There is not anything of the bureaucracy about it. It has gone about its work in an unconventional manner, without red tape, and had done splendid work. Not only so, but it seems to me that this Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board forms a sort of model for part of the public health service of the future in the country. It provides a medical service in the remote parts of the country where the poorest people live who are not able to afford to have a doctor for themselves. Where the high rates prevent the provision of nursing services in remote quarters far away from doctors the nursing schemes have been of immense service. We cannot speak too highly of the work done by the nurses in the Highlands and Islands. There are also schemes which have not yet been sufficiently developed for providing special surgery and dentistry in places where they cannot afford these for themselves. I hope in this way it will be a sort of model, a leaven for the Ministry of Health which will leaven the whole lump, so that every quarter of Scotland, however remote, may have skilled medical and surgical services.
Therefore I am pleased for many reasons that the Highlands and Islands medical service is to be taken into this Bill. I believe that the big cities and towns can generally look after themselves. I trust the new Ministry of Health will look well after the remote rural districts, where the rating is so high, that they cannot provide the health or sanitary services which the circumstances require. I sometimes see hon. Members of this House up in the West of Scotland either fishing or deer-stalking or, it may be, taking an interest in the grouse. They are apt to think that in my Constituency, for instance, in the Western Isles that there should be no need for medical services. The people there, they are apt to think, do not die. But hon. Members are mistaken. In my Constituency, and especially in the Isle of Lewis, I
1156
we have the highest death, rate from tuberculosis of any part of the country. Although I have been a public health officer it has been a most heartbreaking business to be there. Why? Because it must be remembered that you cannot assess a rate for more than 1s. in the £ under the Public Health Act, and in that constituency that 1s. in the £ was exhausted years and years ago, so that when you wanted a well to be sunk, even a surface well, you said to rob Peter to pay Paul—the payment had to come out of something else. In these parts the local authorities could not provide the necessary sanitary necessities for civilised life. I hope that any scheme devised under this new Ministry of Health will not be dependent for its success upon the rating capacity of the locality to which it applies; otherwise these rural parts, and especially the islands of Scotland, will not get any benefit from them. No one admires more the work of the Prime Minister than I do in connection with tuberculosis. He tried to do a good deal, and earmarked a large sum of money for this purpose, but all that passed over the Western Islands, and when the 1910 Budget came out such a big amount of money was required from the local authorities be fore they could get any benefit, and the rates were so high that they could not possibly add to them. Therefore, all these blessings which the Prime Minister intended for the whole of the country passed over the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I hope, in connection with any schemes which are to be developed in the future, that the success of them will not depend upon the rating capacity of the locality to which they apply.
With regard to some of the things that are put in and left out, we have become familiar with that kind of thing in the English Act—that is, taking over a lot of duties that do not apply to the purpose of the Bill and then resolving to discard them and later on taking on some others, and so on, with this in-and-out method of legislation. I do not know what is to happen if many more Bills of this sort are brought forward, and I am afraid we shall have to set up a separate Ministry to utilise the waste products of reconstruction. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not bring in the medical inspection of schools. I would not be surprised if the Education Department were a little jealous of giving up the medical inspection of schools, because it is a system

1157
upon which that Department have reason to plume themselves. I can quite see why the Education Department should be sorry to part with this very promising child on which they devoted so much attention and care, and if Civil servants are allowed to be mentioned I think Sir John Struthers deserves to be mentioned for what he has done in connection with this work in Scotland. I am convinced, however, the medical inspection of school children should come under the Public Health system. I wish for this Bill a great success, and I trust it will be to the good of the whole community in Scotland.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: I welcome this Bill, and I hope it will receive a Second Reading. We all recognise that the Secretary for Scotland has improved this Bill by giving us a separate Bill for Scotland and by making a certain alteration in the principle of the measure. There are three different schools of thought as regards this Ministry: one advocates that the Minister of Health should be the Secretary for Scotland; another believes that it is impossible at present to have an independent Minister of Health for Scotland, and that we should have a special Minister allocated for health purposes and health matters under the supervision of the Secretary for Scotland; the third school requires an independent Minister of Health for Scotland absolutely independent of the Minister for Scotland. I believe that to be impossible, and I think the Secretary for Scotland has gone a long way to fall in with the views of the second school of thought, that is, setting up a separate Under-Secretary for Scotland who will be practically a Minister of Health.
I cordially support the speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie on this subject. What we really want is that this ad hoc Under-Secretary should be the real head of the Board of Health, not only under the supervision of the Secretary for Scotland, but that he should be the genuine working head responsible to Parliament. We desire that he should spend a good deal of his time up in Scotland, in Edinburgh, where the offices of the Ministry of Health will be situated. What Scottish people desire is that they shall be able to get into contact easily with the responsible Minister for matters of health, and that can only be achieved by the Under-Secretary being not only the head of the Department, but by being in
1158
actual close working touch with those in Edinburgh, perhaps three or four days a week, and only coming up to London to consult with the Secretary for Scotland to answer questions and speak in the House of Commons.
I am doubtful whether what we desire will not be prevented by the last two paragraphs of Clause 3 which appoint a member of the Board, other than the Under-Secretary, chairman of the Board in the absence of the president and the vice-president. In all other Boards the permanent official, who is the chief Parliamentary official, is called the secretary, and that is so in the case of the English Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture. Why should that practice not be followed in the Scottish Ministry of Health and why should not the chief permanent official be called the secretary? If he is called the chairman, I am suspicious that he will take the chair too often. I want to see the Under-Secretary or the Minister for Health in the chair, and I hope that the Secretary for Scotland in Committee will agree to some Amendment on these lines.
I regret that the Secretary for Scotland has not found himself able to make some effort to provide for the co-ordination of local authorities, because we shall really never get a satisfactory measure of health until not only the central authority, but the local authorities are co-ordinated. I quite appreciate the difficulties, but I do not think there are so many complications in Scotland as in England. I regret that the Secretary for Scotland has not made the attempt to slightly amend the present local health authorities and district boards by altering their constitution and co-ordinating them for general health purposes under this Bill. I hope before long we shall introduce a measure co-ordinating these local authorities. I cordially support what other people have said on this all-important question as to the powers and duties of the Scottish Education Department with respect to the medical inspection and treatment of young persons, and I believe these should be at once placed under the new Ministry of Health. This alteration was made in the English Bill in response to a practically unanimous expression of opinion, and we have now got the same principle in the Scottish Bill.
I would point out that if this Bill is carried into law the medical officers will be under two masters—the Board of

1159
Education and the Ministry of Health—and we want the medical officers put under one authority. In the English Bill power is taken to transfer to the Ministry eventually all or any of the powers and duties of the Secretary of State under the enactment relating to lunacy and mental deficiency. I do not understand why that has been left out of the Scottish Bill. We do include the omnibus Clause giving the Government power to hand over to the Ministry of Health eventually any powers that appear to His Majesty to affect incidentally the health of the people. I think arrangements should be made for handling these duties over to the Ministry of Health and they should be sufficiently organised to take over this Department. I cordially welcome this Bill, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will consider these various Amendments which have been suggested from all quarters of the House and that he will be able to accept them in Committee upstairs.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I have not the least intention of detaining the House or interfering with the business which has been arranged. I should like to say how grateful we are for the promptitude with which the Secretary for Scotland has introduced this special measure for Scotland. It was said, when the Bill for Great Britain was introduced, that a special measure was due for Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman has promptly introduced it. There were divergent views as to whether there should be a separate Ministry of Health for Scotland, and as to whether he should have an Under-Secretary to do this work for him. Personally, I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen the right course in having an Under-Secretary for this purpose, if only for the fact that it appears to afford a sort of nucleus perhaps for a Scottish Cabinet for the future. There is a feeling in Scotland that with these increased duties, and controlling an Under-Secretary, the status of the Secretary for Scotland is not sufficient. This would be quite out of order in Committee upstairs, but I wonder whether in this Second Reading Debate the right hon. Gentleman could give us any information at all as to whether there is any likelihood of that happening which we so much desire, namely, the raising of the status of his own office from that of a Secretary to that of a Secretary of State?
Captain ELLIOT: I do not wish to detain the House. I simply wish to repeat that in my opinion the Scottish people will be disappointed at the fact that there is only a single Under-Secretary to be appointed. They will consider that it will not be an Under-Secretary for Health, but an Under-Secretary for Scotland, and that the enormously important duties that he has to discharge will not be efficiently discharged if in addition he has to act as an Under-Secretary to the Secretary for Scotland in all the multifarious duties which the Secretary for Scotland has to carry out. I also think that education should be taken over straight away. These, however, are matters for the Committee. I wish to compliment the Secretary for Scotland on his prompt introduction of the Bill, and to say that we are very gratified that he has seen his way to include the duties of the Registrar-General. It is a strange thing that whereas the English vital statistics are among the best in Europe, the Scottish vital statistics are among the worst. We hope that he will do his best to remove from Scotland the reproach which is levelled at us by no less an authority than Karl Pearson, namely that the vital statistics of Scotland are the worst in Europe. The Clause providing for the initiation and direction of research is extremely important, and we hope that the research to be carried on in Scotland will be efficiently decentralised, that it will be a real live measure, and that research will be pushed to the utmost as one of the most important duties which the Minister of Health can possibly carry out.
I do not know whether I am in order on this occasion in referring to the fact that one of the most important branches of research, namely, research into the disease of rickets, which all Scottish Members, and particularly Members for Glasgow, will agree is one of the most tragic diseases, afflicting as it does the young, destroying their chance for future life and health, is even now threatened by a Bill before this House, a Bill which is calculated to put an end to this extremely salutary and necessary work. I only wish to say that when hon. Members appeal to us to protect our pockets and leave our babies to undergo the ravages of disease they are making a false appeal which should not carry any weight with this ancient,

1161
authoritative body. I simply wish to say how grateful we are to the Secretary for Scotland for his prompt redemption of his promise to bring in a Scottish Health Bill, and we wish him God-speed, and hope that it will have a speedy passage into law.
Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps by leave of the House I may answer the direct question put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Captain Benn). The only answer that I can give him is the answer given by the Leader of the House to two similar questions put at Question Time recently, namely, that the whole subject is under the consideration of the Government. I cannot go further than that.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SOLDIERS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move,
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is a Bill to repeal an Act of 1847, and thereby to remove a disability from which soldiers suffer at the present time.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at Six minutes before Eight of the clock, till To-morrow.

  CAPITAL ISSUES.
  CAPITAL ISSUES.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  INVALIDS (ADDITIONAL RATIONS).
  INVALIDS (ADDITIONAL RATIONS).
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  DISCHARGED SERVICE MAN (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  DISCHARGED SERVICE MAN (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
ROYAL NAVY.
  NEW CONSTRUCTION, CLYDE (SUSPENSION).
  NEW CONSTRUCTION, CLYDE (SUSPENSION).
DEMOBILISATION.
  SOLDIERS AT KANTAHA CAMP.
  SOLDIERS AT KANTAHA CAMP.
  ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS.
  SIGNALLERS.
  SIGNALLERS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS, BOULOGNE.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS, BOULOGNE.
  DELAYED RELEASE.
  DELAYED RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  REJECTED DERBY SCHEME VOLUNTEERS.
  REJECTED DERBY SCHEME VOLUNTEERS.
  ARMY PAY OFFICERS (CLERKS).
  ARMY PAY OFFICERS (CLERKS).
  RETURNING SOLDIERS (DOGS).
  RETURNING SOLDIERS (DOGS).
  ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS (ARMAMENT ARTIFICERS).
  ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS (ARMAMENT ARTIFICERS).
  HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DELAYED PENSION (MRS. DEVLIN).
  DELAYED PENSION (MRS. DEVLIN).
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCE (MRS. MACDONALD).
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCE (MRS. MACDONALD).
  TANKS (AWARDS) COMMITTEE.
  TANKS (AWARDS) COMMITTEE.
  ENEMY ALIENS.
  ENEMY ALIENS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (ASSISTANT SECRETARY).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (ASSISTANT SECRETARY).
  ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS.
  ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (POST OFFICE SERVICE).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (POST OFFICE SERVICE).
  HAMPTON COURT PALACE (FLOWER-BEDS).
  HAMPTON COURT PALACE (FLOWER-BEDS).

Preamble
The Lord DOUGLAS (E. Howe)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE SERVICE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Message from the Commons, That they do not insist upon their disagreement to the following Amendments made by the Lords in the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, but that in the case of the Amendment in Clause 5, page 4, line 22, they propose the addition, in subsection (4), after "letting," of the words "as a dwelling"—

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 4, line 2, at the end of the clause insert the following new paragraph:
"(v) At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following proviso:
"'Provided that if the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the said third day of August exceeds the standard rent as so defined, that rateable value shall, as respects that house, be deemed to be the standard rent.'"

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 4, line 22, after subsection (2 insert the following new subsections:
"(3) The principal Act both as originally enacted and as extended by this Act shall have effect as if in proviso (vi) to subsection (1) of section one of that Act after the word 'until' there were inserted the words or in respect of any period prior to.'
"(4) Any rooms in a dwelling-house the subject of a separate letting shall, for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, be treated as a part of a house let as a separate dwelling."

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 5.
Insert the following new clause:
Limitation on rent of houses let furnished.
"6.—(1) Where the occupier of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, lets, or has before the passing of this Act let the house or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the county court on the application of the lessee that the rent charged yields to the occupier a profit more than twenty-five per cent. in excess of the normal profit and twenty-five per cent. as hereinafter defined, the court may order that the rent, so far as it exceeds such sum as would yield such normal profit, shall be irrecoverable, and that the amount of any payment of rent in excess of such sum which may have been made in respect of any period after the passing of this Act, shall be repaid to the lessee, and, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, may be recovered by him by means of deductions from any subsequent payments of rent.
"(2) For the purpose of this section 'normal profit' means the profit which might reasonably have been obtained from a similar letting in the year ending on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 5.
Insert the following new clause:
"Amendment of definition of standard rent.
"6. At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act, the following words shall be inserted:
"Provided that in the case of any dwelling-house let at a progressive rent payable under a tenancy agreement or lease the maximum rent payable under such tenancy agreement or lease shall be the standard rent."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I move t hat the Message from the Commons be now considered. I shall have to follow that by a Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment; and probably your Lordships will think it convenient, if discussion be desired, that it shall take place on the second Motion.
Moved, That the Message from the Commons be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment. In making this Motion it may not be inconvenient that I should indicate the character of the only Amendment which has been sent up to this House from another place. It is purely verbal, and need not detain your Lordships for a moment. The result, therefore, is that, on all the Amendments upon which your Lordships insisted the House of Commons has accepted your Lordships' views. I will only add this, as one whose duty it, was to take some part in the discussions on the various stages of this Bill, and whose duty it may be to take some part, in similar stages on future Bills, that while I ventured respectfully to think that your Lordships might not be well-advised in insisting upon the first two Amendments, which were ultimately adopted by this House but not pressed, as far as the later Amendments were concerned I took from the start a strong view that your Lordships had very carefully and very usefully considered this Bill, and were entitled, as a result of that consideration, to give effect to your views, and might probably influence consideration in the House of Commons. Some comment was made upon the fact that even an Amendment of my own
4
perished in another place. Your Lordships will bear me out that I supported with composure the loss of that Amendment, but I say frankly that I rejoice in its re-incarnation; and I congratulate your Lordships upon haying exercised an influence upon this Bill which in my judgment is wholly useful. I move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have listened to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with the greatest interest, and I am sure that the House will feel that he is to be congratulated on the accomplishment of the very difficult task which he had had to perform, for he had to associate his loyalty as a Minister of the Crown with his loyalty as a member of your Lordships' House, and I do not think anybody could have accomplished that difficult feat—for it is a difficult, feat—with more grace than the noble and learned Lord has just displayed. He has shown that, notwithstanding his position as a member of the Government, he does value the dignity of your Lordships' House and its proper treatment by another place. Our Amendments have been accepted, and we are very glad that this is the case. We are convinced, for our part, that they were founded upon such solid. principles that, the only reason why the House of Commons temporarily disagreed with them was that they were not led with that assurance and that firm hand which would have induced them, if they had given a little more consideration to the points, to have agreed with your Lordships in the first instance. They were, however, a little bit like sheep without a shepherd, and consequently they did for the moment, differ from the Amendments, as to which, on more mature consideration. I am certain no doubt could have been entertained. All's well that ends well, so far as these particular Amendments are concerned: and I should like to take this opportunity of saying how greatly indebted we are to the Lord Chancellor for the courteous way in which he has represented the Government all through the discussions upon this Bill.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC NOTARIES (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERICS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
GRANT OF ADMINISTRATION (BONDS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ADVOCATES AND LAW AGENTS (QUALI- FICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

THE FINANCIAL POSITION.
Debate on the Motion of Lord FARINGDON to resolve, "That the serious condition of the finances of the country calls for the exercise of the strictest economy in all directions," resumed (according to Order).
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am afraid that there was some slight misunderstanding at the close of the debate on my noble friend's Motion last Tuesday, and that the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Milner) rose under the impression that the debate was then to be terminated with his speech. I am sorry that there should have been any misunderstanding, but there were many Peers who desired to take part, and I think your Lordships will agree that had the debate ended with the speech, the roost important speech, of the noble Viscount, we should have been left with some feeling of anxiety as to tie effect which Lord Faringdon's Motion had had upon the Government.
6
Looking back at one of the few discussions that we have had since the beginning of the war on the state of the country's finances, I recall that in 1915 the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, replied on behalf of the Government to a very strong indictment, from this side of the House, in the formulation of which Lord St. Aldwyn took part. Lord Lansdowne said—
"The financial situation requires the greatest consideration which Parliament can give."
I do not think I should be misrepresenting what took place last week if I were to say that that was hardly the spirit in which the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, met the observations to which he had to reply. He assumed an almost jaunty air if I may say so with respect., and his language was certainly such as to discourage very largely the idea of retrenchment as being one of the main questions on which we were to dwell. The noble Viscount sad—
"In this case we want to call attention not so much to the necessity for economy, and not so much to the necessity for paying off floating debt and reducing expenditure, as to the need for further activities for the production of wealth on a large scale. That is far more important than the negative question of economies."
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is nothing "jaunty" in that.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: That was the governing principle of his speech. It is really the principle of the "rake's progress." You are not to make both ends meet by spending less, but, somehow, by getting more. Even the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, who followed him, although he did not take that line, took one that I submit is almost equally dangerous. He said—
"The economy which is most important of all to my mind is the economy of effort, economy of national energy.…"
And he suggested borrowing, for the purposes of development, sums to the extent of£40,000,000 or£50,000,000. Now surely the whole question is summed up in what the Prime Minister in his last Budget speech said. He said that we have a huge expenditure, but he urged that it a healthy expenditure Healthy expenditure of a capital nature must surely he reproductive expenditure.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I may presently venture to say a word on the subject, and I will show my noble friend that expenditure of the kind he is contemplating has not been reproductive in the past. What we really want the Government to come to grips with is the question of the immense deficit and how long we are to continue to borrow to make up the deficit. Take the figures of the present expenditure as close on£1,500,000,000, as it is estimated at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Inchcape, whose absence we regret, put the capacity of the country, without a great and prohibitive increase of taxation, at£700,000,000, and Lord Faringdon admitted that he was inclined to raise his own estimate of£500,000,000 to£700,000,000. Since these Estimates amounting to£1,500,000,000 were laid down, the Government have been giving away money with both hands. I believe I am absolutely within the mark when I say that the concessions which were made in a fortnight to the coal mining industry and the railways will together cost the Government and the taxpayer something like£100,000,000. Therefore, you are at this moment actually dealing with a total which, so far as I can see, is greater by£100,000,000 than was anticipated a few weeks ago. In these circumstances I submit that speeches such as those we listened to the other night are not calculated to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer that backing which, more than any other man in the country, he requires at this moment.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I believe Mr. Chamberlain to have a great deal of courage and an unlimited amount of public spirit. He requires both of these qualities, and we all, I believe, deeply regret when we find subject to attack the man upon whom the country must rest to pull it out of this morass. What I will try to lay down and ask your Lordships to consider are two points. The first is that the Government, whatever they may say, are not economising and are not giving any indication towards economy; secondly, that this policy of development, which may be of great advantage, is proceeding on the wrong lines.
With regard to the first point—economy—I am not going to labour the Reports of
8
Committees. Two Committees, of my own knowledge, have been appointed with the object of promoting economy. The first, which was appointed in 1915, presented a unanimous Report. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day was in the chair, and the economies proposed by that Committee were cut down by the Cabinet and the House of Commons by more than 70 per cent. No stand was made. Another Committee was appointed to consider the immense increase of Government offices. They made recommendations. Nothing whatever was done. No more good was done to the country than if you called in a physician, who gave you a mixture, and you amused yourself by reading the label. Absolutely nothing followed.
When the noble Viscount ran through some of the items in this remarkable Paper, which I wish every man in the country and every boy in the school was forced to commit to memory, we were told of a few large sums which would be reduced automatically. I would like to ask your Lordships to consider a few of the sums on which nothing whatever has been done. Take the question of Food Control—£2,700,000—largely on staff. We had a remarkable speech six weeks ago in this House front Lord Devonport, and recently an equally remarkable speech has been made by Mr. Runciman. The figures which they gave were sufficient to make anybody pause as to the continuance of the Food Control. I cite only two or three instances. It was pointed out that whereas a good profit to a dealer is½d. in the£on meat imported, the Government were making 2½d., and yet were not apparently covering their expenses. That is where it goes—in staff, which a commercial man will not employ. Take margarine. Margarine fell from 1s. to 8d. per lb. within a few days of the Government giving up control. Commercial men can afford to do what the Government cannot.
Take again the awful fact, if it be true—and it has not been challenged—that wool is at this moment being sold to the trade by the Government, which possesses the monopoly, at 30 per cent. increase, while the wool is needed because every man is paying double for every suit of clothes he buys. And yet the control is continued. I believe that a large part of that£2,700,000 could go to-morrow.
Take shipping—£1,700,000—for staff. I am informed by those who know most

9
about shipping that it would be an absolute advantage to the country if the whole Department had been closed down on March 31, or even a month earlier. But we are continuing to pay. Take the Labour Department£30,000,000.—for demobilisation. Have any of your Lordships had experience—you must have had—of going to the Labour Department. I can only speak with courtesy of Sir Stephenson Kent, who left his office to-day. I believe we have all reason to be indebted to him. But can anybody believe that the intricacies of every domestic servant can be followed out by a Public Department wit bout the most awful interlacing of inquiries and replies? I myself have had twenty or thirty communications about a single individual, and some of them have continued for two months after he was demobilised. The attempt which the Government made, not merely in the great trades but in every case, to follow it out through the Labour Department has led to the most extravagant expenditure and the greatest possible demoralisation of individuals, because nothing is so demoralising to an individual as carrying on a long correspondence on matters which ought to be settled by a stroke of the pen. Look at stationery. Four years ago a Committee of which I was a member was debating this question, and the Government were endeavouring to show on what grounds they had brought up the expenditure from£1,000,000 to£1,300,000. The expenditure of the country has never been so high; and what is it to-day—£5,200,000, or four times the amount. Bow can we have economy if that is the example set us by the Government?
There is the Foreign Office, Miscellaneous War Services—£3,500,000. Paris is at this moment one of the most expensive places we have ever seen. I wonder whether any one on the Government Bench will justify the enormous staff that has been sent to Paris, the palaces which have been taken, the Rolls-Royce motors which are employed, and the number of people, even Clown to the girl messengers, who have been equipped with outfits for this purpose. I cannot believe it can be really necessary for the purposes of the Delegation, and it is certainly not the way to impress any one with the desire of the Government for economy. I cannot help feeling—I will only take one moment in mentioning it—when I look at some other items, that we were fortunate that the noble and learned
10
Lord on the Woolsack should have come here to occupy what I am afraid I must describe, in view of the figures I am going to quote, as an almost barren honour. I see that the law charges for the Government have arisen from£15,000 to£110,000. I can only congratulate those who represent the Crown under these conditions. The Judges in Ireland remain as they always have done. There is a Judgeship vacant now. I could give instances when Judges in Ireland have only had to work up to one o'clock in three days of the week, and yet the Government, at this moment of great national emergency, are proceeding to fill up the vacancy. I think it was Lord Buckmaster who said the other day that in the old days Government servants travelled with the greatest economy, and that however distinguished a member he was he was given, and I think properly, his first-class fare and one guinea per day for his hotel expenses. What happens now? I see that the excess travel—not the whole travel, but the excess travel—of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was£1,000, or at the rate of£3 per day for every day in the year.
I will not trouble your Lordships with further instances, but I would like to say this. A large number of persons have received honours for their activity in spending money and the results which it is supposed to have produced. I should like any member of the Government to give me the name of a single person who, since the beginning of the war, has received promotion or honour for saving money. I do not wish to make a sinister suggestion, but I could give the names of several who have proposed reductions in establishments in some of these temporary offices and have found that their suggestions were very ill-received. Therefore I urge that an absolutely new era should be begun in which the Government should make it clear that there is now time and opportunity for the saving which must be made.
Before I leave this branch of the subject, I would venture to ask this of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The large donations which are given, like the unemployment donation, have never been voted by the House of Commons. Are they legal? Who has the right to make them without Parliamentary sanction? I know how splendidly the Prime Minister has worked throughout all this trying time, and I yield to nobody in my admira

11
tion of his powers of work. But I should like to know, by what right has the Prime Minister, through a telephone message from Paris, or what right even has the War Cabinet itself, to decide that for six months enormous donations may be given at the public expense and without the sanction of Parliament? I think that the time has come for those donations to cease, and I venture to say that by far the greatest stroke of economy that could be made would be for the House of Commons to refuse and revoke these promises made by individual Ministers on their behalf, and before Parliament has been consulted.
But these matters, we are told, are comparatively unimportant compared with development. Development means, if I understand the noble Viscount aright, a great increase of Government trading. Lord Milner made good his suggestion by pointing out what had been done in Egypt, and how, at a moment of great tension of money, Lord Cromer wisely expended money for development which had repaid itself over and over again. I should like to ask the noble Lord to try and detach his mind from the position in Egypt, where the Minister who gave the money was an autocrat as to how it should be spent, and put himself in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer here, where he has no control over those who are going to spend the money he provides. What has been the course of Government trading in the past? If your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments I will give you some figures which will astonish you. Take the result of the telephones. The telephones were making a good income before they were taken over by the Government; yet there was a deficit in two years. The profit is now actually less than the royalty that was previously paid to the State. Has the service been improved? One hears an enormous number of complaints. I have myself heard the telephone service anathematised from that Bench, and I have heard poured upon the operators complaints in words which might even have led to the clearing of the Bench of Bishops. There has been absolutely no gain, so far as I know, through the taking over of the telephones by the State.
What is the position with regard to telegraphs? The telegraphs were bought for£10,000,000. In 1911 we were given figures showing that the loss to the country in respect of them was £21,000,000, and
12
by now I dare say the loss is £30,000,000. The Committee which inquired into the matter recorded their deep regret that of all the enormous services managed by the Post Office hardly one showed any profits but the letter post. I can only give one solution of that—namely, the exaggerated and absolutely indefensible misuse of both the Post Office telegraphs and the cables by Government Departments. That, I think, explains to a very considerable extent the loss upon them. There is absolutely no check, and it is not only greatly to the disadvantage of the public but it is also to the public loss.
Take another Department, that of National Health. Friendly societies have dealt with that subject without loss, and in the case of the larger societies with considerable profit. In national health it was found that for staff in one part of the country—I am taking very large areas—the expense amounted to£28 per thousand, in another area to£36, in another to£51, and in another to£59 per thousand. No commercial firm could live for a day if their expenses were doubled and trebled at different places without different conditions, and yet the Government have never even discovered that this was going on, and it came as news to them when the Committee pointed out that this form of trading was most extravagant.
What about Woolwich? There was a time when Woolwich was the cheapest source of munitions of war. Is that so now? I leave the noble Lord the Under-Secretary to deal with that, but I very much fear that the time has long passed when that can be said of Woolwich. Look again at the railways. Under private employment they had a surplus of£50,000,000. Since the Government have dealt with them they have added£60,000,000 for war bonus. The eight-hours day costs£15,000,000 and their first offer to railwaymen cost£10,000,000 more. What the course which they have lately accepted will cost I do not know, but a profit of£50,000,000 has been reduced by wages alone to a deficit of£25,000,000 which has to be found from the public purse.
What has happened in regard to the collieries? I cannot spare more time than can be given to putting the matter into a sentence. An estimate, which has not been challenged, of the cost of the concessions already made gives a sum of

13
£82,000,000—far more than the profits of collieries. Let it be remembered that the money which was taken from the consumer was to a large extent returned to the Government by the colliery owners in excess profits, and when you abolish excess profits yon abolish that source of revenue, so that the greater part of the£82,000,000 will fall upon the public. That is the result, I fear, of the trading in these two Departments.
Yet we are now asked to contemplate a very much larger development. The noble Viscount opposite rather gloried in the enormous activities at the Slough Motor Depôt, and pointed out that if the large number of vehicles to be repaired were not needed for the Army and Government service they would be offered for the transport service of the country. Hence, what we learn is that another enormous industry under Sir Eric Geddes's Bill, which is to cover transport of almost every description, is to be set up as a Government trading concern. Instead of considering what has occurred in the past and realising that Government trading, as trading, has been a failure, the Government are preparing, for a development which will make future Government trading compared with the present as the Atlantic Ocean is to the Irish Channel. I would urge a reconsideration of this policy on the Government. Depend upon it, not only are you not going to do a profitable thing for the public, but, I submit, you are stifling commercial enterprise, which is the one thing that we ought at present to stimulate. Many of these accounts from a commercial standpoint will not bear the scrutiny of Parliament, and I would plead with the Government that they should decrease Government energy in trading and increase the control which Parliament has hitherto given to them.
Recapitulating these mistakes is not a pleasant task. What we want to see is a way out of the present difficulty. I would ask the Government whether they realise that our first duty is to increase production, and our second to diminish prices. Until you diminish prices you will never stop the upward growth of wages. Are we doing our best to do either? Take the increase of production first. As an instance—and your Lordships will understand that these cases which I am citing do not cover the whole ground, but are merely instances—take what occurred last week. The noble
14
Viscount (Lord Milner) told us that for the Slough Motor Depôt they had£15,000,000 worth of spare parts and 100,000 vehicles for repair; that is to say, an average of£150 of spare parts for each vehicle. I ask the Government, Are they not aware of the enormous demand of the trade at this moment for spare parts? It is the same in wool; it is the same with a great majority of the items which make up the untold estimate of£1,000,000,000 of Government stores. Would not the Government consent to sell these stores?—not what they actually require, of course—but to sell as largely as they can to the public, in order to put traders in a position to pursue their industry. I am not thinking only of motor cars but of the whole of trade. Having taken from the country an enormous amount of material of every description, tai long as the Government hold it up, so long will trade he in shackles.
Take the question of wages. Do the Government realise what they have done with unemployment pay? They have absolutely increased unemployment. I spoke of the journeys of the Chief Secretary just now. If the Government would give us one Treasury official, and spend half the sum on his journeys in Ireland which the Chief Secretary has spent, they could save£1,000,000 in a fortnight, by merely going to centres and stopping the influx of men who never try to get employment, and of others who have loft their employment in order to get unemployment pay.
There are many noble Lords who know more than I do on the question of agricultural wages, but I do not believe there is one man in this House who is not aware that the increase which it is now proposed to make in agricultural wages is likely to diminish—and at the earliest moment—the amount of land at present under the plough; and it is absolutely certain to prevent a very large number of demobilised men, who are seeking employment, from obtaining it. I find every day—and I believe it is the experience of everybody—that wages are so high that employers, who cannot be forced to take on the "hands," absolutely refuse. They will allow almost anything to happen rather than take them on at the present rate of wages. The only way in which you can decrease wages is by decreasing prices. I urge the Government to see whether they cannot take some prompt steps in this direction.

15
I know that everything which is said by individual members of this House must, of course, be treated as an individual opinion. But I would remind you that the appeal which I am now making has been made by far more potent individuals. The Government have in their possession the Report on the future incidence of charge and of credit, signed by the Governor of the Bank of England, among others. They warned the country unanimously that it is absolutely impossible for the Government to go on borrowing for expenditure which is not reproductive. And why has not the City spoken out more freely on this matter? Do your Lordships or the country think it is because they are insensible to it, or because they have no interest in it? I believe that, if you ask the leading men in the City why it is that they do not conic forward as a body to warn the country more loudly, you would find it is because they know that, if they did so, they would strike a blow at the credit of this country which the credit of this country cannot at this moment stand. And therefore, well knowing that what may be said by those of us who are not in that position cannot carry the same weight, I urge the Government to move in this matter before it is too late.
I venture to make these suggestions to them—and I do not think they will be challenged by any man whose financial experience may be much greater than mine. The first is that they should not be deluded by the excessive deposits at this moment in the banks. Those deposits are largely due to an inflated currency and to sums which have been made out of borrowed money which cannot at present be employed abroad. I suggest to the Government that within a very few months they may find those excessive deposits replaced by a great constriction both of deposits and of credit. The second point I would ask the Government to consider is what is happening in the iron and steel trades at this moment. The cost at which, in coal and wages, production is being carried on is such that it is inevitable that there will be a challenge from America, which may have a most far-reaching effect in stopping the development of trade, which the Government so much desire. If your Lordships would look at The Times newspaper they would find a long row of advertisements, begun in the last few days, from firms in America offering to supply what you may call staple industries, at
16
prices which cannot be met in this country. And unless you are going to have such a tariff as we have never dreamt of, our producers must be under-sold. The only way to stop that is to use every power you have to enable them to produce more cheaply, and you can only do that if you give them the advantage of all that you have in your hands, and abolish that control which is stifling and shackling trade at this moment.
I happened to see the speech of my noble friend behind me described in one journal as a "gloomy vaticination." I rather doubt whether in a few months time you may not find that those speeches are replaced by that well known quotation from Proverbs in which it is said—
"Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men."
That is what we are asking for in the first place—namely, that these developments should be carried on with strict economy if they are to produce the results which the Government desire.
If the Government would allow me before I sit down to make one suggestion, it is that they would follow out the proposal—which we understood Lord Milner made on his own initiative without pledging the Government—that there should be a Committee to advise the Government in this matter. We are all familiar in desperate days with the idea of a Committee of Public Safety. I should like to see in these days, which are bad enough financially, a Financial Committee of Public Safety to which the Government should pay attention and which should be given powers and not be merely advisory. I believe that if they will consent to re-establish the Cabinet—not in the sense of bringing an individual Minister there to discuss with them his own proposals but in the sense of a broad check which ten or twelve men of public experience, who have other Departments to consider, may bring to bear on any particular proposal, and who are there constantly—I cannot help thinking that it would have a salutary effect, especially with regard to these proposals for Government trading.
What we want to see is a stoppage of this bureaucratic autonomy which is ruining the country; and I would also hope that we may see the re-establishment of the Treasury control which, by the

17
consent of everybody, has become almost a thing of the past. In making these proposals I know that your Lordships have no power to put them into effect. We cannot touch an item of these vast Estimates. Our powers in that respect have passed away. But the country to a large extent looks to your Lordships for guidance, and in the troublous times which are before us I do not think that the Government can afford to ignore suggestions made with the highest desire to do public service, and without the acceptance of which we really are heading towards a catastrophe against which, in every debate in this House, members from all parts of the Chamber have protested, and the fatal results of which we hate clearly foreseen.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend was good enough to begin his speech by quoting words used by myself in this House in the year 1915, when it appears that, speaking on behalf of the then Government, I said that we regarded the financial situation with grave anxiety. If those words were appropriate then, I wonder what kind of words would be appropriate now?
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Since then we have been steadily rolling up debt at the rate of many millions a day, with the result which has been described by the two noble Lords who introduced this subject to your Lordships last week. I wish I could say that this debate, interesting though it has been, has greatly reassured me. We have been cautioned against undue pessimism. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, warned us particularly against similes connected with Precipices. I will avoid them. I think it was my noble friend Lord Milner who said that it was unpatriotic to exaggerate these troubles. I entirely agree with him. But may I go on to say that it seems to me not lets unpatriotic to minimise the facts and to refuse to look in the face circumstances as serious as those which now confront us?
There seems to me to be one especial reason for which it is necessary to deal quite frankly with these questions at the Present moment. To my mind the whole future of this country depends upon the attitude of Labour, and in my opinion no pains should be spared to bring home to
18
Labour the whole of the naked, unpleasant facts of the situation which we have to meet. There is, I think, a great danger that Labour may be ill-informed, if not misguided, by people who make it their business to misguide Labour. Nobody I am sure—certainly nobody in this House—will contest the right of Labour to demand an increase of wages commensurate with the fall in the standard of values; and I may go further and say that nobody will dispute the right of Labour to claim wages which will give them an improvement in the standard of life to which they have been accustomed. But there is a risk of these demands, reasonable though they may be, being pressed in a reckless and peremptory manner and with a failure to appreciate the consequences which must result from concessions of this kind. Extensive changes have to come. There is no doubt that there must be a great readjustment of the machinery of the production and distribution of wealth. But surely these changes must take time, and my fear is that if the pace is forced too recklessly we may find ourselves entangled in a very grave catastrophe.
Two facts seem to me to emerge from the discussions which have been proceeding with regard to this question of the reward of Labour. The first is this, that in present circumstances there is a very narrow margin available for distribution. The second is that at this moment business is actually being driven out of the country by the manner in which some of these extreme demands are being pressed. I do not think the fact can be doubted. One sees this kind of thing. In a report from Lancashire, that "the cost of production is outstripping what the overseas markets will pay;" in a report on India, that "if things go on as they are going, British industry may say good-bye to the Indian markets." I think my noble friend touched upon the question of tonnage. We are, I believe, 5,000,000 tons to the bad on the war; and it is notorious that, partly owing to this and partly owing to other causes, a great part of the coal trade which we used to carry on and which formed so important a feature in our industrial system has passed into American hands. One hears the same kind of thing about the steel trade. But I will not press that further.
The other evening Lord Haldane, in the course of a very interesting speech, said something as to the temper in which these

19
difficult and delicate questions were regarded by Labour. He said that Labour knew quite well what was meant by the problem of production, and also what was meant by justice as between man and man. My Lords, these problems are extremely difficult, and I wish I was as sure as my noble and learned friend is that they were thoroughly understood by Labour. I think they are thoroughly understood by some of the Labour leaders. Nothing could be more statesmanlike or sensible than the advice given by men like Mr. Clynes and Mr. Thomas. But do the rank and file really understand the problem? I have great doubts. I am very much afraid that throughout the rank and file there still prevail the good old fallacies that the nation has a bottomless purse; that because you were able to rub along during the war you can go on rubbing along now; and that by some ingenious form of redistribution you will be able to provide ample rewards for everybody concerned in industry. I am sure of this, that unless we can prevail upon Labour to take a temperate and judicial view of these questions, we may find ourselves in a position in which the industrial greatness of this country will infallibly disappear. It is for that reason that I think discussions such as the one in which we are engaged may be of the greatest possible value in bringing home to Labour, and to all concerned, the true facts and the real inwardness of the present situation.
I should like to say two or three words with regard to the points taken by Lord D'Abernon in his very interesting and instructive speech. Lord D'Abernon sees quite well that a great part of our troubles is due to the alteration in the standard of value. I think he sees also that the trouble is not going to right itself rapidly; that the change must be gradual; and that while it is operating there will be a chronic difficulty in adjusting wages to the fluctuations in the purchasing power of money. Lord D'Abernon made an interesting suggestion upon that point. He said, "Let us set up some machinery for adjusting wages from time to time to these fluctuations." The suggestion was rather well received by Lord Peel. He said that it was a valuable suggestion, but he went on to say that it was a difficult one to adopt, because by and by prices would fall, and it might then be a more difficult and delicate matter to put down wages to the new and lower level. Then Lord Peel
20
said, said with truth, that attempts were already being made to set up machinery of this kind. One of the reasons why I look forward so much to the general adoption of the Whitley scheme is because I believe these Whitley Boards or Commissions will provide an admirable means of bringing about, from time to time, the adjustment of these most difficult and delicate claims.
But, my Lords, the matter will have to be treated upon a systematic and intelligible basis, and I confess that I have been somewhat staggered during the last few days by the announcement referred to, I think, by my noble friend, that the Agricultural Wages Board has decreed a general rise of 6s. 6d. per week in the rate of agricultural wages. Lord Peel told us that His Majesty is Government anticipated a fall in prices. He gave us an estimate. He said that by the end of March the weekly budget of a labourer's family would have fallen by 1s. 10 d., and that by the end of May it would have fallen by 4s. One Department of the State announces this, with high authority, and another Department of the State promulgates an immense rise of wages in one particular industry—a rise which, I presume, can only be justified upon the hypothesis that the cost of living is going to be greater and not less than it was. The matter is a very serious one. An alteration in the rate of agricultural wages will, of course, mean a sympathetic rise in all wages. It will mean that the already distracted farmers will be more distracted than ever. I am afraid it may mean that they will base upon this new concession a further demand to have prices artificially kept up, in order to compensate them for the additional expense of production, and so you will get the old vicious circle—a rise in wages and then a rise in prices, followed by a fresh demand for yet another rise in wages. I dwell upon this because the history of this particular matter seems to be an illustration of what some of us sometimes think we detect—I mean a certain want of harmonious action between the different Departments of the Government.
May I say two or three words upon the general question of expenditure? It continues, and it must continue, I am afraid, to be on an enormous scale. It is obvious that you cannot pass all at once from

21
war expenditure to peace expenditure. My noble friend Lord Peel had a good expression in regard to this. He said that when war is over you will always have heavy terminal charges to meet. That is perfectly clear. One is tempted at this moment to ask whether the war really is over. I confess I see some extremely unpleasant indications which suggest to my mind that, far from the war being over, we may be at, the beginning of a new war—a new war, the scope and limits of which we none of us are able to predict; a new war which will oblige this country, which is by nature and tradition a great maritime Power, to undertake huge Continental operations in many different theatres of war and in pursuit of a policy which, so far as I am aware, has not yet been adequately defined by any British statesman.
My noble friend Lord Milner was able to administer some grains of comfort to us the other evening. He told us that the expenditure, which at full war level was (I think he said)£3,000,000,000 a year, had now dropped to£2,600,000,000 a year. He held out hopes that a year later it would go down to£1,500,000,000 a year, and that later on there might be a yet further diminution. That is satisfactory as far as it goes, but I am afraid it means that for a long time to come we shall still have to go on borrowing. I cannot conceive that it should be possible to provide t he enormous sum which will be necessary to meet even these diminishing claims without borrowing. My noble friend Lord Faber had something interesting to say the other evening as to the extent to which the resources of the class upon whose shoulders the largest part of this burden is thrown had already been tapped. I think he said that in many cases something like 12 s. in the£ was already extracted. I am inclined to think my noble friend puts it too low. If he had taken into account to the full local taxation, which is, as we all know, enormously high in many places, and if he had taken into account the provision which a prudent man will make for the payment of Estate Duties when they come due, I suspect that he would have found that we are already very near that 15 s. in the£ to which he thought we should some day be driven. There must be more borrowing, I am afraid; and this means, of course, that our vast Debt has got to become vaster still.
My noble friend the noble Viscount
22
dealt with this question of the Debt. I tell him in all sincerity that I shall always be glad to sit at his feet in regard to financial questions, but I must add that in this case he seemed to me to wander away from some good old tenets upon which I have been brought up and which I cannot light-heartedly disregard. One of those is that that nation is best equipped, whether for peace or war, which carries the lightest burden of public debt upon its shoulders. Our Debt is certainly portentous, but my noble friend gave reasons for which he thought it was not necessary for us to be too much perturbed over the fact. He said, in the first place, that a great deal of that Debt is held in this country. I suppose we should, al of us, prefer to owe money to our fellow-citizens rather than to creditors outside, but debt is debt to whomsoever it is owing. Some one—I think it was in an epitaph on a drowned sailor—wrote the words, "The sea is always the sea"; and debt is always debt to whomsoever it is owing.
Then my noble friend made another point which impressed me. He said that a great deal of this money had been spent in improving the equipment of the country—a remunerative outlay. I see in a paper that has been lately published by Mr. Edgar Crammond I do not know whether his authority is a high one or not—that he considers that the result of this enormous expenditure has been to increase the productive power of the country by about 50 per cent. That is a very startling figure, and I only wish that my noble friend, or anyone else, was able to tell us that it is anywhere Lear the mark. The third point which my noble friend made was that the result of this expenditure was to increase the taxable income of the country. That is quite true; but surely it is necessary to keep constantly in one's mind the distinction between national income arising from savings, from the accumulation of wealth, and income arising, as this income does, not from the accumulation of wealth but from the accumulation of debt, which is quite a different thing. I remain deeply of the opinion that this huge Debt is going to be a terrible handicap to this country—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We all hope that we shall never see another great war again. I am a firm believer in the policy of the League of Nations—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope that the result of the establishment of the League of Nations may be greatly to diminish the risk of war; but we cannot make our arrangements upon that assumption yet, and, in fact, His Majesty's Government are not making their arrangements on that assumption. I have just been listening to an eloquent speech by the Secretary of State for War explaining the elaborate precautions that he proposes to take for enabling this country to bear its part in any great international struggle that may hereafter befall us. Should that time come, and should we be obliged again to go into the market to borrow, we shall certainly find that the vast National Debt which we have now contracted will seriously add to our difficulties, and make it—I will not say impossible to procure the funds that we want, but impossible to obtain them except on almost prohibitive terms.
It is, I know, easy to make these criticisms and much less easy to suggest what should be clone. May I make one or two suggestions very humbly to the House? In the first place, I hope it will be found possible before we are much older to release this country and the -industries of this country from the restrictions by which they are now shackled and embarrassed. I hope that some of us may live to see the end of all these "controls" and "guarantees" and "blockades." I was greatly comforted by a statement made the other day by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is what he said—
"The object of His Majesty's Government is to get rid of control and Government interference as quickly as it is safe and possible to do so."
Of course we all realise that the process of emancipation must be a gradual one. Mr. Chamberlain added—and I think this pleased me even more—
"Our first losses should be cut, and we should get to the natural prices as soon as possible."
Those, I venture to think, are sound principles, and I hope they represent the policy which His Majesty's Government intend to make their own. In the next place, if you cannot stop borrowing, and I do not think you can, can you not stop spending, or at any rate spending wastefully? Lord Midleton dealt so fully with that point that I need not say much about
24
it. But that there has been wasteful and reckless expenditure nobody can have the slightest doubt. To my mind one of the most conspicuous cases of all is the extravagance of unemployed pay. We have had it in this House from the Minister of Agriculture that a man can remain idle for twenty-six weeks—half a year—and be in receipt of pay equal to, or perhaps in some cases exceeding, what he might have earned had he taken on honest employment. There is no doubt that all over the country there are at this moment men and women who could get work if they wanted to get it, and who do not get work because they receive for idling more than they could earn if they were bearing their share in the work of the country.
I think there are one or two noble Lords from Ireland in the House. They will bear me out when I say that the most outrageous scandal of all was the manner in which this unemployed pay was doled out in Ireland. I have heard no two opinions on that point. Men either refuse to work, or leave their work, in order to get unemployed pay. I heard the other day of a man, a casual labourer, who was employed for a few days on mending a broken fence. His employer very properly provided him with an insurance ticket. Armed with this insurance ticket when the mending of the fence had been finished he went off, and became at once the recipient of a stipend which he never could have earned in the open market.
Surely of all moments this is not the moment when this kind of extravagance should be allowed. There is complaint all over the country that you cannot get men. Any of your Lordships who try to get work done by contract in the country will receive the same answer, "We cannot take the contract because we cannot be sure of getting men to carry out the work." One is always tempted to mention things which happen to oneself. Let me mention this case. Not long ago a Government Department swooped down upon my home and requisitioned a great quantity of trees. I was sorry to part with them, but they had to go. It was part of the contract that they were to be removed by Christmas last. The trees are still there, or nearly all of them. The responsible officials are extremely civil, throw themselves upon the mercy of the court, and

25
explain that it cannot be done because there are no men to do it. Is it not inconceivable that that should be the case at a moment when all over the country there are men drawing unemployed pay for doing nothing at all?
One hardly opens a newspaper without noticing some fresh manifestation of this disease—for I think it is a disease. Sometimes it is the erection of a building for 12,000 clerks somewhere in the suburbs, or it may be a huge telephone scheme for London, or national restaurants, or the creation of a. new "go-as-you-please" Department to increase the number (some people think the superfluous number) of those with which we are already blessed; and I suppose we may hear any day that the railways are going to be nationalised, or that His Majesty's Government are going, light-heartedly, to undertake the construction of the Channel Tunnel.
I do not desire to press the point further, because I believe that in theory we are really all of us of one mind. This debate will have done some good if it helps, ever so little, to bring back counsels of prudence and economy to a country which has been utterly debauched by five years of profligate expenditure.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, there was no feature in the impressive speech of Lord Faringdon in opening this debate which I think impressed the House more than his admission that since he spoke on this subject last year he had seen reason to modify the opinions he then held. I may say, in passing, that the opinions which he expressed last year were in some degree in conflict with those of Lord Inchcape. I should like to support what was said by the noble Viscount behind me in uttering an expression of regret that the state of Lord Inchcape's health has necessitated his absence from the House for some time, and expressing the hope that he nay soon be completely restored.
The noble Viscount behind me has been one of the principal professors of economy in your Lordships' House for a long time past; and we are able to say that, whether noble Lords have in the past taken a specially optimistic view of the position of the country, or whether, like my noble friend, they have been in the habit of uttering a warning note, on this occasion wit bout exception every noble Lord who
26
has spoken has used the same tone of doubt and warning, and has called the serious attention of His Majesty's Government to the position. This, of course, has meant that the Government have had to be, or appeared to be, on the defensive in the speeches they have made.
It has been pointed out by many of my noble friends that there has been to some extent an excessive use of the national credit, and that in particular instances there has been waste in actual expenditure. I think that it is a fairly safe rule to take that what applies to private credit and private economy may be in the main taken to apply to public economy and also to public credit. On the question of borrowing, on which much has been said by previous speakers, it is, I think, necessary to utter a caution that while borrowing ought not to be undertaken for remunerative purposes, yet even for remunerative objects it is necessary to bear in mind in particular how soon a return is likely to be realised from the expenditure which is made. There have been hundreds of individuals and hundreds of firms who have engaged in expenditure which, if they had only been able to hold on, would have proved sufficiently remunerative, but because they have not been able to keep going during the interval they have found their way into the Bankruptcy Court. We are not going to find our way into the Bankruptcy Court, but we have to consider that even in engaging in expenditure which we may call ultimately remunerative the country has to live meanwhile, and we must not hamper its resources too much during that interval.
My noble friend Lord Haldane spoke in terms with which I personally greatly sympathised upon the necessity of not economising too greatly on matters of education. There I am entirely with him, and even though it may be true that it may be a number of years—possibly a whole generation—before you can see the reward of your policy of education in terms of money, yet I believe that the return is so sure that this is one of the objects for which borrowing may be regarded as legitimate enough. Or take, again, the question of afforestation. Afforestation can hardly be made remunerative to the man who undertakes it on a large scale, unless indeed he does so when he is very young and lives to a considerable age.

27
There again, if national afforestation is desirable, it is one of the objects to which borrowing might legitimately be applied. But there is a tendency and a temptation to borrow for purposes which cannot he considered even as remunerative as those which I have mentioned, and it is a tendency which I am certain ought to be severely checked.
On the last occasion Lord Buckmaster made allusion to the national wealth, and to the diminution in that wealth due to the war. It may, perhaps, be said that calculations regarding the whole estimated national wealth are of greater interest to those who pursue the study of statistics than as a guide to the practical conduct of daily life. But my noble and learned friend gave figures which formed, I think, a useful illustration in order to bring home to the House and to the public the due sense of what the loss by the war means. The figures involved—varying estimates were given of from£15,000,000,000 to£19,000,000,000—as representing the former national wealth are almost astronomical in their magnitude, and Lord Milner was not prepared to admit that the diminution of the wealth of the nation as a whole was anything like as great as was stated by my noble friend. The noble Viscount admitted, as of course he was bound to admit, that the disappearance of our foreign investments could represent nothing but a dead loss calculable in terms of this diminution, but he did not include in this estimate various other matters to some of which allusion has been made by the noble Viscount who resumed the debate to-day. Lord Milner did not mention the most grave matter from the point of view of national wealth, the diminution of our shipping—since, as we know, a considerable part of what was spoken of as our invisible exports was due to the command which we had of the carrying trade of the world and the freights thus earned, and our losses, as the noble Marquess has said, have been enormous.
But most of all, as it seems to me, the noble Viscount erred when he seemed to imply, because the debt was so largely held at home, that thereby it ought not to be regarded as a diminution of the national wealth. It surely stands to reason as the noble Marquess has pointed out, that pro tanto the interest which has to be paid on that debt every year diminishes the national wealth by diminishing the
28
power of saving. All the accumulations of the past, in particular the foreign investments—and of course to a great extent the shipping—were the direct fruit of the annual savings of previous years, and if the country is reduced to a state in which those savings cannot be made, even though it is brought about by a different distribution of wealth (which may be in itself in some respects desirable), it is impossible to deny that the country is so much the poorer. Surely there is a fallacy involved in this belief that debt which is held at home is not really debt. There is no quotation more familiar than that of Dr. Johnson's, spoken of the Islanders in the West who sustained a precarious existence by taking in each other's washing; and if internal debt is not to be taken into account, you would only have to capitalise the two sums representing those laundry transactions and treat the total amount as representing the national wealth of that particular island. Or, because Germany has issued over£100,000,000 of paper currency—because the German debt is mainly contracted at home—you might on that basis argue that the national wealth of Germany has been so slightly diminished that you could hope to produce by way of indemnity stuns which I fear there is little prospect of any country which has been at war with Germany ever seeing.
I do not desire to touch on the questions raised by Lord D'Abernon, still less to engage in a controversy whether the future of this country is to be conducted on the lines of a return to a gold currency, or of a paper currency backed by a gold reserve held in bullion, though not in coin—a solution which, so far as my own opinion is worth anything, I should have thought was the one to which we might most hopefully look forward. Then there is the third view held, as we know, by some hold spirits who would dispense with gold altogether and would rely upon national and personal credit alone for the support of a paper currency. That last solution is not altogether unlike that which was adopted by Germany during the war—Germany, as we know, having worked by the creation of a certain number of loan banks, whose notes were treated, for the purposes of credit, as supplying a security equal to gold.
The other charge that has been brought, as we know, is one of waste and extravagance in certain Departments, upon which

29
so much has been said that I do not desire to add to it. But I cannot help feeling that, with every intention on their part to create an impression in the country that they realise the gravity of the situation, His Majesty's Government have not somehow succeeded in convincing the country that they are prepared to take determined steps to correct it. That, I think, cannot be disputed. The qualities of the Victorian age are sometimes lightly spoken of, but if we could only reintroduce into the Government, and make the country believe that it had been reintroduced, something of that spirit of Victorian economy—I will not say the economy of Joseph Hume but, at any rate, the economy of Mr. Gladstone—if there could be some recrudescence of that stern and sometimes unpalatable economy, I am certain that the country would be grateful at once and still more grateful in the long run.
I have no wish to dwell on any of the special instances of what is believed to be Government extravagance, many of which have been mentioned in the course of the debate. But again I cannot help saying that the manner and tone in which the Estimates for the vast sums alleged to be necessary for the defence forces of the country have been put forward have done but little to produce in the minds of the country the conviction that the Government have economy at heart.
The noble Marquess dwelt forcibly on the payment for unemployment. I wonder whether His Majesty's Government realise the profound discontent on the subject of this unemployment payment which, I believe, exists all over the country in the minds of everybody except those who are receiving it. It so happens that I am able to hear of much of what is felt throughout the agricultural community. As the noble Marquess has said, the discontent there in relation to this particular subject is profound. But I do not for a moment say or believe that it is confined to that particular class, although I happen to know most of it. I believe it is widespread, and it is, I confess, to me astonishing, as the noble Viscount said, that no reasoned explanation has been made of the extension for another long period of this form of benefit, which, it must be evident, goes in a certain percentage of cases to altogether wrong hands, although what the exact percentage may be we have no means of knowing. But that it is considerable I
30
firmly believe; because, if it were not so, it would be impossible that so many instances could be produced as are forthcoming from this and that trade of the monstrous harm which is being done by this system.
The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, apologised in the course of his speech for not being able to give certain figures, on the ground that it would not do for him in any way to anticipate the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, by immemorial custom (which I think was the phrase he used) was entitled to shroud in the deepest mystery everything connected with the forthcoming Budget. Well, we have ceased to care very much for "immemorial customs." Many of them have gone by the board; and this might in this particular instance—though, of course, it is evident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot and ought not to give any information which would enable traders to anticipate the effects of his Budget proposals—nobody would suppose that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed either to increase or to diminish the tax upon spirits, or dried fruits, or any other commodity, that he would make an announcement beforehand.
Yet I would urge what I have said before in this place—namely, that as things now exist the country is in my judgment entitled to something in the nature of what is called a continuous audit of its affairs. On the scale on which expenditure now exists I do not think that it is possible for the country to be content with a bare annual statement; and I cannot help feeling that very much more information might have been given each year by the Treasury as to the state of affairs in finance at the moment which would have enabled us to know, far better than we have in fact been able to know, how the country really stands in the matter of credit and debit. I remember that, so long ago as September, 1916, M. Ribot said that the position of the Finance Ministers in Europe after the war would be almost as difficult as that of those who were then responsible for finance. In my opinion the French statesman greatly understated the case. We all of its felt that Mr. Bonar Law had a most difficult task to carry through, but at any rate the country could see what the necessity of holding on at any cost was, and it was prepared to set its teeth. Now I think the country is more likely to gnash its

31
teeth. Therefore I think that Mr. Chamberlain, in his control of the national finances, is an object demanding far greater sympathy than either of his predecessors who were responsible for the conduct of the war at the Treasury—or indeed, I may say, than any of the three. And when we consider that it is a£1,500,000,000 Budget which Mr. Chamberlain will have to present, our sympathy certainly does not tend to diminish.
The noble Viscount, Lord Milner, made one statement in the course of his speech to which I desire to call attention. In speaking of the expenditure which might be looked for in coming years, among various items which ought to be regarded as temporary, and which, therefore, made the figures in fact better than they appeared on the surface, he mentioned the bread subsidy of about£50,000,000 a year, and observed that this at any rate ought not to be regarded as a permanent charge. I do not know whether that statement of the noble Viscount was generally remarked. It was an obiter dictum, and I do not know whether it attracted public notice; but if it did, it would have spread most profound consternation among the agricultural community, because it is quite evident that if the corn production policy is to be continued at all, the subsidy, or guarantee, or payment, or whatever form it may take to the farmers, will have to continue. When the time comes that the price of wheat falls below the sum at which it can be produced at a fair profit for the farmer, one of two things must happen. Either you must continue to guarantee him the difference between the two prices, with a reasonable profit to himself; or you must cease to compel him to grow wheat. That is surely evident; and the cessation of this subsidy will unquestionably be the signal for the going back to grass of—I will not pretend to say off-hand, but I should put it at five-sixths if not nine-tenths of the land which has been ploughed within the last three years. Therefore, without desiring to argue this particular question, I feel bound on this financial debate to mention the fact that in my judgment this particular£50,000,000 cannot be regarded as much of an asset on the credit side for future years. I have no doubt that as a matter of fact the individual Ministers—and certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer—realise the gravity of the situation, and I am in great hopes that Mr. Chamberlain
32
will prove himself to be a custodian of the old Treasury traditions, and that he will be able to impress the force of those traditions—which has been, perhaps, not realised for a good many years by the Department in the manner in which it was twenty-five or thirty years ago—upon some of his colleagues who do not set the same value on it that he does.
The noble Viscount, Lord Peel—as the noble Marquess observed—objected to a quotation which was made of an opinion that we were somewhere near the edge of a precipice. I am bound to say that I think we are walking on a very narrow ridge indeed, and that it will be necessary to keep a very steady foot and a very clear head if we are to regain that power of balancing which we have lost to a great extent during the war, and which must be regained if the country is to reach the position which it held five years ago.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, every noble Lord who has preceded me this afternoon—and all of them, as it happens, have held high office in the Government of this country—has spoken with great gravity and earnestness of the serious position in which we find ourselves. I think I may say that this was the case with every noble Lord who spoke a week ago when this debate was initiated, and in that remark I include the members of the Government, for although they naturally deprecated undue pessimism and very naturally criticised some of the figures and arguments which were put forward, yet in reading what they said—for I had not the good fortune to be present—I felt that there was underlying all their observations a desire not to say anything which, being read by the mass of the people, would lead them to suppose that the present situation was other than a very serious one.
There were one or two observations of Lord Milner to which I should like to refer for a moment or two. I must say that I agree with him that the National Debt, so far as it is held in this country, cannot be treated as a deduction from the total national income, but all the same the interest on the National Debt is in effect a first charge upon the industry of the country, and hampers us in competition with our trade competitors, except in so far as they are also shackled with similar burdens. So far as I am concerned, my

33
Lords, figures about the total national wealth estimated in capital never interest me very much. I think such figures applied to industries are valuable and interesting, but calculations of the total amount of the capital wealth of the nation are generally made upon the basis of so many years' purchase of certain kinds of national wealth; and in that form the really vital thing seems to me to be the total national income, and not the total national capital. Dealing with the national income and the national Estimates for this year, I should like to say that I am not altogether satisfied with the defence made of the Civil Service Estimates by Lord Milner. I believe these Estimates conceal the fact that there is great expenditure still upon munitions, for which there is only a token vote, which is arrived at on the supposition that very great sums will be received for the various articles t hat are being sold.
I notice that my right hon. friend Mr. Winston Churchill, in another place last night, spoke about an expenditure in the Array Estimates of£39,000,000 in bringing to an end certain munition works, and of another£7,000,000 for carrying out and completing other munition works, which it was found to be more economical not to scrap at once. I do not know whether there is, in addition to that expenditure, also a great sum spent under the head of the Ministry of Munitions in the Civil Service Estimates. If so, there is a double expenditure on that account. The most gratifying thing that the noble Viscount said was that in the first year of peace the Civil Service Estimates of£495,000,000 were likely to be reduced to half or less than half. A sum of about one-half of£495,000,000 is, of course,£250,000,000, and one wonders where the economies are to come from. The£87,000,000 loans to Allies is, of course, plain enough; so also is the£50,000,000 for bread subsidies. One hopes to get rid of them, although I am not sure whether we are going to get rid of the bread subsidies. But where is the other£113,000,000 to come from? Is it partly from the£7,000,000 put down for the purchase of housing materials. That, I take it, is the beginning of a huge Government expenditure upon a great scheme of housing, and therefore is likely to be recurrent for years to come. Is it to be on the£31,000,000 for Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement? I understand that that is the fund from which the present unemployment pay comes. If so, the
34
rate at which they are spending that money at present is not£30,000,000 but£60,000,000 a year. That scheme, which was launched immediately before the General Election, is announced by the Government itself to be subject to very great abuse. It is certainly encouraging idleness among many people, and it will require a great deal of courage on the part of the Government to do away with it entirely. I confess that. I should be very glad to see some of that courage displayed.
The discovery of the silver mines of Potosi which led to economic upset at the beginning of the seventeenth century led also. I believe, to the creation of the bad old Poor Law, which lasted for two centuries. It would be a strange thing if the economic upset of this war should lead to another kind of subsidy, which would, after great trouble, have to be done away with years hence. I am perfectly certain that t he Government, like all sensible men, desire retrenchment just as much as we do, but I do not know that they have hitherto given us much hope that their desires are going to be effective. The recent crisis with regard to the miners and transport men was, I think, as a crisis, extremely well handled; but the fact remains, as the noble Viscount said at the beginning of the debate this afternoon, that the net result of the settlement means that another£100,000,000 has to be paid to the workers in those two industries, and that this money must be found, either directly by each one of us in our several capacities, or indirectly through the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In these circumstances it is all the more necessary that we should understand as soon as possible what the total national income is going to be, and what share of that national income is required for taxation, and what is left for division between Capital and Labour, and, above all, what margin of saving there is going to be; because it is vital and essential that there should be a margin for saving. Then after that there is another most important matter. We shall want to know as soon as possible—and it becomes more urgent every day that we should know soon—how we are going to fare in competition with other countries, our trade rivals in the past, but against whom in the past we have been able to conduct a fairly successful competition. In those circumstances I welcome very warmly the cordial sympathy shown by Lord Milner a week

35
ago to the suggestion that there should be appointed a Committee of financial experts, trained and impartial economists, who should look into the matter and advise the Government as soon as possible about this question. I hope that before the close of this debate we shall have more than sympathy, and a definite promise from the Government that this Committee is going to be appointed.
I am afraid that when I last spoke in your Lordships' House I struck a pessimistic note. After all, I have been interested more or less in a trade which competes in every market in the world and which is now suffering under heavy depression. Had I been master of a great monopoly which, protected in the home market under present conditions, could practically charge what it liked, I dare say I should have taken a more rosy view of things, but at any rate I am perfectly ready to give reasons for the faith, or lack of faith, which is in me. When I spoke last I gave reasons for my belief that the amount of profit paid to the wealthier classes, after excess profits had been deducted, in the last year or two was extremely small and more than counterbalanced by the present rate of taxation—that is to say, that the net income of the wealthier classes is. I believe, smaller than it was before the war began. I gave reasons for that, with which I will not trouble your Lordships again.
Since then I have had the opportunity of reading and of studying—it is worth study—a pamphlet written by that eminent statistician, Mr. Bowley, called "The Division of the Products of Industry," in which he examines, with a great wealth of figure and argument, the figures of certain prewar years. In regard to the figures of 1911 he shows that the gross amount of unearned income—including, in this case, the larger salaries as well as the unearned income—which could by any stretch of the imagination be diverted from capitalists to labour, or in any other way, was£550,000,000. Out of that,£60,000,000 went in those days in taxation, and£230,000,000 was saved at home in addition to what was saved out of the income of foreign investments, leaving the sum of from£200,000,000 to£250,000,000 as the maximum which could, by any stretch of the imagination, be transferred from the wealthier to the less wealthy classes.
This figure, I notice, coincides with the figure used by my noble friend Lord Buck
36
master in his speech a week ago. It is a strange and significant thing that the extra amount paid during this war to the coal miners and transport workers alone—representing one-sixth of the total number of workers in this country—is equivalent to a similar amount of from£200,000,000 to£250,000,000. I am not sure, indeed, that it is not fully£250,000,000. The total advances in wages that have been made to workers during the war are calculated by some authorities at£800,000,000 and by others at£1,200,000,000. Now the importance of these figures is in the fact that the revenue from Income Tax and Super-Tax last year was not£60,000,000, as it was in 1911, but£291,000,000. I believe—and I gave reasons for the belief when I spoke last in your Lordships' House—that the total amount of extra income going to the wealthier classes during the last year or two has been only£100,000,000 in the gross, but even if it were£200,000,000 it is clear that the whole sum has already gone in extra taxation.
We all know that the cost of living has been enhanced, and although I dare say a great many wealthy people have cut down their establishments—I know they have—still these establishments cost them a good deal more than before for the mere necessaries of living, and, seeing that nearly all the saving in this country comes from this class, the wealthier class, it is becoming a very vital and serious matter whether there is any "saving margin" left in present conditions. Therefore we do want at the earliest possible moment to see whether the Government demands will leave any margin for that purpose. In order to find this out, I earnestly beg for a definite promise of a Committee to look into the questions referred to by Lord Milner.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD EMMOTT: The latest figures published are already two years old, seeing that another financial year has just ended, but the Inland Revenue authorities must have later figures, which could very soon be collated, grasped, examined and reported upon by such a Committee as Lord Milner suggested. The sooner that Committee can begin its labours the better, because the sooner it will report. The information is necessary both to show Income Tax-payers of the wealthier class the necessity for economy and saving from

37
the national point of view, and also to show the workers that, unless we can produce more and can sell what we do produce in competition with other countries, we cannot make ends meet or pay for the imports that are necessary for our comfort and convenience. This country will not be made "fit for heroes to live in" simply by perorations. It will only be so made by resolutely facing the future, and by all classes co-operating in hard work and thrift to build up the nation's industry once more and to replace the capital that has been destroyed.
Before I sit down, and connected with this matter of building up our industry again, I want to say a few words on the question of restrictions, both export and import restrictions. A good deal has been said by some of your Lordships about "controls." I have looked into that matter recently—I have had the opportunity of doing so—and I must say that I think the Government have made a great and successful effort to get rid of a large number of "controls," and in regard to that matter they have gone a very long way; but there remains the question of export and import restrictions. It is perfectly obvious that if our commercial classes are to face the future they must know where they stand. They cannot know where they stand until they can make their contracts knowing they can fulfil them. They cannot make contracts knowing that they can fulfil them so long as they are hampered by export and import restrictions. I have been too long connected with export restrictions not to know the damage that, has been done by, them.
From the British point of view the restriction on manufactured goods to what we know as "List C" countries, neutrals adjacent to Germany, should be withdrawn. What harm can be done now by allowing manufactured goods to go to those countries, even if some went through to Germany, or even with the view of some being allowed to go through to Germany? Even if that larger measure is impossible—and I know it is impossible to arrange these matters in two or three days with our Allies—cannot traders be allowed to complete their old contracts, many of which have been in existence for years and which were stopped by that fatal embargo I imposed in October, 1917—an embargo against which I protested in private and
38
never cease to protest. Why cannot these contracts, at any rate, be completed and our traders be allowed to send goods which are waiting and have been waiting for a year or two ready to be sent to these countries? Our competitors are invading the markets and they can get orders where we cannot. Our traders cannot ask for orders when they have not delivered their old contracts and cannot get certificates from the controlling authorities in those countries to enable them to complete the orders. Our traders cannot complete them, and so naturally American sellers can go and say "We will take orders; we shall be able to send you the materials you want"—of course, expecting that Peace will be made before the time comes when that promise should be implemented. So much for export restrictions.
Now; let me say a word or two about import restrictions. These came into being owing to the tremendous difficulties in which we were at one time placed in regard to shipping. It was absolutely essential and necessary to cut down all imports that we could possibly do without, and naturally His Majesty's Government cut down the imports of manufactured goods to a very large extent. After the Armistice was signed the Board of Trade made an heroic effort to get rid of a great many of these import restrictions by giving general licences for the import of goods which were prohibited. Perhaps they went too far. I know that some of the officials of my old Department thought they were going too far at the time. At any rate what they did led to a considerable outcry on the part of some of the trades that had been protected, and, this outcry having occurred, the general licences were withdrawn without the position having been examined in detail. It is rather a pity that His Majesty's Government had to plunge from one policy to another in that way. It. is this kind of thing which leads to uncertainty and trouble.
I am not going to trouble you with any account of my having resigned from the Consultative Council that was to have considered this question of import restrictions in detail. I have been treated by His Majesty's Government, by every member of it, and in particular by Sir Albert Stanley, the President of the Board of Trade, with the greatest courtesy and consideration, and I am not going to say out bitter word because I do not feel in any way bitter about the matter I would

39
only observe that if there was any misunderstanding I do not think I am to blame for it. Whether the Council misunderstood what the Board of Trade's policy was, or whether the Board of Trade misunderstood how extraordinarily difficult the problem was that they had to deal with and did not take steps to deal with it in the best way, I really am quite unable to say. But on the broad question, which does really matter, I want to say a word or two.
An embargo, or prohibition, subject to licence on import is, of course, an unusual and must be a temporary proceeding. Russia, America, and Spain, which before the war had the highest import tariffs of any country in the world, never resorted to an embargo on imports, and therefore it is obvious that in peace time it is quite impossible to maintain for long an absolute embargo or prohibition subject to licence on imports. Diplomatic reasons alone would make it impossible. It is useless to shut our eyes to the fact that these restrictions operate against our Allies alone, and yet it is obvious also that it is perfectly fair to give trades, which have been diverted from peace work to war work, time to turn back before the market is flooded by the import of goods from other countries. That is equally obvious. But the longer this embargo or prohibition lasts the more numerous are the new claims for protection made by various industries, and the more vehement becomes the outcry of interested people against any relaxation. If they had their way these protected trades will not agree to any relaxation on September 1, and they will not agree to it until the Greek Kalends.
It seems to me, sometimes, as if the whole manhood of this country had gone out to fight, and that there was no real manliness left in the trade of the country. People have become so used to control that they seem to regret its being taken away. I hope that this mood will soon alter. In the second place, granted that there must be a moratorium in some trades—it would be only fair and right in some cases—it is rather hard on employers, and particularly on workers, in other industries which are very depressed at the present time, industries which are dependent on foreign trade, that they should be asked to pay more for their soap, matches, pottery, glass, &c., in order that certain other trades may be protected in this country. It is really a most undesirable position,
40
and it adds to the hardness of their lot that they should have to pay more although they are unemployed and relatively impoverished.
In the last place I do not know whether the Government quite understand, or anybody who has not looked into this question understands, how impossible it is to conduct a system of license fairly, as between individuals, and also as between nations. In the case of any commodity, of which you are allowing a certain proportion of imports to come in, you have to fix a certain year, or at any rate the tendency is to fix a certain year, and say "We will allow 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. of what was imported during this standard year to beimported now." That means that youstereotype the traders who did the trade of that year. Some traders did more than the average in that year, and some did less. The man who happened to do more in your standard year, of course, benefits, and gets an unfair advantage. The man who did less is at an unfair disadvantage. I found this out in the War Trade Department in regard to export licences, and towards the end of the war we were dropping altogether this consideration because we found it worked so unfairly, and because it shut out enterprise. The new man could not get in, and it is the new and enterprising man who does so much to get our business. He is shut out by this system of licensing.
I need not pursue the question of nations because it is perfectly obvious. Canada has been complaining, and justly complaining, of this fixing of a standard year and saying that so much per cent. of the imports for that year shall come in. Say it is the year 1916, when Canada was doing all she could to help us, when her trade was upset and interfered with, when she was not able to send imports of the ordinary kind to us, I think it is grossly unfair that Canada, or any other of our Dominions, should be shut out in this competition owing to a war year being chosen as the standard year. Canada complained, and the result is that the War Cabinet have decided that there must be no restriction against imports en manufactured goods from the British Empire without the express consent of the War Cabinet itself.
Take another case. I heard of a complaint the other day from Belgium that it is unfair we should allow such a large proportion of matches coming in to be sent from Norway and Sweden. It is

41
unfair, if Belgium can make matches, as Belgium was our Ally while Norway and Sweden were neutral. You cannot work this licensing system fairly, and the sooner we can get rid of it and replace it by something better, the better it will be for all concerned. I hope that this unusual and obviously temporary proceeding may be done away with as soon as possible. I have only another word in conclusion. I lay emphasis on this question—the restriction of our trade, whether import or export, because we are told, and quite properly told, that our production must be increased. I want to point out that in some trades it is not of much use increasing production because you cannot find any purchasers for the goods that are produced. I hope that this is a temporary condition of things, but I must point out that orders will not come in full measure, either at, home or abroad, so long as our trade is shackled by these restrictions, and therefore do let us get rid of our restrictions as soon as possible.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, the financial aspect of this question has been so fully discussed already that I do not wish to touch upon it. I merely want to support two suggestions which have been made during this debate. The first is that which was made by the noble Lord who has just spoken—that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the maximum bearing capacity of this country in taxation. I believe that a Committee of this sort would be of great advantage, for two reasons. First of all it would collect a great amount of valuable information; and, secondly—what I believe would be equally important—it would shed light on what is to a great many people a most obscure subject, that of finance.
This brings me to the second suggestion which I wish to support, and which I think was rather implied by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. What is really wanted also is an educational propaganda in the country with regard to finance. I am quite sure that if there is a want of trust in the Government—a want of trust as to whether their financial policy rests upon a sufficiently sound basis to invite the confidence of others—this want of trust arises not from any wilful misunderstanding on the part of the people but from unwilling ignorance. If there is a subject on which the majority of the people are ignorant it
42
is the subject of finance and the financial condition of the country. I believe that until you educate them upon this matter you will never get real economy among all classes. There are a great many people who really do not understand how the war has been paid for. They do not know whether the war has been paid out of capital, out of income, or out of loan. Perhaps I might say, in passing, that there has been one great advantage in the increased number of people who have been investing in loans, and it is this. I hope that we will get an increased number of people who, through lending their money to the Government, will be anxious to see that that money is properly and wisely spent.
I am sure also that there is a very large number of people who do not know how the incidence of taxation falls in this country. As has already been pointed out, you have what I believe to be a state of ignorance in the country with regard to these points, just at the very time when the industrial world is asking for a large expenditure of money on increased pay and better conditions all round, all of which will take large sums. If there is to be a wider distribution of wealth, there must be a wider distribution of the responsibility of citizenship, and if you are going to have a larger number of people demanding an increasing improvement in their economic position, you want that increased number of people to see that the economic strength of the country is at the same time increasing. The noble Lord who last spoke referred to the necessity for an increase in production. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said that he was not quite sure whether those who are engaged in industry really understood the financial condition of industry and the basis upon which it rests. If I may say so, I agree with him. They may realise that exports pay for imports, but I wonder whether there are really very many who understand thoroughly what invisible exports are. Are there many who realise that during this war we have mobilised a large block of foreign investments, and in that way have eaten into our invisible exports, which is one of our strong lines of defence, and that if we are going to make this good it will be necessary that we increase production, and that we shall have to depend in future more upon our own efforts than upon foreign investments?
I should like also to support what was said by Lord Emmott, that the restrictions

43
which are now being placed on trade should be eased as soon as possible. I realise to the full the difficulties that there are in the way, but our traders have energy, enterprise, and ability, and they have the means, and what they ask for at the present moment is a freer hand in order that they may put their energies and ability to the fullest possible advantage. Quite lately I was re-reading some words which were written in 1885 by my father before he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I was, if I may say so, very interested to see how the warnings which he gave in those days and the prophesies which he made have been justified at the present moment. There was one essay which he wrote upon "Laisser faire and Government interference," in which he was examining the changing relations between Government interference and individual liberty. There is nothing so wearisome as quotations, but perhaps I might quote one from this essay which sums up what I have been endeavouring to say. He said—
"Let us pay the cost when national duty or national sentiment requires it, but let us know that we pay, and accept the effect with a full and conscious knowledge of the consequences."
I believe that this is as true at the present day as it was then. What we desire to know is how we are paying for the war, and what we want the people to do is to realise the consequences which the payment of this money will impose upon the country.
EARL BRASSEY: My Lords, I do not wish at this stage of the evening to detain your Lordships for many moments, as most of what I desire to say has been said, and better said, by other speakers. But I wish to enforce this point. If the country is to meet the burdens about which so much has been said during the course of this debate, the trade and industry of the country must be conducted at a profit and not at the expense of the State. The noble Viscount who opened the discussion this afternoon, and other speakers, alluded to the railways, to the coal-mining industry, and to agriculture. The effect of the increase in wages on the railways and in coal-mining, and that proposed but not yet, I am glad to say, sanctioned as regards agriculture, will be that all those industries will work at a loss, and if they are to be carried on at the present scale must be carried on at the expense of the community.
44
The noble Lord opposite thought that the Government had ably handled this question of the demands from the miners and railwaymen. I beg respectfully to disagree with hint. I think that the Government, while recognising that the workers should have a different position in industry from that which they had in the past, while recognising the right of the workers to an increased and an equitable share in the profits of industry, while recognising the right to a reduction of hours wherever possible, should have told the coal miners and the railway workers that there was no justification for raising their wages until the vast numbers of others not then demobilised had been demobilised and were in employment. I believe that the workmen engaged in those industries would have recognised the justice of this contention. The British workman, as Lord Leverhulme said the other day, is the most amenable to argument person in the community. I fear that the Government have been too prone to appeal to the lowest instead of the highest ideals of the British workman. I cannot help feeling that if the Government, instead of insisting on an Election last autumn, in the course of which many rash and lavish promises were made, had remained in office during the trying period through which we are now passing, we should have been in a very different position from that which we are in to-day.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, some few years ago I took up a statistical investigation in connection with the Statistical Department of Tasmania. I handed the result of this investigation to one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, who wrote that, after reading it, he came to the conclusion that it was not the working classes but the saving classes which wanted legal protection. You have been living on capital during this war, and there is a day of reckoning coming which demands the utmost amount of economy. That fact and the necessity for economy are not understood by anybody in this country, nor do they understand the enormous evils which the neglect of that economy entails on us, on our children, and on their children. If we are to push our trade forward it must be by providing every means of competing with other nations, not by hampering us with restrictions; it must also be by united effort on the part of employers and employed.

45
According to the investigations I have referred to we found that it took three years to put by the£3,000 or£4,000 capital necessary to pay£100 a year for the next thirty years. During this war we have spent£5,000,000,000 or£6,000,000,000 in unproductive expenditure. That sum must be made up; otherwise it will react on the living power of the rest of the population. We found that a drop of£5 or£10 through protective duties in the production of the country in any one State meant a drop of one person in every 1,125 in the population; and the cost of this war will mean a fall in population during the next fifteen or twenty years of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000, compared with the population in 1913. If you are to prevent that you will have to make an economy of 15 per cent. in the wages paid in future compared with the wages of 1913.
Another thing that is entirely lost sight of is this. During the war there has been a great amount of repairs to buildings and machinery put off. In 1905 in Australia we had an increase of 15 per cent. in our national returns, compared with the previous ten years, but of 80 per cent. of that increase during that and the next two years not a penny went into wages or new trade. The whole of it was taken up in paying for repairs to machinery and implements that had been postponed during the previous seven years' depression.
You have to meet all these economies, and you have to remember at the same time that the war has not only created a fictitious value in prices but has always the result of causing an undue and unnatural increase in the circulation of wealth. You could not carry on the war without increasing the circulation of wealth, and the increase necessitated an inflation of prices. Those prices cannot go down until the cost of production and of labour has gone down first; then they will follow as a matter of course. In the meantime you have established huge Departments that are not necessary in peace time, and you have to curtail all those Departments and bring them back to normal peace conditions. All this calls for an amount of economy that few people stop to consider.
Under these conditions we must be very careful to curtail our expenditure. The cost of this war means increased taxation. Some people think that the people pay the taxation, but the poor pay it equally;
46
because out of the difference of 1s. 8d. between the incomes under£100 and the incomes over£100, 11 d. returns to the worker and the poor in fresh employment. The whole cost of the interest on that has to come from every member of the community, rich and poor alike, and you have a largely increased interest bill to meet in order to pay the cost of this war. All these considerations demand the greatest economy on the part of the Government, and the greatest facilities for the further stimulus of business and production in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there has been a series of questions addressed to His Majesty's Government to which no reply has been given. I do not wish to comment with any desire to blame His Majesty's Government on account of their silence this evening, because we were favoured with some very adequate speeches—indeed much more than adequate, very able speeches—by several members of His Majesty's Government on the last occasion when this Motion was before your Lordships' House. Still, the fact remains that certain questions have been put which have not been replied to. I do not know whether the Government would be prepared to reply to them now, or whether they would prefer that we should repeat them on a future occasion.
The principal question to which I refer is as to whether they will agree to the appointment of a Committee of experts to inquire and report upon the taxable capacity of this country and its recuperative power—I do not, of course, attempt to use words which would be adequate to form the reference to a Committee. But a Committee of experts has figured very largely in these debates, and received the blessing of no less an authority than my noble friend Lord Milner. I am quite aware that Lord Milner was careful to say that he spoke in his personal capacity, but in whatever capacity he speaks it is a matter of great importance, and we shall be very glad to hear from the Government whether we may consider that the personal opinion of Lord Milner is adopted by his colleagues as a whole and that this Committee will be appointed.
We are all the more anxious for a reply to this question because of the attention which has been called in the course of these

47
debates to the rather lax methods which have grown up during the war of demanding money from the Treasury. I am not going into this at length, but I take it that it is clear that no member of the Government has power to spend money without the consent of the Treasury. I mean by this that they have no legal power. I speak, of course, in the presence of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I take it that, whether it is the Prime Minister or a subordinate Minister, he has no power whatever to spend one halfpenny of public money except in so far as it is authorised by the Treasury. I fancy that is the law, though it is a law which in recent times has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I should like to know whether I am right in stating that to be the law. Secondly, if it is the law, I desire to know whether we may have an assurance from the Government that the laxity which has prevailed hitherto will come to an end. These things were permissible in time of war, but the sooner we can resume the practices and the precautions of peace the better it will be for the country. We cannot go on in that reckless way.
Therefore we would like to put these two questions to His Majesty's Government to reply to now—though I will not press them to do that—or on a future day. The first question is, Will they assent to the appointment of a Committee of experts to make the financial inquiries to which I have referred? The second question is, Will they engage that the legal obligation which rests upon every member of the Government not to spend the money of the country without the consent of the Treasury—
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: And of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, and of Parliament—will be obeyed in the spirit as well as in the letter? Those are the two questions that we have to put to His Majesty's Government, and I will ask them whether they will give me a reply.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships more than a few moments; still less do I desire to enter upon the manifold subjects which have been raised during the present
48
debate. Lord Midleton invited us practically to revise the decision taken by the Government, fifteen years ago to control the telephones. I do not interest myself very much in telephones, and I dare say the Government has made a serious loss upon the telephones; but for those of us who live in remote parts of the country, let me say that the advent of Government control of the telephones has been a godsend. Those who live in outlying districts where no remunerative service could be expected from a private firm can be at least thankful that Government control has extended the service to us, as indeed it has also done in postal work. I do not intend to go into that, nor indeed to traverse the interesting views of Lord Emmott about import and export control. It is an extremely interesting subject upon which I should very much like to offer my opinions to your Lordships; but at this time of night, and bearing in mind the actual terms of the Motion before the House, I do not think it desirable to comment on it, especially as I had no notice that this particular matter was being raised. On the general question of de-control—to which Lord Goschen, I think, and one other member of your Lordships' House referred—again, I should much like to speak, as I myself hold strong views upon the subject. I propose, however, to limit my observations to one or two points which have arisen to-day and on the previous occasion.
In the first place, as to the suggestion that an expert Committee should be appointed to inquire into the taxable capacity of the country. That proposal has in the last few moments been enlarged very much by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who suggested that it should also inquire into the recuperative power of the country. This raises a much wider issue. It. raises the whole question of (we will say) public transport., of the development of coal, of sea-fishing, of communications, of aeronautics, of a hundred and one things which I do not think are necessarily relevant to the smaller inquiry which was suggested, and for the moment I am prepared to answer only about the taxable capacity proper. The suggestion was first made by Lord D'Abernon, but an investigation is at this moment going on as to how far such an inquiry is necessary—in other words, how far the Revenue authorities desire information upon this question of taxable capacity which is not

49
already at their disposal. But let me remind your Lordships that this is emphatically a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for the moment I am not in a position to make a definite announcement upon the subject. My noble friend Lord Milner, however, is making it his business to go into the matter with the financial authorities, and I hope that before long he will be in a position to state whether in their opinion this form of inquiry is going to be of assistance.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The last word, of course, must come from them.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: From the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend Lord Goschen raked the question of propaganda. Here, again, I do not propose to offer any final opinion. Everybody wants the economic situation to be studied; everybody admits that knowledge on the subject is not always correct, in fact is very often the contrary. But I would ask your Lordships to make certain, before pressing strongly for Government propaganda, whether the Government is the best agency to conduct a propaganda of that character; whether it is the best medium for conveying information to the public which the public is likely to assimilate in a sympathetic manner. That is a problem which your Lordships should consider. For my part I am not at all certain that an economic propaganda on such subjects is not more liable to provoke than to allay controversy if it arises from any Government which is supposed to be supporting its own economic views and pushing its own parti pris.
The last point to which I wish to refer is the question of Treasury control. Lord Salisbury said that it was lax. Treasury control has never been lax, but it has constantly been overpowered by superior claims arising out of the war during the war. The Treasury is much blamed in these matters, but the Department, so far as my experience goes, has never relinquished or abandoned its right to try and check public expenditure. It has often failed to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: suppose that when that happened it was always a breach of the law?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Oh, dear no. What happens is this. The noble Marquess himself has been in office. A Department comes forward and says to the Cabinet, We want to spend£1,000,000." The Treasury fights it, but is over-ridden by the Cabinet. The Treasury, none the less, has done its best to limit and to control expenditure; and, as I can state of my own knowledge, the Treasury has throughout been doing its best to cut down expenditure. But circumstances have been too much for the Treasury. That is not, however, the point raised by Lord Salisbury. The noble Marquess said that the Departments were spending money illegally. If that were so during the war, I have no doubt that the Treasury will take good care it will not occur again.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: For my part I do not know of any such case. Lord Salisbury no doubt has something in his mind, and will, I doubt not, let us know what it is so that we can investigate that particular transaction. But that is a different thing from the Treasury being overborne—the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer being one of a number of colleagues whose views are sub-ordinated to those of other members of the Government. Lord Midleton ob-observed that the Government had treated the matter in a jaunty manner, but he completely misunderstood the speech of my noble friend Lord Peel if he thought there was any levity in his remarks. On the contrary, neither Lord Peel nor Lord Milner treated the matter with anything except the greatest earnestness, and with profound conviction of its importance; and so far as the Government are concerned we have indeed already announced that we are willing to give earnest of our sense of its importance by accepting the Motion which has been placed upon your Lordships' Paper.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Earl has not quite dealt with the question which I asked. There are hundreds of cases, I know, in which Treasury control has been

51
overruled by the superior necessities of the war; but what I desire to know is this—take a question like the unemployment donation, which is not part of the ordinary expenditure of the country but a new expenditure. Is it illegal or legal for either the Prime Minister or the Cabinet to grant that and begin to pay it without the consent of Parliament?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, being as I am in complete ignorance of the detailed facts upon which the noble Viscount founds his question, he will not expect from me a very considered view; but the question which he has addressed to me, if I understand it, does not present very great difficulty. No Minister and no collection of Ministers possess any power of spending public money unless under the direction and authority of Parliament, expressed or implied; but it may, and must, very frequently happen, sometimes in small and sometimes in great matters, that a Department has to face a demand for expenditure which has not been contemplated actually by Parliament; and it is very evident, if such a case arises sometimes in peace, that it is more likely to arise in a great war in which the very existence of the community is menaced.
I am not aware on how many occasions it has arisen in this war, but it would not surprise me if it had arisen very often, and I should imagine that if and when it had
52
arisen it would present itself in this way. A Minister would require, perhaps when Parliament was not sitting, certain expenditure. The position of the Minister would be this. He would say. "I am responsible for the provision of this article. I have not at the moment, because Parliament is not sitting, the means of obtaining Parliamentary assent. I take the risk that Parliament will be satisfied with my explanation"—that is, Parliament and the Treasury; indeed it is not useful to distinguish them, because the Treasury has no force in these matters which is not derived from Parliament—"I take the view that when I have explained the matter to Parliament, Parliament will support the decision which I have reached." The position of a Minister, whether great or small, or of a collection of Ministers, which we call the Cabinet, is the same; he or they must stand or fall by the ability to persuade Parliament that what has been done was right, was called for by the necessities of the times, and ought to be supported by the sober judgment of Parliament, as it would have been if circumstances had allowed the Minister to present the claim to Parliament.
On Question, Motion—That the serious condition of the finances of the country calls for the exercise of the strictest economy in all directions—agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.