Sitting of 11 December 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Cannock Urban District Council Bill Walsall Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th August, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    Ex-POLICEMEN.
    Captain LOSE BYasked the Pensions Minister if ex-policemen who joined the Army during the late War who were in return for past services in receipt of pensions, and who were subsequently wounded and became entitled to wound pensions, are under existing rules deprived of the police pension they had previously earned; and if he will consider the advisability of initiating legislation for the purpose of removing this anomaly?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

    TRAVELLING VOUCHERS.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister, in view of the fact that the question has been under consideration for some months, whether he is now in a position to announce that half-fare vouchers will be issued to discharged men undergoing treatment to enable them to return home on leave?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I would re-
    1590
    mind the hon. Member that, subject to the conditions laid down in the Instructions issued by the Ministry, men undergoing treatment away from home can be given a free railway ticket once every six month to enable them to visit their homes. The question of giving additional facilities for means of half-fare vouchers is being considered as part of the general question of travelling concessions for men of His Majesty's forces, and I cannot yet announce a decision.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand that the travelling concessions for ex-Service men are being considered at the same time as concessions for serving men?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, that is so.

    TEMPORARY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Pensions Minister whether, under the recent Royal Warrant, the retired pay for temporary officers who have been invalided out of the Army with disability equal to the loss of a limb and placed on half-pay, has been increased to meet the higher cost of living?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There has been no Royal Warrant of recent date relating to the disability retired pay of officers. The matter referred to in this question is under the consideration of the Select Committee, the present position being that a bonus of 20 per cent. is added to the retired pay to meet the higher cost of living.

    PARENTS' PENSIONS
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he will reconsider his decision that parents' pensions based on dependence, although no separation allowance was issued while the soldier was serving, shall be paid from the date of application only and not from the date of death, in view of the fact that the onus of awarding such pensions without application should rest on the Government, as no intimation was issued to parents at the time of the soldier's death that a claim could be made, and that the Ministry of Pensions publicity campaign advertising parents' pensions did not commence until several years after the outbreak of war, the result being that in a large number of cases, through ignorance of the regulations, parents made no application for a considerable time after the soldier's death and have been greatly penalized?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that I am unable to reconsider the decision that parents' pensions which depend upon application can only be awarded as from the date on which the application is made.

    DISABLEMENT (FORMER WARS).
    Mr. HODGEasked the Pensions Minister whether he will give any indication as to when the pensions for disablement of those disabled by former wars will be raised to the standard contained in the Royal Warrant of the Great War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The rates of pension for men disabled by former wars have already been raised to the level of pensions of the Great War, as I announced in July last, and a considerable number of those increased pensions are now in payment. A former war pension can only be increased on application, which should be made to the Awards Branch at Chelsea.
    Mr. HODGE: Does that include the allowance for a wife the same as for soldiers and sailors in the late War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think not, but I will let my right hon. Friend know definitely.
    Mr. HODGE: If it is not the case will the right hon. Gentleman see that the conditions are made similar in that respect as for the soldiers in the late War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will consider that.

    YACHT PATROL (WAR GRATUITY).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty why men who formed the yacht patrol have been refused the war gratuity; and whether, in view of the consequent dissatisfaction among the men concerned, he can see his way to include them in the award?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) on the 30th July last. I will send my hon. Friend a copy, The position is still the same.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the position of these men will be?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The position is this. In one way and another these men get something approaching the consideration which Mercantile Marine Ratings get. These latter do not get the war gratuity, because they are paid more than naval ratings. Therefore, the men under consideration do not get the War gratuity.

  IRELAND.

    NATIONAL LOAN.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the declared objects of the Irish National Loan are the promoting of direct trade to and from Ireland, the development of fisheries, agriculture, afforestation and industries, and the establishment of a land bank in Ireland, he proposes to continue instituting criminal proceedings against all persons soliciting subscriptions to this loan?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): The objects of the loan, as stated in the question, are not. accurately presented. The Loan prospectus provides that interest on the Loan will not be payable until six months after the Irish Republic has received International Recognition and the English have evacuated Ireland. The prospectus further states that the proceeds will be used for propagating the Irish case all Over the World, for establishing in Foreign Countries Consular Services to promote Irish Trade and Commerce, for fostering Irish industries, and, generally, for National Purposes as directed by Dail Eireann.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to whether he proposes to continue instituting criminal proceedings, and, if that is the case, does he propose to prosecute the Archbishop of Dublin for advocating this loan?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All that I can say is that His Majesty's Government is, determined not to allow any other Government to usurp their constitutional functions.
    Mr. LYNN: May I ask whether it is the fact that the chief object of this loan is to carry out a murder campaign in Ireland?
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: Would it not be a good thing to allow some of

    1593
    these individuals to collect this money, and then endeavour to collar it, and use it for useful purposes?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into that question.
    Mr. LYNNasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a company, styled the Reconstruction and Federation of Industries, Limited, entered into negotiations some months ago with several of the leading Irish municipalities with the object of negotiating a loan of £150,000,000 for building purposes in Ireland; whether he is aware that the company now charge the Government with delaying the negotiations; whether he can state if any negotiations have taken place between the company and the Government; what is the cause of the delay; and when may a decision be expected?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I have no detailed information of the negotiations between Irish municipalities and this company, nor am I aware that the Government are concerned with such negotiations.
    Mr. LYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the company say that the reason for not lending money to these Irish municipalities is that the Government are holding them up?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If such a rumour is being circulated it has absolutely no foundation.
    Mr. LYNN: May I assume, then, that this company is a South Sea Bubble?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I never heard of the company till I read the question of my hon. Friend.

    ST. ANDREW'S NATIONAL SCHOOLS, BELFAST.
    Mr. BURNasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that St. Andrew's National School, Hope Street, Belfast, has consistently had a good record, and has earned a good Grant; that successive inspectors have reported favourably upon it and upon its accommodation, and that now, for the first time, a new inspector has found fault with its equipment; whether this adverse report endangers the Grant upon which this most useful school is depending; and what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the school referred to has a satis-
    1594
    factory record. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in stating that now for the first time a new inspector has found fault with the equipment of the school. So far back as December, 1912, and again in March, 1918, the then inspector called attention to this matter. In August of the present year the matter was again brought under his notice, and he was informed that, unless the necessary desks were supplied before 31st December, 1919, the question of the continuance of Grants to the school must be considered, under the terms of Rule 178 of the Code, which prescribes that, to warrant continuance of Grants to any school, the schoolhouse must be properly furnished.
    Mr. MOLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in respect of the previous complaint, the requisition was then complied with; and is he also aware that the failure to provide additional equipment now is due to the fact that school authorities are holding their hand awaiting the Education Bill?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I was not aware of those facts. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am speaking as the mouthpiece of the Education Department. I will have those facts brought to their notice, and see what I can do.
    Mr. MOLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman in the meantime undertake, if the defect is due largely to inaction on the part of the Government, to see that this school is not subjected to any penalty?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will convey those facts to the authorities.

    SOUTH KILDARE (DRESSED MEAT).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the attempt of the South Kildare farmers to organise and equip an abattoir and dressed meat business; whether the Department of Agriculture have refused to issue a licence; and, if so, what is the reason for this refusal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers to the Athy Dressed Meat Society. No licence from the Department is necessary to engage in the dressed meat business, but under an Order of the Food Controller meat can be exported to Great Britain only with a permit granted by the Department, and of late the quantity of meat to be accepted in Great Britain has

    1595
    been strictly limited, while this limitation exists an additional export to that now authorised will not be accepted at British ports. As soon as this limitation is relaxed, and in the event of the control of meat export continuing, the Department will grant the society the necessary permit for export and make arrangements for the inspection of the meat.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask will the Government do away with this control of the export of meat from Ireland to Great Britain?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The whole question is now being considered.

    POLICE FORCES (OLD PENSIONERS).
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary if he can now make any statement as to his negotiation with the Treasury in connection with increasing the pensions of retired members of the police forces in Ireland?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement, but I hope shortly to be able to do so.
    Captain REDMOND: Would it not be only fair to place these retired policemen in the same position to-day as if there had been no depreciation in the sovereign and as if there had been no rise in the cost of living. That is all they are asking?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I promised the House I would make representations to the Treasury. I have made a suggestion to the Treasury, and I understand it is now receiving consideration. I cannot say more at present, but if a question is put down next week I hope to be in a position to reply.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the Government consider the whole question of old pensioners?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary ex-pensioners is entirely different from that of any other pensioners.

    EDUCATION BILL.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary if he can say what will be the sum of money contributable from Imperial funds to education in Ireland in the financial year 1920–21, assuming that the Education (Ireland) Bill passes into law in its
    1596
    present form and that the Imperial Grant for education in Great Britain in 1920–21 is the same as the amount estimated or payable in respect of the financial year now current; and, acting on the above assumption, can he say by how much the Irish Grant for 1920–21 will exceed the amount estimated or payable in the current year?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: On the hon. and gallant Member's hypothesis, and excluding cost of administration and of other services referred to in the Bill, it is estimated that the equivalent Grant for Education in Ireland for the financial year 1920–21 would amount to £3,533,542. Making the necessary adjustments, this grant will exceed the estimated amount payable in respect of the corresponding services under present conditions for the current year by £301,910.
    Mr. MOLESasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Education Bill is to be submitted for Second Reading before the Recess; whether its financial provisions will be based upon the recommendations of the recent Killanin Report; whether he is aware that the Killanin Report recommendations are practically identical with the Craik financial proposals in the Scottish Education Bill, and that the Craik scale of salaries has now had to be amended; whether, in view of this, he will see that the new salaries scale of the Irish Bill will be based upon the revised Scottish proposals; and whether, in the event of the Irish Bill becoming law early in 1920, the increases will be proposed to be retrospective as from 1st January, 1920?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: With regard to the first part of the question, I am not in a position to make any definite statement, but I believe the Leader of the House will make a statement at the end of Questions to-day. The financial provisions of the Bill itself follow generally the line of the Scottish Education Act of 1918. As regards the question of National School teachers' salaries it is hoped that, under the Bill, funds will be available to enable a scale of salaries to be introduced which will be considerably better than that recommended by the Killanin Committee, and which will compare not unfavourably with the revised Scottish scale. It is also hoped that under the provisions of the Bill to make the new scale of salaries operative as from the 1st April, 1919.
    Captain REDMOND: Arising out of the first portion of the question, may I ask how he proposes to reconcile the policy of introducing a Bill to co-ordinate and centralise education in Ireland, and at the same time, and almost in the same breath, introducing a Bill to divide the country into two parts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That is a question of policy, which my hon. Friend will, of course, put to the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister.
    Captain REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to do with the Irish policy of the Government?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A great deal.
    Captain REDMOND: Then why cannot he answer?

    POLITICAL OFFENCES (IMPRISONMENT).
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Chief Secretary how many persons are at present imprisoned in Ireland for political offences; and how many, if any, of these are hunger-striking?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of persons at present imprisoned in Ireland who in the popular phrase are "political prisoners," is 151. There is no prisoner at present on hunger strike.
    Captain REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many people altogether are in prison in Ireland?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him an answer.
    Mr. KELLY: May I ask if the Attorney-General assented to the proposition that it is legal for the Government to stand by and permit hunger-strikers to starve themselves to death?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question to the Attorney-General.

    POLITICAL PRISONERS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, before introducing the Home Rule Bill, to release all Irish political prisoners and to withdraw the proclamations under the Crimes Act?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Captain REDMOND: May I ask whether this is a new idea on the part of the Government to enforce conciliation by coercion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No. It is not an entirely new idea on the part of some people in Ireland to make it necessary.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend not think, if the Government and the House are really in earnest in trying to reach an Irish settlement, that it is very desirable to clear the ground by means of this kind of concession?
    Mr. MOLES: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, would he also tell us whether he thinks it would not be desirable, if it is wished to have the ground cleared, that there should be a discontinuance of the programme of murder and outrage?
    Captain REDMOND: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, would it not be a good idea to clear away the originators of the policy of direct action in Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The most direct action at the present moment is murder. I should be very glad if the originators could be cleared out.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: May I ask whether—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House is rattle, anticipating the Debate on the Home Rule Bill.

    MILITARY RULE (SUSPENSION).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the military rule in Ireland which has suppressed the freedom of the Press, the right of personal liberty, and trial by jury has driven disaffection underground, which disaffection in turn finds an outlet in crime, he will, in order to give the proposals of the Government for the self-government of Ireland a better chance of acceptance, immediately suspend this form of government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If, as I presume is the case, the question suggests that the Government should cease to adopt the means which they consider necessary to enforce order and preserve human life, the answer is in the negative.

  PEACE TREATY.

    SERBIA.
    Mr. SIMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any information that the Government of Serbia have begun the deportation of Montenegrin citizens, and are interning them in special places in Serbia, Bosnia, and particularly at Sarajevo; and, if so, whether this is contrary to arrangements made by the Peace Conference?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer is in the negative.
    Sir J. D. REES: What affair is it of ours if the Serbian Government have begun the deportation of Montenegrin citizens?

    ALBANIA.
    Mr. A. HERBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the case of Albania is likely to come before the Peace Conference?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to his question yesterday.

    RATIFICATION OF TREATY.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the Treaty of Peace with Germany will be ratified?
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is in a position to say when the Peace Treaty between Germany and the Allies will be fully ratified; and if he can explain the reasons for the delay?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Negotiations are in progress between the Allied Governments and the German Government as to the formal exchange of ratifications, and a Note was presented to the German Peace Delegation on 8th December warning them that the Allies desire the final deposit of ratifications to be made without further delay.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks, or anticipates, those will be complied with before we rise for the Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is rather rash, I think, to prophesy, but I strongly hope

  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  Mr. RAPERasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is a widespread demand throughout the country that mothers' pensions should be paid to necessitous widows with children; and whether, in view of the general support which this question has received in this House, it is proposed to take steps to introduce legislation to this effect?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I recognise fully the importance of this matter, but under existing circumstances I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question asked by him on the 13th November, and to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for South Tottenham on the 5th November. The cost, even on the lowest estimate, would be very great indeed.
  Mr. RAPER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state when the Government will come to a decision?
  Dr. ADDISON: I cannot make a statement on that point. It is a very complicated question.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are at the present moment widows of sailors and of men who built ships for this country living on 9s. 6d. a week, and having children to keep, and does he consider that a satisfactory state of affairs?
  Dr. ADDISON: No, I do not, and I am not aware of the fact.

  PUBLIC HOSPITALS.
  Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Minister of Health whether His Majest'y's Government intend to take over the maintenance and administration of public hospitals; and whether, in the event of their doing so, cottage hospitals will be excluded?
  Dr. ADDISON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

  NATIONAL LEAGUE OF THE BLIND.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent activities of the National League of the Blind and the dissatisfaction existing with

  1601
  regard to the present Grand-in-Aid of the blind; whether he has received resolutions requesting early legislation on behalf of the blind; and what the proposals of His Majesty's Government are in the matter?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of the activities of the National League of the Blind referred to and have received numerous resolutions as stated. As previously indicated to the House, the Government intend, at an early date, to introduce legislation which will, amongst other things, include provisions for the amelioration of the condition of the blind; and I am in consultation with the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind, on which are representatives of the National League of the Blind, with regard to such provisions.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can he say that this legislation will be introduced at an early date next Session?
  Dr. ADDISON: I hope so.

  HOUSING.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in many cases the housing schemes of local authorities are held up by the delay in securing the opinion of the district land valuer in disputed questions of the price to be paid for land; and whether he can expedite the decisions of the valuers, and so remove this cause of delay?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am satisfied that there is little delay in actual valuation. Where delay occurs it is usually in connection with negotiations where I am advised that the price asked is excessive. In such cases I think that, with a view to expedition, greater use should be made of the compulsory powers which local authorities possess, and I am urging this course upon them.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask whether, in certain cases where delay does occur for want of a definite opinion, he will consider the appointment of specially-qualified men outside the Government staff, without increasing the Government staff, to make valuations?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not understand how I could appoint additional men
    1602
    without increasing the staff, but perhaps my hon. Friend will give me any cases he knows of? I do not know of any.
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Would it not be easy to take on a number of temporary men for a few months?
    Dr. ADDISON: We do; we have a large number of temporary men taken on. If my hon. Friend knows of any cases where the figures are held up because of the absence of a valuer's opinion, I will have the matter dealt with at once.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I will send the right hon. Gentleman particulars.

    BUILDING SUBSIDIES.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the urgent need for the increase of population, now and for the future, he is aware that, by limiting the bonus to builders of houses of four bedrooms, he is unconsciously forcing the limitation of families upon considerable sections of the people?
    Dr. ADDISON: No, Sir; I am advised that the principal need at the present time is for houses with not more than four bedrooms.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if the housing scheme submitted to his Department by local authorities state the actual number of houses to be erected on the suggested sites; and, if so, what is the number?
    Dr. ADDISON: Complete information is not yet available as to the actual number of houses proposed to be erected under local authorities' housing schemes, but the site plans submitted comprise, approximately, 57,000 acres, which will be Sufficient for at least 570,000 houses.

    ACCOMMODATION, MOSS SIDE, MANCHESTER.
    Major HURSTasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the Moss Side district of Manchester accommodation in the foreign quarter on the north side of the city is offered as alternative accommodation within the meaning of the Rent Restriction Acts for tenants whose ejectment from houses in Moss Side is sought by landlords; and whether he will supplement the placard which the Ministry of Health is about to circulate in Manchester and Salford by an explanation of the meaning of alternative accommodation?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have no information as to the first part of the question. It is for the Court to whom application is made for an ejectment order to decide, according to the circumstances of the particular case, what should be regarded as alternative accommodation for the purposes of the Acts.
    Major HURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a certain type of speculator is buying up houses in the better suburbs, and at the same time is buying up inferior houses in the foreign quarter of Manchester into which they endeavour to get the tenants from the better houses in order to get a profit out of the better houses?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I am aware of the circumstances in that district.

    MARGAM AREA SCHEME.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the housing scheme within the Margam area provides for 5 per cent, of the houses having only one room downstairs and two upstairs; whether this scheme was put forward on instructions issued by his Department; whether he is aware that the scheme is being strongly criticised on the ground that even a working-class family is entitled to a room to which the members may retire from domestic activities; and whether he will take steps to have the scheme reconsidered?
    Dr. ADDISON: Two out of forty houses included in the scheme of the Margam Urban District Council are planned with two instead of three bedrooms, in response to a local demand for houses of this type. With this exception, there is no difference between these houses and the approved three-bedroom type, and they have all the necessary and desirable amenities.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Does that mean that they have more than one room downstairs?
    Dr. ADDISON: If there are no houses with less than two they must have more than one.

    ADMIRALTY BARRACKS, BLYTH.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Admiralty Barracks, Blyth, Northumberland, are now vacant; and, if so, will he make arrangements for the Blyth Urban
    1604
    Council to purchase them, to be used as tenements, owing to the fact that the area is 2,000 houses short?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The disposal of this property has been placed in the hands of the Disposal Board, and the Admiralty have already informed the Blyth Urban District Council that they should communicate with that board with regard to their desire to purchase the buildings in question.

  POOR LAW OFFICERS (SUPER ANNUATION).
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to ex-Poor Law servants who are superannuated having to apply for outdoor relief owing to the inadequacy of their pensions; whether he is aware that under the present system the lowest-paid officers, who have consequently least opportunity of saving, are receiving very meagre pensions; and whether he is prepared to make additional provision for those cases where hardship can be proved so as to prevent the necessity of their applying for relief?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid it is a fact that the pensions of superannuated Poor Law officers are in certain cases very small, but I have definite information of only one case of an ex-Poor Law officer in receipt of relief. I regret that there is no authority to supplement the pension in such cases out of public funds.

  DISABLED WOMEN (WAR SERVICE).
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister if he is yet in the position to give the House any information in regard to any contemplated action on the part of the Government in regard to women disabled during the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that the hope expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week has not been realised, and that the consideration of this question by the Departments concerned is not yet complete. I hope, however, that an announcement will be made before the Recess.

  EGYPT.
  Mr. LUNNasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to the present condition in Egypt and as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in dealing with that country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that at present I could usefully add anything to the very full and explicit statement of the Secretary of State House of Lords on 25th November, and. to the more recent answers to questions given in the House of Commons by the Under-Secretary of State.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this House not just as much entitled to a statement on foreign policy as the other House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is asking too much of this House that it should read the statement of the Secretary of State when he happens to sit in another House.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to how the Milner Mission has been received in Cairo?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was received without anything unpleasant.

  ADMIRALTY (FINANCIAL CONTROL).
  Mr. ACLANDasked the Prime Minister whether action has yet been taken on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee contained in paragraph 22 of their Second Report, that there should be an independent inquiry into the whole system of internal financial control at the Admiralty?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject.
  Mr. ACLAND: May I ask whether, although the Report was presented in July, it is only just now, for the first time, receiving consideration?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that, but I think the First Lord dealt with that yesterday, and I cannot add anything to what he said.

  CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS (PUBLIC RESTAURANTS).
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the. Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that this is the first Peace Christmas, he will consider the advisability of allowing public restaurants to remain open for a longer period on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Eve, and New Year's Day?
  Mr. BONARLAW: The Government is not prepared to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

  RUSSIA.

    SIBERIA (REVOLUTIONS).
    Mr. SWANasked the Prime Minister whether the recent revolutions against Admiral Koltchak at Vladivostok, Irkutsk, and other Siberian districts aimed at securing a peaceable agreement with the Russian Soviet Government and the establishment of a Siberian constituent assembly; and what was the attitude of the British representatives in Siberia towards these demands?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The aims referred to in the question were no doubt in the minds of some of the authors of these revolutions. His Majesty's representatives in Siberia did not interfere in any way with incidents that were entirely connected with the internal affairs of Siberia.

    ANTI-JEWISH POGROMS.
    Mr. SWANasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to the effect that from the 18th to 20th October, immediately after the evacuation of Kiev by the Bolsheviks, some Cossacks and a corps of the volunteer army perpetrated a pogrom on the Jews in that city, killing some hundreds of Jews in the suburb of Podol alone; and whether His Majesty's Government will instruct the special British mission to South Russia to Make a full inquiry into this and other reported pogroms?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A report has been received tending to corroborate the first part of the question. His Majesty's High Commissioner has been instructed to report fully on alleged pogroms in South Russia, and the British Military Mission has already received instructions to do all in its power to prevent such excesses.

    BRITISH AND ALLIED POLICY.
    Mr. TILLETTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the malicious propaganda of enemy aliens misrepresenting British and Allied feeling towards Russia, he is prepared, after consultation with the Supreme Council of Allies, to declare a policy towards Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise the evils referred to in the first part of the question, but I do not think it would be possible to add anything to the very clear statement of Government policy made by the Prime Minister on the 13th of November last.

    GENERAL GOUGH'S REPORT.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will publish the Report of General Sir Hubert Gough on the situation in the Baltic States and North-Western Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that it would be in the public interest to publish these or similar despatches.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that this general (who did such valuable service elsewhere) has reported in an adverse sense on a great deal of the public criticism which we are asked to believe is true, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would inform public opinion if the evidence of this general were published, so that the public could draw their own conclusions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman must not assume that I agree with his first statement, but I think the House will agree that it would be an impossible position if generals or other people sent by the Cabinet to get information were to have the private information given to us made public.
    Mr. HOGGE: I quite agree, but, on the other hand, is my right hon. Friend not aware of the amount of information which has been given on both sides—because it is very difficult to get accurate information of any sort—has been such that the public has drawn false and wrong impressions, and when the Cabinet sends a distinguished general on a mission of this kind, will the right hon. Gentleman not give us the benefit of that precise information, so that we can form sane conclusions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There has certainly been a great deal of erroneous informa-
    1608
    tion, but what I said before must apply. It is quite impossible for despatches of that kind to be made public; but in debate, the general result of the information we have received was given to the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In connection with the lack of information, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the publication of other Reports in continuance of the White Paper published a few months ago about the position in Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that with the Foreign Secretary.

    INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prime-Minister when and where the inter-Allied, Conference on the Russian question will take place?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister of France and the Italian Foreign Minister are now in London, and the Russian problem will be among the subjects that will be discussed with them.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, after that discussion, a statement on this most important subject will be made to this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A statement certainly could not be made after this discussion. It is too much to expect that any definite or final conclusion should be reached after this visit?

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    HOME-GROWN WHEAT.
    Major HOWARDasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that millers are prohibited from giving more than 76s. 6d. per quarter for home-grown wheat while the Government are paying 90s. and upwards for overseas wheat; and whether, in view of the situation in which British farmers and smallholders are placed by these conditions and the danger of much arable land going out of cultivation, he will consider the desirability of discontinuing this provision, which amounts to a subsidy to the State of 15s. per quarter on the part of borne growers of wheat?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The arrangements made by the Wheat Commission are designed to carry out the undertaking given by the Government on the 19th November,

    1609
    1918, that the price of home-grown wheat for 1919 should not be less than 71s. 11d. per quarter of 480 lbs., and I am not prepared to modify them.

    RUSSIAN WHEAT.
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether there are considerable supplies of wheat and other cereals available for export from the area of operations of the anti-Bolshevik forces in Southern Russia; whether the difficulty of securing these stocks is the chaotic condition of internal communication in that area; whether British ships sent. to load these cargoes were forced to come away empty through the indifferent organisation of transport; whether the existing condition of Central Europe demands special efforts being made to transport wheat from Russian Black Sea ports up the Danube; and whether the British transportation mission with. General Denikin's headquarters, have put forward any scheme for making use of this large surplus stock of wheat?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The facts are, I believe, generally as stated in the question, but I cannot add anything to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow on the 19th November and yesterday.

  MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES BILL.
  Mr. S ITCHasked the Prime Minister the intention of the Government regarding the Ministries and Secretaries Bill which is awaiting Committee stage?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It will not be possible to take any further stages of this Bill during the present Session.
  Captain W. BENN: Will it be included in the Resolution continuing Bills over to next Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will wait till we introduce the Resolution.

  COAL PRODUCTION.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have abandoned the policy with reference to coal mines announced by him on 18th August?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add on this subject to the statements already made.

    SUPPLIES (REGULATION).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the President of the. Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in certain cases coal merchants are able to obtain supplies of coal which they require for industrial purposes, but cannot get supplies which they state are for domestic purposes, owing to the fact that coal for industrial purposes fetches a higher price; and how he proposes to remedy this defect in the system of regulation of coal supplies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): Collieries have been instructed to maintain full supplies of coal for domestic and household purposes, and arrangements have been made for making financial advances to collieries where necessary. In view of the measures already taken, it is anticipated that the difficulties to which the lion. Member refers will not arise, but the situation is being carefully watched.

    INDUSTRIAL AND DOMESTIC CONSUMERS.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent reduction in the price of domestic coal, he will issue instructions for the guidance of coal merchants to enable them to distinguish between industrial consumers and domestic consumers for the purpose of making their charges; and how he proposes the difficulty shall be met where part of a coal supply is used for domestic purposes and part for business purposes, which situation arises in the case of a baker who resides on the premises in which he bakes his bread?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In the Coal (Pit's Mouth) Prices Order and Direction, 1919, and the Wholesale Coal Prices Order, 1919, both of which have been circulated to merchants, coal for domestic or household purposes is defined as coal bought or sold for the purpose of supplying consumers under the provisions of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919. As consumers under these provisions are registered persons, there should be no difficulty in distinguishing between industrial consumers and domestic consumers for the purposes of the Order which gives effect to the reduction in price.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question and say if a baker can get coal at domestic rates for baking?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Clause 1 (b) of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919, applies, namely: "Coal used for all purposes in a dwelling-house or in a building adjacent to or connected with a dwelling-house and occupied or used as part thereof."

    EXPORTS.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the remunerative export trade in coal has been limited by the Coal Controller almost entirely to the collieries of Northumberland, Durham, Lancashire, Cumberland, and South Wales, leaving the now far less remunerative home trade to the collieries of the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Midlands; and how the inequality in profit is to be adjusted in fairness to the collieries of the West Riding and the Midlands?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The export trade in coal is restricted almost entirely to the South Wales, Durham, Northumberland, and Scottish coalfields, though a small quantity of slack is released for export from Yorkshire. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill.

    WEST NORFOLK (SHORTAGE OF SUPPLIES).
    Mr. JODRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the serious shortage of coal for household purposes in West Norfolk generally, and especially in the villages of Snettisham, Creake, and Rudham; and if steps will be taken to alleviate the distress of the inhabitants without delay?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the shortage of supplies of household coal in the districts mentioned, which is due to railway transport difficulties. Emergency issues of coal have been arranged to relieve the immediate shortage, and the railway transport difficulty is in hand with the Ministry of Transport.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Council of the League of Nations will meet within fifteen days of the coming into
  1612
  force of the Treaty of Peace with Germany for the purpose of appointing three members of the Commission for the Saar Basin in terms of Article 48 at the Treaty?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In order to carry out Article 48 of the Treaty, to which the hon. Member refers, it will be necessary for a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations to take place within the period of fifteen days.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that there is general dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which the matter of the training of disabled officers and men is being administered; and if he will consider the advisability of bringing under the control of one single Ministry all questions relating to this question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Ministry of Labour has already a general responsibility for the training of all disabled ex-Service men who are fit to be absorbed in employment, although the responsibility for the administration of certain sorts of training is necessarily devolved upon Departments which possess special technical qualifications.

  CENTRAL EUROPE (RELIEF MEASURES).
  Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether any arrangement has yet been made with the Government of the United States for the relief of Central Europe?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government are discussing the question with the United States Government. No arrangement as yet been made.
  Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is food available for Austria at Trieste; whether wagons which were sent from Austria for its transport have been detained; and whether he can say how much of this food has actually reached Austria?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirma-

  1613
  tive. As regards the second part, I may say that the difficulties which have arisen are concerned primarily with the method of payment to Italy and the shipment of equivalent supplies to Italy. Everything possible is being done to remove the difficulties. Six thousand seven hundred tons of grain have actually been dispatched, and have probably by now reached Vienna.
  Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand from that answer that this food has been held up simply on a question of method of payment for it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that is so, and it is not an uncommon experience in human affairs.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It is very unfortunate.
  Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of taking the initiative in calling a council of all European nations to deal energetically and promptly with the Central European famine area, with the object of preventing a catastrophe which will react on every country in Europe?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The representatives of the European nations are in daily touch on this subject in Paris, and the matter, as I have often informed the House, is receiving our constant and anxious attention. I do not think that an attempt to summon a special council to deal with the subject at the present time would improve the prospects of a solution.
  Captain W. BENN: Are the methods of payment standing in the way of the relief of these famine-stricken areas?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend knows that is one of the difficulties, and that is the reason why we have been compelled to say that nothing can be done now without the assistance of the United States.
  Mr. RAPER: Cannot at least steps be taken to prevent the patient from dying while the doctors disagree?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that our Government and, I think, the Allied Governments, realise the necessity of doing everything in their power, but my hon. Friend must see there is a limit to what can be done out of our resources.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the Allied and Associated Gov-
  1614
  ernments to avert an economic collapse in Austria and certain of the surrounding States?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Allies have to consider this question from two aspects:

  (1) The provision of immediate relief.

  (2) The economic reconstruction of the countries in question.

  As to the first aspect, the resources of the Allies are limited, but everything possible is being done by direct supply of food, by organisation of railway transport, and by using the influence of the Allies to stimulate commercial exchanges between the new States. The second aspect is more difficult, and everything depends upon the possibility of organising international financial assistance on a large scale. This must in turn depend upon the assistance of the United States of America, and the question is being discussed with the United States Government.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long it will be before actual starvation takes place in large tracts of Bohemia?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir, I cannot; but I am afraid, as is the Noble Lord, that there is a real danger.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May there not be an economic explosion at any time in the near future?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said, in answer to other questions, that we fully realise the position, but does my hon. and gallant Friend suggest that this House, this Government, this country, is to undertake to supply all who need?
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it possible to summon a special conference of the responsible statesmen of the smaller nationalities surrounding Austria with a view to economic exchange and the sale of goods?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; the answer I read a moment ago states that by our wish, and that of our Allies, we are doing everything in our power to secure that.
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is not the isolation of Russia one of the dominant factors in the situation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, but I have not yet heard of any satisfactory suggestion for putting an end to it.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Make peace!
  Lord R. CECILasked whether the Government will communicate to the House, by laying Papers or otherwise, information as to the economic situation in any of the countries of Central Europe?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government consider that it would be desirable that the House and the country should have the fullest information on this subject. Papers are being prepared, and will be laid as soon as possible.
  Lord R. CECILasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent statements of Sir William Goode as to the terrible situation in Vienna; whether the Government have any official information on this point; and, if so, does it confirm the statements of Sir William Goode?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply to all parts of the question is in the affirmative.
  Lord HUGH CECILasked the Prime Minister whether the profits that are being made out of the export of coal partly arise from the high price of coal on the Continent of Europe; and whether it is intended to make any contribution to the relief of the distress now prevailing in parts of Central Europe out of these profits?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The coal exported is sold at the market price, and there seems, therefore, to be no reason why any profits derived from its sale should not be used to help British taxpayers.
  Lord R. CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the very grave coal position in some parts of Central Europe, and does he think it really is in consonance with the best traditions of this country that those who are comparatively well-off should be battening on the sufferings of others?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not agree with what my Noble Friend has said.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that the profits derived from the high prices of coal are being paid by quite other nations and people than those suffering from the coal shortage in Central Europe?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The great bulk does not affect the countries to which my Noble Friend refers.

  ADRIATIC (SIGNOR D'ANNUNZIO).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to deal with the military operations of Gabriel D'Annunzio in the Adriatic?
  Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether the Supreme War Council is taking any steps to put an end to the condition of affairs in the Adriatic, consequent on Signor D'Annunzio's raids, the continuance of which constitutes a grave menace to peace in South-Eastern Europe?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The question is at the present moment engaging the attention both of the Italian Government and the Allied Powers. I am unable to make any further statement about it.
  Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that this Fiume question could be immediately settled by handing it over to our Italian Allies?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It could be settled so far as Italy is concerned.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give hope of an early settlement?

  STANDING ORDERS (CARRYING OVER BILLS).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to ask the House to alter generally the Standing Orders of the. House with regard to the carrying over of Bills from this to the next Session, or only in respect of certain individual specified Bills?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not proposed to suggest a general alteration, and the Bills which the House will be invited to carry over will be specified.
  Colonel GRETTONasked on which day he intends to submit the proposal to carry over Bills from this Session to the next?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet in a position to name a day.

  TURKEY (PEACE TREATY).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister when and where it is proposed to resume discussions in respect of

  1617
  the Treaty of Peace with Turkey; whether the weekly cost to the British taxpayer in connection with our present duties and responsibilities in different parts of the Ottoman Empire amounts to over £2,000,000 sterling; and whether, if the cause of the delay in negotiating the Peace with Turkey is due to Allied and Associated Powers rather than to the inaction of the British Government the Allied and Associated Powers will pay the bill now being borne by this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already stated, this question is under discussion between the Allied Governments. I must ask for longer notice of the second part of the question. The third part raises hypothetical issues, upon which it would be premature at present to pronounce.

  CONSULAR REFORMS.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House the evidence given before the Cave Committee on Consular Reforms?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer given to a similar question by the Member for St. Rollox on 29th October last.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to reconsider this question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I stated very definitely what was the position of the Government; I have heard of no argument to make us alter it.

  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
  Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether it has been decided if the Ministry of Munitions is to be continued after the present War aftermath has been cleared up as a Ministry of Supply; whether any Government Department has since the 31st of March of this year delegated any functions for contracting, etc., to the Ministry of Munitions; and whether it is intended to return to the pre-war practice that those Ministries and Departments who require materials, stores, etc., and are responsible, for their employment should also be responsible for their purchase and efficiency on delivery?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject, which requires a very careful examination, is being considered, but no decision has yet been taken.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider such an Amendment of the standing Orders of this House as will enable Mr. SPEAKER, on any day, except Friday, when, at 3.30 of the clock, more than thirty Questions remain upon the Paper unanswered, to select from among such questions those which, in his opinion, are of public importance or of general interest, and to call upon Members in whose names such questions stand to put them forthwith, instead of as at present merely putting until 3.45 such questions in their sequence on the Paper as time will permit, and leaving the remainder to be dealt with by written answer?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. Friend's suggestion would throw upon the shoulders of Mr. Speaker an invidious burden at very short notice, I do not think that it is practicable.
  Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: In view of that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman not think he might appoint a Select Committee of two or three of the more experienced Members of the House to aid Mr. Speaker in his selection, and take the responsibility for the job?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, so far as I can personally judge, this Select Committee would not work. We, however, intend before the House resumes, to try and get some suggestions for dealing with questions, after—if Mr. Speaker will allow it —consultation with Mr. Speaker.
  Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position has become much easier lately Several times we have more than 100 questions answered. Is he further aware that any Member who takes the trouble to look on the list and put down his question to a particular Minister on the right day, invariably is able to get an answer?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really think that is absolutely true. [Laughter] I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend for my loose phraseology. Hon Members have the remedy in their own hands if they choose to exercise it.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would it not be a good suggestion that no question referring to an individual case should be put on the Paper, seeing many questions are of that nature, and that the information asked for could be usually got at the Department?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That suggestion is continually being made. It has commended itself to the judgment of the House. Unfortunately, it does not commend itself to every individual Member.

  VATICAN (BRITISH MISSION).
  Mr. LYNNasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state when the temporary British Mission to the Vatican will be withdrawn?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government are still awaiting certain information, upon the receipt of which a decision on this subject will be made and announced.
  Mr. LYNN: When is there likely to be an announcement?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it has been stated, in answer to previous questions, that we were consulting our Dominions, and all the replies have not yet been received.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the announcement made to this House to withdraw the Mission?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Nothing I have said gives any indication of what is our policy.
  Mr. E. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very considerable body of opinion in the country that will think it highly undesirable that this Mission should be withdrawn?
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

  MEMORIAL TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the placing of the representation of the coats of arms of those Members who lost their lives in the Great War in a prominent position, say on each side of the clock, in this House to be a perpetual memorial of the loyalty and patriotism of these Gentlemen?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of the House of Commons Committee which is considering the question of a, suitable memorial to the Members of the House who fell in the War.

  CAPITAL LEVY.
  Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he is willing to grant an official inquiry into the practicability of a captal levy?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The views of the Government on this subject have already been stated. We are anxious to secure at the earliest possible moment a decision upon the scope and practicability of a tax on war-time increases of wealth. But for reasons which were fully explained in the finance Debate the Government do not propose to enlarge the scope of reference to the proposed Committee.
  Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister in a speech at Manchester pledged himself in favour of such an inquiry—that he was in favour of resolutions passed at a certain meeting, one of which was the inquiry into the capital levy?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have heard a great deal of talk about that. [HON. MEMBERS "Read the speech!"]. I think my right hon. Friend said "to the best of his recollection." As a matter of fact, the error arose from this fact: that the Prime Minister had read an account of the first day's proceedings of the Conference, and did not remember that this body was not likely to be satisfied with one day's decision.
  Major BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the views of the Government in this matter have been formed as a result of any inquiry?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole subject was dealt with very exhaustively by members of the Government in Debate, and I cannot add anything to what was said then.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Prime Minister is a half-timer?

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether he is

  1621
  aware that an instrument is in course of preparation which will place in the hands of the British South Africa Company further powers for evicting natives from their ancestral homes and lands in Southern Rhodesia; that missionaries of long experience are on their way to appeal to him on behalf of the natives; that there is indignation at the injustices to which the natives of Rhodesia have been subjected; and whether he will consider giving instructions that no Order in Council or other instrument shall be issued which shall prejudice the position of the natives until he has been able to inquire into the facts or until the Colonial Secretary returns from his mission in Egypt?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the negative. No Order in Council prejudicing the natives of Southern Rhodesia is in contemplation.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Governor-General of South Africa has stated that there is no part of the Empire where the natives have received better treatment, and does he know that there is a. growing indignation about the unfounded charges which are repeatedly made against the white races by hon. Members who have not been to the country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not noticed the expression of opinion by the Governor-General, but I was myself at the Colonial Office and I agree with every word he has said.

  ROYAL NAVY (WIRELESS APPARATUS).
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Prime Minister if he has considered the advantages of using a number of naval ships, which are fitted with powerful wireless apparatus, to form a temporary chain of stations from England to the East and so relieve the cable service, the present congestion of which is causing a serious loss to British trade?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I fear that my hon. Friend's suggestion is impracticable.
  Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea what the cost is likely to be?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend has given one of the reasons why I do not think it is practicable.

  AMERICAN EXCHANGE.
  Mr. REMERasked whether the Government have considered the consequences of the serious fall in the American sterling exchange; whether it is increasingly important to avoid importation of unnecessary manufactured goods from America; whether such importation, by seriously affecting the exchange, has the, direct result of increasing the cost of foodstuffs and raw material; and, in view of the urgency in question, what steps the Government propose to adopt?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the last part of the question, I hope that the adverse exchange will itself do something to, cheek unnecessary imports. In view of the desirability of not reimposing Governmental control and restrictions on trade if it can be avoided, the Government do not propose to take any special steps beyond continuing their policy of not giving artificial support to the exchanges by borrowing abroad and doing everything in their power to stimulate British export trade.

  PUBLIC STATISTICS.
  Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a petition praying that a Royal Commission or Parliamentary Committee be forthwith appointed to inquire into the existing methods of the collection and presentation of public statistics, and to report on the means of improvement; whether he is prepared to assent to the prayer; and whether he would be prepared to receive, at an early date a deputation on the subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The petition raises questions of considerable complexity, and as soon as the Prime Minister is able to look into the question, I shall inform my hon. Friend whether or not he can find time to receive-a deputation.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has not only a very high scientific interest, but it has also a very direct practical bearing on national economy?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I mentioned in my answer its importance on economy, but I

  1623
  think it is only right that my right hon. Friend should have an opportunity of examining it.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).
  Mr. ADAMSONasked whether, in view of the approaching Prorogation, he will give time to discuss the question of unemployment and hear the proposals of the Government to meet the situation during the winter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it will be possible to give time for a further discussion of this subject, and I would remind my right hon. Friend that a Debate on this question took place only a fortnight ago.
  Mr. E. WOOD: Is it proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with unemployment before the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible to do it before the Recess, but we hope to introduce it very shortly after we resume.

  INDUSTRIAL WELFARE SCHEMES.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the encouragement given in the United States of America to schemes of industrial welfare by the practice of charging to trading account and exempting from taxation expenditure incurred for the purpose of promoting social education, housing, and physical training; and whether, with a view to the encouragement of industrial welfare schemes in this country, he will consider the advisability of exempting from Income Tax any sums which employers may set aside for the provision of similar benefits for their workers?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Under British law current expenditure by employers for the benefit of their workers is allowed as an expense in the computation of the employers' profits for Income Tax purposes; for example, an employer's contribution towards the upkeep and maintenance of a gymnasium, a refreshment room, a recreation ground for his work-people, or the salary paid by him for the services of a welfare superintendent, would be allowable.
  1624
  Expenditure of a capital character—for example, the cost of erecting a gymnasium or the purchase of a recreation ground—would not, of course, he advisable as a deduction. I am not aware that it is the case that more favourable treatment is given to taxpayers in this respect in the United States.

  FRENCH PREMIUM BONDS.
  Sir MAURICE DOCKRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has arranged that he shall be kept informed through the bankers' clearing house or otherwise as to the amount approximately of capital which is sent from the United Kingdom for investment in French Premium Bonds?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think any useful purpose would be answered by such figures, even if they were obtainable.

  INDUSTRIAL SUBSIDIES.
  Mr. A. SHORTasked the total amount of subsidies contributed by the State to certain industries during the period of the War and since the Armistice; and, if so, will he state the industries or services subsidised?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of the 22nd October last to the hon. Member for Hornsey. If this does not give him the information that he desires I shall be obliged if he will communicate to me by letter the exact nature of the further information which he wishes to obtain. In particular I should be glad to have a precise definition of what he intends to include in the word subsidy.

  EX-CABINET MINISTERS (PENSIONS).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a statement showing the pensions and special grants to be paid during the current financial year to ex-Cabinet Ministers and others, but not including the ordinary pensions drawn by retired Civil servants?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Finance Accounts for 1918–19 for particulars of the pensions paid during that year. The only additional pensions which have so far accrued

  1625
  during the current financial year are certain judicial pensions granted under Statute. The only special grants are those voted by the House on the 6th August last for naval and military services during the War.

  PUBLIC, DEPARTMENTS (OFFICIALS DISMISSED).
  Mr. ROSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that of the 5,764 officials who constitute the net total dismissals from the Ministries of Pensions, Labour, and. Munitions, during September last, only 163 were in receipt of salaries over £400 per annum, and that the average salary of the remainder was 46s. per week, he will cause to be published with the monthly White Paper a statement showing the grade and average salary of all future dismissed officials?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figures given by the hon. Member can only be properly considered in the light of the proportion of the higher to the lower staff, as a whole, in the Departments mentioned. I am making further inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  MEASLES (NOTIFICATION).
  Dr. M'DONALDasked the Minister of Health if he will reconsider his decision to abolish compulsory notification of measles in consideration of the fact that the nation has not yet fully recognised the grave complications resulting from this malady?
  Dr. ADDISON: The effect of the recent Circular and Order of the Ministry, to which the question refers, is not quite that which is stated in the question. Any local authority which thinks it expedient and makes effective provision to meet the circumstances can continue, or adopt, the notification referred to; but experience has shown that a universally enforced arrangement does not have any sufficiently beneficial results, in the absence of such provision, to justify the great expense entailed. The change was adopted after full consideration, and consultation with persons of wide experience of the problem; and I am satisfied that the steps indicated in the Circular (of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy) will be more effective for the purpose which he, like the Ministry, has in view than the Alternative which he suggests.

  POLICE PENSIONS.
  Mr. HERBERTasked whether, in view of the increased cost of living and of the fact that the present rates of pay in the police force are upon a generous scale, he will consider the question of the pensions now paid to police-constables superannuated before 1914?
  Mr. SHORTT: The question has been repeatedly considered, but I regret I do not see my way to propose legislation in the direction desired?

  AYRSHIRE COAL MINE (FLOODING).
  Mr. J. BROWNasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at Ardeer, Stevenston, Ayrshire, a number of miners lost their lives in 1895 by the flooding of this mine and that in 1905 the mine was again flooded; whether he is aware that the miners allege that the workings are near to a large volume of water and asked that boreholes should be driven in front; that His Majesty's mines inspectors recommended that boreholes should be so driven; that the manager at the mine refused to do so; and that the miners are now idle; and what action he intends to take in the matter?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am making inquiries, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  BRITISH GUIANA (EMIGRATION SCHEME).
  Mr. BENNETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if a delegation, composed of Indian and non-Indian members, has been sent from British Guiana to this country for the purpose of promoting a scheme of emigration from India to that Colony; and, seeing that the Indian members of the delegation have been repudiated as having no authority to represent them by the East Indian Association of British Guiana, who have further condemned they project as a labour scheme and not a colonisation scheme, will he inquire into their credentials?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lt.-Colonel Amery): The deputation in question has now left this country, but some of its members have proceeded to India to consult with

  1627
  the Government of India. The composition of the deputation is not one in which the Secretary of State could interfere, but in considering the proposals which may be put forward by the deputation, due regard will be paid to the interests and views of all sections of the community.

  Sir JOHN ELIOT (MEMORIAL).
  Mr. SlMMasked the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware that there is not any memorial in the precincts of Parliament to Sir John Eliot, who suffered years of imprisonment and died in the Tower in 1632 in defence of the rights of this House and the liberties of the people; and whether he will take steps, either by securing a copy of the portrait of Sir John Eliot in the Tower, if obtainable, or by other means to provide a fitting memorial to this great parliamentarian?
  Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): A portrait of Sir John Eliot appears as one of the figures in Mr. A. C. Gow's picture of "The House of Commons the 2nd March, 1629," now in St. Stephen's Hall. The provision of a memorial is a matter for the decision of the Government, and questions on this subject should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  GERMAN MERCHANT SHIPS (DISPOSAL).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller how many German merchant ships have been handed over to the Allies; how many have been retained by this country; and what is the nature of the arrangements for running these ships?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): Up to the 7th December, 355 vessels had been delivered for Allied management, of a total gross tonnage of 1,788,913. Of these, 230 vessels, of a total gross tonnage of 1,209,037 are under British management. The vessels under British management are allocated to shipping firms to manage on behalf of the Shipping Controller.
  Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the position of affairs as regards the "Imperator?"
  Colonel WILSON: I do not think that question arises out of the answer. I think the "Imperator" has now sailed for America.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    BRITISH AND GERMAN DEBITS AND CREDITS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can, before the House rises, give any further information regarding the liquidation of British and German commercial debits and credits, a matter in which so many merchants and manufacturers are vitally interested?
    Mr. BR1DGEMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on the 2nd December to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Nottingham (Mr. Atkey). I regret that I am not at present in a position to add anything to the information contained in that answer.

  ANATOLIA.
  Mr. HERBERT (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the vital importance to the British Empire of the decisions arrived at in the present Conference with Monsieur Clemenceau concerning the Peace with Turkey, he will see that his Pledge of 5th January, 1918, with regard to the future of Anatolia is carried out?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that in dealing with the very difficult question of the settlement with Turkey the considerations referred to in the question will not be overlooked.

  WAR-TIME INCREASES OF WEALTH.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he proposes to do this Session with regard to the Motion upon the Paper for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the proposal to impose a tax on war-time increases of wealth?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government greatly regret that for reasons beyond their control it has been impossible to

  1629
  secure the appointment of this Committee in time for it to make progress with the inquiry before Christmas.
  I understand that all Committees lapse with a Prorogation and that this Committee if now appointed would be unable to sit during the Recess. Under these circumstances I have come regretfully to the conclusion that it would be useless to appoint the Committee at this stage of the Session and that I should not be justified in taking up any of the short time that remains to us in a discussion on its appointment.
  But the Government, as my right hon. Friend knows, have invited the co-operation of the House in this matter, and are most anxious to secure it, and we shall propose the appointment of the Committee at the earliest possible moment next Session, for it is important from every point of view that a decision should be reached as soon as possible. The Inland Revenue have had a preliminary Memorandum ready for the consideration of the Committee for same little time. It raises several questions on which they seek a decision to enable them to continue their work. Having sought the assistance of a Committee I was anxious that these points should be considered and the necessary decisions given by the Committee itself, hut in order that delay may be avoided I propose now to give ad interim directions to the Board on the points on which they seek guidance so that they may get on with their task. It will, I hope, be clearly understood by the House that these decisions are purely provisional. They are given only to avoid delay, and will not in any way restrict the liberty of action and of decision of the Committee when appointed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the Leader of the House tell us what business it is proposed to take to-morrow, what business is to be taken next week, and what Orders of the Day it is proposed to take under the Motion standing in his name relating to business after eleven o'clock to-night?
Mr. BONAR LAW: To-day we propose to take the first six Orders and numbers 9 and 11; to-morrow the Housing Bill, Report and Third Reading, and other Orders; on Monday, the Army and Air Force Estimates and other outstanding
1630
Estimates; and on Tuesday any remaining Orders on the Paper, Lords' Amendments, and the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill I shall be obliged if my right hon. Friend will wait until Monday for the business for the rest of the week.
Mr. E. WOOD: What time does the right hon. Gentleman propose that the House shall rise to-night?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give any indication, but I hope that it will not be as late as it was this morning.
Captain REDMOND: May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the statement he has made that the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill is to be taken on Tuesday, if we are to understand that that means that the Government have dropped their pretence of introducing a Home Rule Bill, and do not intend to proceed with it?
Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend does not take that view. I do not think "pretence" is the right word.
Captain REDMOND: "Sham," then!
Mr. BONAR LAW: As a matter of fact, I do not see any connection. In any event, the Home Rule Bill could not come into operation immediately, while the state of education in all parts of Ireland does require an immediate remedy, and in the Bill there are provisions which make it adaptable to the new situation.
Captain REDMOND: Then am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that a Bill for the self-government of Ireland is to be introduced, which is not to come into operation immediately?
Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member will, I am sure, see that if it were to come into operation instantly it would upset all our previous beliefs that it is impossible.
Captain REDMOND: Am I, therefore, to take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend it should come into operation at all? Is not that the real fact?
Sir D. MACLEAN: Am I right in assuming that the Home Rule Bill, or rather the First Reading, will be taken one day next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: As the House knows, the Prime Minister cannot be here, on account of the presence of M. Clemenceau, and I would rather any questions on this matter should be addressed to him on Monday.
Captain REDMOND: The cat is out of the bag now!
Mr. E. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state, for the convenience of Members of the House, whether it is still the intention to rise on the 23rd instant, or is there any ground for the rumour circulated in the Lobby that we shall rise at the end of next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It all depends on circumstances over which the Government have no control, not only in this House, but in the other.
Lord R. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very grave dissatisfaction exists at the practice of the Government in taking very important Bills at all night sittings, and may I ask whether, in view of that feeling, he intends to persist with his Motion for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule to-night in order to enable the Government to commit again this Parliamentary outrage?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I think even if the eleven o'clock rule is suspended it will not be necessary for the House to sit late tonight. If I am wrong, the House will not agree with me, but then I know as well as any other hon. Member that the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule towards the end of the Session is customary. After all, our desire is to meet the general convenience of the House.
Lord R. CECIL: Not by all-night sittings.
Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent unnecessary speeches, such as were delivered yesterday?
Dr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the view of the Minister of Health as to the effect on health of all-night sittings?
Mr. BONAR LAW: After last night's experience I should not consider my right hon. Friend would be impartial.
Major' O'NEILL: Are we to assume that the Irish Education Bill, which is to be taken on Tuesday, is to be taken before or after midnight?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly before, or not at all.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is it the intention of the Government to pass the Irish Education Bill through all its stages before the House rises?
Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite impossible.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 75.

Division No. 152.]

AYES.

[3.56 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral

Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

Doyle, N. Grattan

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Carr, W. T.

Duncannon, Viscount

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

Allen, Colonel William James

Casey, T. W.

Elveden, Viscount

Armitage, Robert

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Eyras-Monsell, Commander

Astbury, Lieut, Commander F. W.

Chadwick, R. Burton

Falcon, Captain M.

Astor, Viscountess

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)

Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey

Atkey, A. R.

Cheyne, Sir William Watson

Fell, Sir Arthur

Baldwin, Stanley

Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, S.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Foreman, H.

Barrand, A. R.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Forrest, W.

Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

Clyde, James Avon

Gange, E. S.

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Coats, Sir Stuart

Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Cohen, Major J. B. B.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish.

Callas, Major W. P.

Glyn, Major R.

Betterton, H. B.

Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

Birchall, Major J. D.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Grant, James Augustus

Bird, Alfred

Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

Green J. F. (Leicester)

Blair, Major Reginald

Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

Berwick, Major G. O.

Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)

Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')

Bowyer, G. W. E.

Craig, Co. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)

Breese, Major C. E.

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Gwynne, R. S.

Bridgeman, William Clive

Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

Hacking, Colonel D. H.

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

Hailwood, A.

Bruton, Sir J.

Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

Davies, T. (Cirencester)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

Burden, Colonel Rowland

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

Haslam, Lewis

Butcher, Sir J. G.

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.

Hennessy, Major G.

Campbell, J. G. D.

Dixon, Captain H.

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Campion, Colonel W. R

Dockrell, Sir M.

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Matthews, David

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Hickman, Brig,-General Thomas E.

Middlebrook, Sir William

Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

Hilder, Lt.-Colonel F.

Mitchell, William Lane-

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

Hohler, Henry Fitzroy

Moles, Thomas

Simm, M. T.

Holmes, J. Stanley

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Hope, James Fitzalen (Sheffield)

Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

Stanton, Charles Butt

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

Mount, William Arthur

Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Murchison, C. K.

Stewart, Gershom

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

Sturoock, J. Leng

Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

Hurd, P. A.

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Sutherland, Sir William

Hurst, Major G. B.

Nall, Major Joseph

Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

Inskip, T. W. H.

Neal, Arthur

Terrell, Capt R. (Henley, Oxford)

Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

Jameson, Major J. G.

Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Jodrell, N. P.

Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Colonel Sir J.

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchelt- (M'yhl.)

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.

Tickler, Thomas George

Kellaway, Frederick George

Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Kidd, James

Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)

Knights, Captain H.

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Wardle, George J.

Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

Pennefather, De Fonbtanque

Waring, Major Walter

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar

Pickering, Col. Emil W.

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Wason, John Cathcart

Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton

Weigell, Lt.-Colonei W. E. G. A.

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Pratt, John William

Weston, Colonel John W.

Lloyd, George Butler

Purchase, H. G.

Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

Locker-Lampoon, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

Raeburn, Sir William

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Lowe, Sir F. W.

Ramsden, G. T.

Whitla, Sir William

Lynn, R. J.

Raper, A. Baldwin

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Lyon, L.

Rees, Sir J. D.

Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

Macdonald, Rt. Hon, J. M. (Stirling)

Remer, J. B.

Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

M'Guffin, Samuel

Remnant, Colonel Sir James

Wilson-Fox, Henry

M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

Rendall, Athelstan

Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)

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

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Robinson, T. Stretford, Lancs.)

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Malone, Colonel C. L. (Leyton, E.)

Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

Malone, Major P. (Tottenham)

Rowlands, James

Manville, Edward

Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

Martin, A. E.

Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.

Talbot and Mr. J. Parker

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Gretton, Colonel John

Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

Grundy, T. W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)

Redmond, Captain William A.

Bell, James (Ormskirk)

Hallas, E.

Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Benn, Captain W. (Leith)

Hayward, Major Evan

Richardson, R. (Houghton)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Widnes)

Royce, William Stapleton

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Sitch, C. H.

Briant, F.

Hirst, G. H.

Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

Bromfield, W.

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Spoor, B. G.

Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

Hogge, J. M.

Swan, J. E. C.

Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, E.)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Cairns, John

Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Cape, Tom

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

Tillett, Benjamin

Carter, W. (Mansfield)

Kenyon, Barnet

Wignall, James

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

Kiley, James Daniel

Wilkie, Alexander

Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

Lawson, John

Williams, A. (Consult, Durham)

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

Croft, Brig.-General Henry Page

Lunn, William

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

Curzon, Commander Viscount

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)

Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Davies, T. (Cirencester)

Marriott, John Arthur R.

Wood, Maj. Mackenzie Aberdeen, C.)

Edwards. C. (Bedwellty)

Mosley, Oswald

Finney, Samuel

Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir F.

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward

Banbury and Mr. A. Shaw.

Glanville, Harold James

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Order [2nd December] for committing the Public Libraries Bill to a Standing Committee be read, and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for this day:"—[Lord B. Talbot.]
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: Before the Question is put, may I ask my Noble Friend if you, Sir, have not already allotted this Bill to one of the Standing Committees; whether a special meeting of the Selection Committee had to be called to set up the Committee and a

1635
special meeting of the Chairmen's Panel called to allot a Chairman to this Bill; and whether in future my Noble Friend will kindly see that this inconvenience is not repeated?
Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am very sorry if any inconvenience was caused to my hon. Friend or to anybody else, but I am afraid it was an oversight. The Bill should not have been sent to a Standing Committee, but should have been committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Question put, and agreed to.

IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 228.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 228.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  COAL INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY) BILL.

    DEBATE ADJOURNED.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon a point of Order connected with this Bill. I wish to ask you whether this Bill should not have been founded upon a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means? The Bill provides that all profits over 1s. 2d. a ton should be handed over to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. This is called a coal levy. The Commissioners are given powers to assess and collect this levy. My first question is, Is not this a tax? It is true that this levy is not to be paid into the Exchequer, but it is intercepted, so to speak, and paid to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but does not that still make it a tax If the practice of interception is admitted, would it not be possible to say that, after Income Tax and Super-tax have been paid, a proportion of the profits of all business should be handed over to the National Debt Commissioners or to some other Department, thus avoiding the safeguards which have been invariably followed when taxation is imposed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that this Bill imposes any tax, and, therefore, it need not originate in Committee of Ways and Means. There is no provision for applying any moneys to the service of the Crown or to any public purpose. The coal industry is dealt with as a whole. Owners who are making a profit in excess of 1s. 2d. per ton of output pay the excess into a pool, out of which the owners who are not so fortunate have their deficits made up. The Bill, although it repeals one Clause of the Coal Agreement of 1918, is framed upon the same principle as the Act which was founded on that Agreement. There is also a precedent in the Licensing Act, which provides compensation for the extinction of licences, and in the Munitions Levy in 1915.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    1668
    This Bill is one for which it would be difficult to find a single enthusiastic supporter in this House. Its justification lies in its history and in the emergency which existed earlier in this year, and the emergency which exists to-day in connection with the coal industry. It would be a waste of time for me in this House to recount the incidents which led up to the Commission under Mr. Justice Sankey. It would be a still further waste of time if I were to recount the findings of that Commission which they gave in the interim Report. These are common knowledge. It is common knowledge that in that Report it w as suggested that the arrangements to finance the industry should be on these lines: That there should be a limitation imposed upon the profits of the owners as a whole, and that that limitation should be calculated on the basis of 1s. 2d. per ton of output. This Bill follows almost automatically, I might say, upon the Government's acceptance of that Report. It is, indeed, necessary to complete the action which has been taken by the Government since the 20th March, the day upon which the Sankey Interim Report was accepted by the Government, and the day upon which that acceptance was notified to the House. The Bill is complicated, and highly technical. It is clear from the criticisms which have coins to my knowledge that it is not completely understood. Taking, first of all, the side which were particularly interested in the Sankey Commission namely, the miners—one finds or one meets with the most extraordinary misapprehension with regard to this Bill in the minds of some of them. It has been said that this Bill is designed to end the Sankey wage on the 31st March next. Of course, that is clearly a misunderstanding. That is not the case at all. It has been said it was said to me yesterday—that this Bill did something which it did not appear to do; that, in effect, under this Bill the owners would get 6s. per ton instead of the 1s. 2d. which they appear to get. That, of course, is entirely wrong. Yet these misapprehensions are, I am told, fairly widely spread and widely shared.
    Then we have, on the other side, the coal-owners. The circular which has been issued, I understand, by the Mining Association gives a picture of the effect of the Bill which is entirely divorced from the real meaning of the Bill. The circular, of which, I am sure, every Member of this

    1669
    House has had at least one copy, has been circulated broadcast. It has created a great deal of distress in the minds of shareholders in coal-mining companies. One regrets that so inaccurate a statement should have been circulated by so responsible a body. For instance, it says in the circular:
    "The pre-war profits of the coal trade were £25,000,000."
    That is a sheer hallucination. A sum not far from £25,000,000—about £4,500,000—was the sum of the standard when profits arising from coke ovens and other subsidiary undertakings were included. The sum of the standard was arrived at by taking the best two years out of three, or the best four years out of six in certain instances, before the War. So that every undertaking in the coal industry had peak profits for its standard, the same as other industries. But these profits added together, and other things thrown in, are set down in this circular as if they were the normal average profits of the coal-mining industry. The real figure comparable to that—the figure which would have been a fair figure to take, the average profit for the five years before the War—is almost exactly half the figure set down. Instead of being £25,000,000, it was £12,800,000. So that we start in this circular with a statement which is wildly inaccurate.
    The next figure given in the circular refers to 1s. 2d. multiplied by 225,000,000 tons, and that is worked out at £13,151,000. Then the circular goes on to say out of this £13,000,000 all sorts of charges have to be met. It finishes up with a sentence which must have alarmed the shareholders in colliery companies in the most deplorable way:
    "In some instances under the Government proposal the reduced profit will only be sufficient to pay interest on the debentures and preference shares. It will not be sufficient to pay interest on the ordinary shares."
    They quite ignore the fact that under the Bill, in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, the interest on debentures, in common with the interest on overdrafts and loans from the bank, comes altogether outside the 2d., and is a charge against the undertaking. So that it is quite clear on both sides—both where it is said that this Bill is giving them enormous sums and where it is indicated that the majority of the mine-owners, and the holders of ordinary shares can hope for no dividends under this scheme—there is a misunderstanding. So perhaps I
    1670
    shall be excused if I try to explain exactly what the Bill does. The first thing it, does is to separate out those parts of every undertaking concerned with coal mining which are really coal-getting parts. That is necessary in order to bring all the undertakings to the same common denominator. It reduces every undertaking to the same level, that it should be an undertaking which is solely concerned with the getting of coal, and if in an undertaking there is another part which is concerned with something else — coke ovens, brickmaking, farming, the running of wagons, whatever it may be—that is excluded and has nothing whatever to do with the matter. We have this reduction to a common denominator, so that every undertaking affected by this Bill shall be an undertaking which is concerned with getting coal out of the ground and on to the surface. That having been done, it says this series of undertakings shall have their profits limited in respect just of that bit which is cut out, the coal-getting, and the limitation of profits will be fixed in this way. The output of the industry as a whole, in tons, multiplied by 1s. 2d., will give a figure which is the amount of the fund to be distributed in profits on the undertakings which are solely concerned with coal-getting. Then it says the method of distribution of this fund shall be this: The fund will be divided up between the various undertakings, in proportion to the real standard of profits of the coal-getting undertaking which is affected. Then it goes on and says this year in which this limitation is imposed shall be treated specially from the point of view of Income Tax. No averaging will be brought in. The year will stand by itself, so that if there is a reduction in the amount of income the undertaking will pay Income Tax on the income which it has actually got.
    That may seem very complicated, and in some sense it is, but at present the coal industry is in such a position that it is absolutely necessary that something should be done. The coal industry has now for years been under control, and certain pits have been allowed to export and certain pits have not been allowed to export coal or to supply bunkers. So that there has been introduced into the coal industry, as the result of the working of control, a differentiation between pit and pit which, because it has been in a sense arbitrary, dealt very hardly with those undertakings which were compelled by the

    1671
    working of control to supply all their output of coal inland. So that something would have to be done in any case. If nothing were done, and if we went on dither under the old agreement, or if control were suddenly dropped, there would be absolute and complete chaos in the mining industry. For a whole year, this last year, arrangements have been made upon the supposition that this limitation of profits would be operative. The whole basis of the finance is that there shall be a limitation of profits, and that limitation will be worked out on this basis of 1s. 2d. multiplied by the total output of coal in the country, and that will be the sum total of the profits to be distributed in respect of actual coal-getting.
    With that position existing, it is clearly necessary that we should have some power to prevent the industry falling into chaos, and because of the undertaking which was given by the Government in March that the profit would be limited to 1s. 2d. a ton we have devised this measure. If we had not given that undertaking the measure would clearly have taken a different form, but some measure would have been absolutely necessary. If we had had no coal control the price of inland coal would have gone to the world-level. The demand for coal from outside would push prices up, and some control would have had to be re-imposed even if the existing one had been removed. Some control was inevitable this year, and, with our transport difficulties, it was inevitable again that the inland collieries should supply inland coal, and the collieries near the coast, near the exporting ports, should supply coal for export. Physical conditions impose that without any chance of escape, however much we wish to struggle against it. So that we are caught in a difficulty which arises directly out of the emergency of the War, and, arising out of the emergency of the War, we regard this purely as an emergency measure which embodies no principle of general application, but merely provides machinery for dealing with the difficulty which exists and we limit its application in this Bill to the period of the financial year. The Government does not regard this as a sound principle. It is absolutely opposed to this method of dealing with industry in normal times, but in an acute emergency things have to be done now, as they were during the War, which would not be done in normal times, and during the War we
    1672
    have established from time to time control, and with control limitation of profit. The coal industry itself for years has been working under an agreement which did limit profit.
    Sir E. CARSON: Since the War?
    Sir A. GEDDES: During the War, and also guarantees and fixed prices. What we are doing now is to introduce no new principle. We are merely adjusting an emergency arrangement to a new emergency because the type of emergency changed during the year. That is all that the Bill is designed to do, to adjust certain controls which existed under certain governing conditions to the situation which has arisen. It has been said that the Bill is setting a precedent, is establishing some new principle, and is differentiating against one industry. It is not really a principle at all. It is simply an isolated Act to meet an emergency, just as the action taken under the Munitions of War Act was an isolated act to meet an emergency and did not embody any principle of general application. The thing is quite clear to my mind, that you can distinguish between these acts which are taken in an emergency to meet the emergency, and a general principle which we may lay down as suitable for application in normal times. If hon. Members think that because a thing is done at an abnormal moment, therefore you are establishing a precedent for action in normal times, I disagree with them. That being the Government's position in regard to this Bill, that we look upon it as an emergency measure to meet an emergency which has arisen, we deal in this Bill only with that industry and those parts of the undertaking which are at work in the industry of getting coal out of the ground to the surface, and we leave on one side all other industries and all other parts of the industries which are linked with coal getting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Every industry is linked with coal getting!] Not linked in the same intimate way as certain other industries are linked with coal-getting. We have coal-getting and coke ovens linked together; coal-getting and brickmaking linked together, coal-getting and steel linked together. Then you have coal-getting and the coal merchant's business linked together, or coal getting and the running of coal wagons linked together. We cut out all these parts and say that this Bill does not apply to them. The 1s. 2d. which was

    1673
    suggested as the rate of profit by Mr. Justice Sankey does not include the profits arising in these other parts of the undertakings. That is a very important point, because it is quite clear that the coal owner must have believed that this is. 2d. covered every part of every undertaking which concerned the getting of coal, otherwise nothing like the figures which they have down on this Paper could have been arrived at. If I take some minutes to elaborate this point it is because on this point a case has been built up directly to prove that this was going to prevent the shareholders in these various undertakings from receiving any dividends at all. The truth is that 1s. 2d. a ton on the average over the whole industry, when you limit it entirely to the coal getting, is a considerably bigger profit than in any average period before the War was ever earned by the coal mining industry. That was recognised by Mr. Justice Sankey at the time when he was laying down a larger sum per ton as the amount of profit which was to be paid on the average—a larger sum than had been earned before.
    If it be agreed that this will be the effect of the Bill if it becomes law, we may turn to see what other profits there are which will pass to those concerns which are engaged in coal-getting as well as in other activities. We have to recognise that there will be considerable profit which will also pass to these undertakings, which, when it comes to a question of dividends, will have to be added to the earnings of the coal industry as a whole—profits arising from coke, brick, wagons, etc. Then, under the Finance Act there are allowances for capital which has been put into the industry since the standard was fixed, and over and above that there is allowance for interest on debentures, and there is an allowance for amortisation. These allowances make this emergency measure, in my opinion, a fair measure; fair from the point of view of those who have to consume the coal and fair from the point of view of those whose money is invested in coal-getting.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some figure as to the total of these additions?
    Sir A. GEDDES: It is not possible to give a figure which would be accurate until after the end of the financial year. It is not possible until the various standards have been worked out and until the
    1674
    various capital on which allowances have to be made has been worked out. It is not possible to give a figure which will be at all accurate or a safe guide at the present moment. Quite apart from the question of the financial effect of the Bill, there seems to me a far bigger question involved. It is within the knowledge of the House that in March last the Government announced that it accepted the Sankey Report, and in accepting that it accepted this limitation of profits. Throughout the year and throughout the period of the War, when we have had from time to time industrial disturbances, the Government have told the men who had struck, "You have broken an agreement which was entered into by your leaders. You did not repudiate it at the time, and we require you to stand by that agreement and to continue working under it." It seems to me that in this matter we are very much in the same position. The Government undertook to accept the Sankey Interim Report. As a result of that acceptation we gained peace in the coal fields. There is no doubt that if we had not accepted the Sankey Report there would not have been peace in the coalfields in the spring of this year. There was, in fact, no protest made in this House against the acceptation of that Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "We had no chance!"] There was no protest made by Members of this House then or later. We have had numerous opportunities in this House when this agreement could have been disputed. The whole finance of the coal industry has been discussed here many times, and invariably upon the basis that coal-owners' profits were going to be limited to 1s. 2d. a ton. Was there in any single Debate a challenge of that acceptation on that basis? I do not think so. I have searched the OFFICTAL REPORT to see if there was a single challenge in any one of these Debates, and I cannot find one. If at any time the House had disagreed with the Government's acceptation of this limitation, occasion could have been found for discussion of it. But I do not think any Member of this House felt that the Government had acted otherwise than correctly and rightly in accepting the Sankey Report.
    Sir C. CORY: We protested by deputation.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I do not know of any deputation which came to lodge a protest against this acceptation of the Report.
    Sir C. CORY: A deputation from the coal-owners met the Leader of the House and yourself and the Coal Controller on the 22nd of March and protested strongly against the acceptance of the Sankey award. The right hon. Gentleman was there, and I was there myself. Later we had a very much larger deputation, which met at the Board of Trade the President of the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller. I have the Report here, and I made some rather strong remarks. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to form a sub-committee to work out the details, and I said, "You are really asking us to aid you to advance a scheme of confiscation which will affect the coal trade, whereas if nationalisation comes about in a month or two the scheme will be quite unnecessary." I then went on to say, "Do not ask us to help you, because we do not want to help you to draw up any such scheme. I will not be a party to appointing a sub-committee for such a purpose. It is confiscation." That was at the Board of Trade on the 10th of April last, and it was because the Government was asking the coal-owners to appoint a sub-committee to discuss terms with you to carry out the Sankey award.
    Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member is dealing with quite a different point than the point with which I was dealing. There is the greatest difference between my meeting a deputation of coal-owners—which I did and which I was going to refer to, because I have the actual extracts before me now—and what was done in this house.
    Sir C. CORY: Oh, no!
    Sir A. GEDDES: Indeed there is. Surely it would be a strange doctrine if the Mining Association and the House of Commons were to be regarded as the same body. There is the greatest possible difference. The point I am making now is this: Was there in this House from any considerable body or section of the House a refusal to associate itself or to allow itself to be associated with the Government in the acceptation of the Sankey Report? There was no such dissociation, and if an undertaking given by the Leader of the House has any binding effect upon us the present course follows his acceptance of the Sankey Report on behalf of the Government. I am not suggesting that the House pledged itself, but I am saying that the Government was not notified by any
    1676
    considerable section of the House that it disagreed with the Government's acceptation of the Interim Report of the Sankey Committee. That is a perfectly fair declaration of the position. Just as in dealing with trade unions and in entering into an agreement with the leaders of the unions we expect, unless we hear within a reasonable time to the contrary, the individual members of that union to stand by the agreement, so I think the other party to this discussion, which is the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, may quite legitimately say, "Well, the Government accepted this; they never dissociated themselves from the Government, and we honestly believed that they had accepted the Government's decision." What seems to me the most serious thing about the whole position from the political point of view, not from the coal-owners' point of view, is this: that if the Government's acceptation of the Sankey Report was not supported, that a blow would be struck at all collective bargaining that has gone on in connection with industries, and the collective bargaining upon which we have based, in the main successfully, the industrial peace of this country.
    That is to me the serious side of the position in which we find ourselves to-day. It was not only then, but during the progress of the Bill as to the price of coal and during the whole of the Session, that the assurance was given that this limitation was to be imposed, and therefore I am authorised to say that the Government regards itself as absolutely pledged to do its utmost to carry out the undertaking which it gave in good faith, on the 20th March—an undertaking the giving of which had the effect of securing industrial peace at a time when the strain in the industrial world was much more intense than it is now. We stand by that undertaking then given, and we think that the Miners' Federation would have good cause to say to their supporters that the Government had accepted the Report. The coal-owners, or a certain section of them, throughout have quite clearly and definitely said that they dislike the principle. As I say, I do not think that there is any principle. It simply is devoid of principle. The question of principle does not arise. It simply is not there. There are obviously two meanings. It is merely a question of expediency as to the best way of meeting an emergency, so that when

    1677
    the coal-owners say that they do not like the principle, I say I am not dealing with the principle. I am dealing with an emergency Act to meet an emergency situation.
    When they say that this is introducing something new into Government relations with industry I say that I do not think it is. We have had it throughout the War because of emergency. We had, especially in the Munitions of War Act, very much the same thing as this, and in distant times similar action was taken because of emergency. There are records of the fixation of prices hundreds of years ago. From time to time, as emergencies have arisen in this country, emergency action of this kind has been taken, and therefore merely as an emergency Act to meet an emergency situation, an Act to which we were pledged in March, which we must carry out because of that pledge, and to keep faith with the Miners' Federation—on that basis we bring this Bill before the House and we lay down definitely in the Bill that this arrangement is to be limited to one financial year, a year which has only four months to run. And after that time we shall have to have, until we have returned absolutely to the full normal level, whatever that may be, some form—I hope quite a different form, but still probably some, form—of regulation of the distribution of coal. But as soon as you come to regulate the distribution of coal you are brought into a position in which you have to regulate in some way also the profits of individual undertakings, and one can say most whole-heartedly that one looks forward with anxiety to the day when the regulation of the distribution of coal can pass out of the hands of a Government Department into the hands of those who are directly responsible for industry through being engaged in it, and though the future policy with regard to coal is not touched upon in this Bill at all, there will have to be, after the close of this financial year, some other system for dealing with the coal industry until, as I have said, we have reached a position of full normality.
    Lord R. CECIL: As the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is one of immense importance, I think that the House would like to have it made quite clear whether it means that the policy of the Government is to continue, even after the 31st March next, some regulation of the price, of coal?
    Sir A. GEDDES: That may be necessary, but I say quite clearly and distinctly that the Government does not intend to continue a limitation of profits in anything like the form which we have got in this Bill. So long as there is a regulation of prices, which might be necessary, there is an indirect limitation of profits, and it is only in that sense that I speak of any future limitation of profits. I hope, at all events, that what I have said is sufficient to make it quite clear that this Bill deals only with those parts of undertakings winch are concerned with getting the coal out of the mines, that it does not touch other parts of industry, that this is a temporary measure, that it is an emergency proposal designed to meet an emergency situation and that we regard this Bill as the final Bill under which this sort of control of profits will exist up to the time to which it is to continue.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    The speech to which we have just listened has no doubt elicited the sympathy of the House for the right hon. Gentleman in his extraordinarily unattractive task. While relieving the House on some points the speech left us with difficulty and anxiety on others. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would not object to my summing up the position by saying that while we admit that he is not an unprincipled man, we regard him rather as devoid of principle. It is important on this occasion that the House should have an undertaking from the Government, in connection with this Bill in an absolutely explicit and unambiguous form. The Bill is in my view a bad Bill. If we were merely to act on the memorandum with which it is prefaced I feel certain that the majority of this House would vote against it. The former practice of this House was, when a Bill was introduced to meet any particular mischief or to deal with any particular emergency, to insert in the Preamble of the Bill a recital of what the mischief or emergency was. The advantage of that practice over the modern practice of a memorandum, which does not become part of the Bill, was that always afterwards the Preamble remained as a statement of why the Bill was introduced by

    1679
    which it would be always possible to see the exact application of the proposals of the Bill and prevent misconception.
    Every Member of this House has no doubt been deluged with resolutions by almost every industry in this country objecting to the Bill on the very ground that it is likely to give a precedent for other Bills in the future because of the principle which it applies, and I ask the Government, on the assumption that the Bill may be read by a majority of this House a second time, to agree that in Committee they would put the salient points of the memorandum into a Preamble in order that there may be no possibility of somebody in future saying, "Here is an Act of Parliament. It embodies certain principles. We do not know what the precise circumstances were in which the Act was passed." It stands as a record of the view of Parliament for all time. A statement in the Preamble of the immediate purpose and the emergency character of the measure would prevent that particular misconception. The whole Bill depends entirely on the question of the pledge which the Government gave. To me there seems to be no justification at all for the Bill, apart from the pledge. For that reason I will ask the House to allow me to go a little closely into the pledge.
    5.0 P.M.
    We all to-day, as the right hon. Gentleman said, feel easier in our minds as to the industrial position in this country than we did on the 20th March. But in judging this pledge we must put ourselves back to the 20th March. The Coal Industry Commission had been appointed by Act of Parliament for the express purpose of preventing a strike in the mining industry. The first report was made on the very day when the Leader of the House gave the pledge which he did give to the miners of the country. It had only just come into the hands of Members when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, and they had not had time to read it and did not know its terms. But in the course of his statement the right hon. Gentleman did say:
    "one of the proposals in this Report is that the profits of the coal masters shall be limited to 1s. 2d. per ton."
    And later on he said: "In regard to this whole Report, we have had a discussion in the Government this afternoon, and I say now, on behalf of the Government, that we
    1680
    propose to adopt the Report itself, and to take all the necessary steps to carry out its recommendations without delay." I agree that that is a word of importance, because if you look at the Report you will see that among the recommendations there is nothing about the 1s. 2d. It is in the body of the Report that the suggestion about the 1s. 2d. appears; but, for all that, the right hon. Gentleman did say in this House that one of the proposals of the Report was the 1s. 2d., and he did use the expression I have just quoted at the end of his statement. Looking back to that night, I do not think there is a Member of this House who would say for a moment that what the right hon. Gentleman then said was not addressed by him as Leader of this House to the Miners' Federation.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: As a threat?
    Mr. SCOTT: As a promise. I am not referring to an incident which took place that evening. It Was a promise that if they would not strike the Government would carry out the Sankey Report. I observe that the hon. Member opposite, who represents the miners with such great ability in this House, seems to shake his head at the idea that it was a promise to the miners. I imagine that if the miners do not want it, the hon. Gentleman will inform the House now or later.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: My only point was this: We were not content with the Sankey Award. We asked for 30 per cent. and got 20; we asked for six hours and got seven; and the Leader of the House, in proclaiming the decision of the Government that they were going to stand by that award was not making a promise at all, but giving us an intimation that, if needs be, they were prepared to fight us in defence of the Report.
    Mr. SCOTT: The next time I offer my hon. Friend half a loaf I suppose he will say it was not an offer because it was not the whole loaf. I think the hon. Member will agree that it was a promise made to the miners at the time, and that it was acted upon by the miners. That is the important aspect of the case. In consequence of that statement, the miners' strike was called off. That being so, I venture to think that this House must consider what its position is in relation to a promise so given by the Leader of the Government of the day. It is quite true that

    1681
    we had really no opportunity of discussing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because we did not know the contents of the Sankey Report. Nevertheless, in a crisis of that kind, if this House says, We are content to let the matter be settled to-night and not to insist upon discussing the matter to-morrow or the next day, when we have had time to think it over," then, in my view, the House must be taken to have stood by and to have accepted what was said on behalf of the Government; and it might be, in spite of what the President of the Board of Trade said just now, that the House of Commons, under such circumstances, is just as much bound as the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I hear murmers of dissent, but I think this is a question of vital importance to the constitutional government of this country. What is the excuse put forward in the country by those Labour leaders who are in favour of direct action, as it is called, as against constitutional action? It is just this, that by constitutional action they cannot get what they want. Why? Because they say they cannot trust Governments. The only answer to the direct actionists is to maintain the honour of Parliament absolutely. Governments fall from one cause or another. May quote a verse of the fifteenth psalm—
    "He that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not … shall never be moved."
    That is true of Governments as well as of men, and it is true of this House that we have to uphold the honour of constitutional government by carrying out pledges when they are given to any section of the community, even though the performance of the pledge may, as I think this does, involve a pecuniary sacrifice of a considerable character to the community at large. It is only if we uphold as almost the strongest principle of the British Constitution the absolute performance of pledges given under such circumstances, that we can maintain constitutional government in this country.
    I think it is equally important to see that when a pledge is given of a character that in the event proves unfortunate, the Government should not go beyond its pledge in carrying it out. They have said, quite frankly, to-day, that the principle of this Bill is bad, but that, having made a bad bargain, we must stick to it. With that I agree. I want to make quite certain, however, that before we let this Bill through to-day on the Second Read-
    1682
    ing, we get such undertakings from the Government as will make certain that it does not go one whit beyond the pledge then given. In order to ensure that position, I think it is necessary to see exactly what the Sankey Report proposed, and what the Government pledged themselves to carry out. The Commission was appointed to consider, first of all, hours and wages, and it is to be observed that the coal-owners gave no evidence at all on any question of profit at that first inquiry. Mr. Justice Sankey and his co-signatories, came to the conclusion that the proposals then made would cost the industry as a whole £43,000,000. But, he said in effect, that, owing to the pledge given by the Government, the coal mines agreement should not cost the Exchequer anything, but that all payments made thereunder should be paid by the industry out of its own earnings, evidence as to which was given by Sir Arthur Lowes Dickinson before the Commission (Question 148) on the lines of the pledge given by the Leader of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill on 12th November, 1917 (column 123, OFFICIAL REPORT). That being so, Mr. Justice Sankey had to find a means by which the expense to the industry of the proposed changes could be met out of the industry for that year.
    If hon. Members will look closely at the Report they will see that he was limiting himself purely to that year, as is correctly stated on the face of the Memorandum attached to the Bill. It was only in order to balance the account for that year, without regard to principle at all, that the Commission proposed to limit profits to.1s 2d. I think, to quote the right hon. Gentleman, it is perfectly fair to say that in suggesting the 1s. 2d. limitation there was no idea of principle at all. That being so, I think we may properly accept the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade to-day, that in seeking to, carry out a pledge by means of this Bill the Government are not seeking to introduce any new principle. Although we may accept that statement, I think we want something more than a statement in that form. I want the Government to make it clear that that is so in considered and definite undertakings in regard to, the Bill, as a condition, as far as I am concerned, of not dividing against the Bill. Unless the undertakings given by the Government are satisfactory, the House, ought to divide against the Bill.

    1683
    It has been objected by some that carrying out this pledge to the miners means the breaking of a pledge to the coal-owners by the repealing of the Coal Mines Control Agreement. I venture to think there is nothing in that. The Government have the right to determine that agreement at any time, and I do not think that the position of the coal-owners is any worse for this year under the terms of this Bill than it is under the terms of the Coal Mines Control Agreement. I should not be a party to any charge against the Government based upon the accusation that they were treating the industry unfairly by the terms of this Bill as compared with the Coal Mines Control Agreement. I submit very earnestly that the decision of the House on his matter ought not to turn on that question at all, but simply and solely on the question as to whether the Government state in satisfactory terms that their view of the principle of limitation of profit is utterly wrong, and give a satisfactory promise to prevent its repetition in the coal industry and its application to any other. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading said that there was no new principle in this Bill. In one sense that is true, but in another it is utterly untrue. We have never before, so far as I know, had any Bill proposed in Parliament by which it was suggested that profits as profits should be limited. It removes all incentive, it destroys all initiative, and it is utterly different in its character from a limitation of prices or from taxation of profits. The real and fundamental difference between a limitation of profits and a limitation of prices should be understood, so that we can make certain that the undertakings we are asking for are in the right form. A limitation of prices may have the effect of reducing profits, but it does not affect incentive or initiative. You may fix the price, but the man is still left to take the fullest advantage of every economy that he can effect in his business and every new addition to the efficiency of its administration. The same is true of the taxation of profits.
    Under the Coal Mines Control Agreement it is quite true that the profits of the coal-owners were taxed to the extent of 95 per cent, of the excess profits over the pre-war standard. But, none the less, it was not because the principle of the agreement was wrong that that was the
    1684
    result, but merely because the taxation was made so high. This Bill, by professing to limit profits, introduces into British legislation a. new principle in regard to the application of legislation to industry. As this Bill stands, there is no incentive at all for any colliery to do anything either to maintain output or to earn profits. If an industry makes a profit during the current year which exceeds its pre-war profit, it gets no advantage, because the balance is taken away. If it makes less than its pre-war profits, it loses nothing because it has the difference made up to it.
    Mr. HOUSTON: What about the shipowners?
    Mr. SCOTT: I appreciate that during the War shipowners suffered in a certain way, and I notice that the House is in sympathy with the hon. Member's view. The big point is that this Bill for the first time in English history proposes to limit profits as such and destroy initiative. The point is one upon which I believe practically every Member of this House except certain members of the Labour party are all agreed, that to limit profits in an industry destroys all that incentive upon which, human nature being what it is, the success of all industry in this country depends. I read with the greatest interest, and if I may say so with complete agreement, a passage in the Prime Minister's speech at Manchester last Saturday, and in that speech there is, I think, a statement of the soundest possible character as to trade and industry. The Prime Minister said:
    "There is a new challenge to civilisation. What is it? It is fundamental. It affects the whole fabric of society as we know it: its commerce, its trade, its industry, its finance, its social order; all are involved in it. There are those who maintain that the prosperity and strength of the country have been built up by the stimulating and invigorating appeal to individual impulse, to individual action. That is one view. The State must educate; the State must assist where necessary; the State must control where necessary; the. State must shield the weak against the arrogance of the strong; but the life springs from individual impulse and energy. That is one view. What is the other? That private enterprise is a failure tried and found wanting, a complete failure, a cruel failure. It must be rooted out and the community must take charge as a community; to produce, to distribute, as well as to control."
    In my view, that is the big political cleavage in the new political world since the War, and the Government ranges itself on the side of the Prime Minister in this

    1685
    matter. Are we to get an undertaking in this House to-day that that policy will be followed by the Government in the policy of this Bill and for the future? Since the Government gave a pledge, and since that pledge must have been understood by the miners, according to the language of the statement of the Leader of the House that he gave a pledge, and since in that statement he referred to the proposal to limit profits for this year to 1s. 2d., in my view, we are bound to carry out that pledge, if the Government limit the Bill to the performance of that pledge strictly and by giving us the undertaking I ask for, make it clear for the future, and to prevent this Bill in the future being used as a precedent to the injury of British industry. What I ask the Government to state to-day are these points: (1) That the principle of the Bill is wrong and if again applied, except as a war measure, will be fatal to British industry—does the right hon. Gentleman agree to that? (2) and that under no circumstances shall the Bill be renewed or any limitation of profits applied to the coal industry after the 31st of March next; and (3) that the principle of this Bill, that is, limitation of profits, shall not be applied to any other industry whatever. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree to those points, and perhaps he would say so before I sit down?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): If the House accept that as my speech, I shall be very glad. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Then I would rather give my explanation in my speech.
    Mr. SCOTT: In view of that statement of what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, I, for one, think that the House ought to stand by the Government and its pledge of the 20th of March last, and, bad as this Bill is, pass it rather than repudiate that. If the Government do make that pledge, I shall net press the Bill to a Division so far as I am concerned, but for the time being I move that the Bill be read this day three months.
    Sir HENRY NORMAN: I beg to second the Amendment for the time being.
    It has become abundantly evident, as the President of the Board of Trade said in his speech, that this Bill was not introduced because anybody liked it nor has it been introduced because it will do anything to clear up the chaotic state in which the coal industry finds itself. On the contrary it has not a friend in the House, and
    1686
    it is quite clear that many hon. Members who may vote for it in the Lobby will do so for reasons totally different from any affection for it. It is an exception to the natural law that parents admire their own offspring. I have never heard during the eighteen years or more I have been a Member of this House a Bill introduced in such a series of excuses. The apologies of my right hon. Friend when introducing and fathering this Bill were almost abject in their humility. The matter is too serious in my opinion to be left where it has been left by the speech of the President of the Board, and even by the able speech of my hon. and learned Friend who moved the rejection for the time being.
    Very few people understand this Bill. Even to-day and even after the speech of the President of the Board of Trade this 1s, 2d. per ton of coal from the time Mr. Justice Sankey proposed it, without appreciating what he meant by it, down to the memorandum in one of the Clauses of the Bill has really been a puzzle equal to Professor Einstein's theory that time is really a dimension of space. Nobody understands it. For months the greatest coal experts in the country have differed constantly in their interpretation of this 1s. 2d. Most people believed that it meant that for every ton of coal 1s. 2d. should be paid to the coal-owner, and probably many people still believe that. Of course, it means nothing of the kind. Many people, I am sure, do not realise that under this 1s. 2d. restriction some coal-owners may get 3s. per ton, and other coal-owners may get 3d. per ton. Nobody knows how much they are going to get. The mystery is deepened by this Bill. Hitherto we have all believed that the coal-owners would be paid upon their individual output, and that each undertaking was to dip into a pool in proportion to output. That statement was recently made in this House and in the House of Lords. Heaven knows, that would have been bad enough, for if the total output was 225,000,000 tons for each 1,000 tons of increased output the colliery-owners would get one two hundred and twenty-five thousandth part of the pool, but this Bill, if I understand it, and I shall be corrected if I am wrong, now drops output altogether as the basis on which the coal-owner is to be paid. Every colliery has, of course, a standard, either a pre-war standard or a substituted standard, or a percentage standard, and the owners of the standard are to be paid, according to para-

    1687
    graph 2 of the memorandum and Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, upon the proportion of his standard to the aggregate of all the standards. There is nothing about being paid on output. That method of assessing profits might delight Professor Einstein, but it is a puzzle to most of us. No one can possibly know how much he will get. This I venture, subject to correction, to assert, that in many cases the owner's remuneration must be in inverse proportion to his output, because the standard remains fixed while the output may vary. If within a given period his output falls by ten thousand tons, he will practically get the same as if it had not fallen, and thus in that instance the less coal he gets the greater will be his profit per ton. Am I not right, therefore, in saying that this Bill cannot have been introduced because it would do anything to clear up the chaos in which the coal industry finds itself. No, Sir, of course the Bill has been introduced, as we all know, because the Leader of the House feels it to be necessary to redeem the pledge he gave on behalf of the Government in March last. This point has been very fully dealt with by my hon. Friend who preceded me, and so I have very few words to say about it. We all admit that a pledge is a pledge, and honourable men must redeem it. It is not necessary again to dwell on the difficult and painful circumstances in which the pledge was given. We all remember them only too well. But surely it can be shown that the pledge has already been fully kept. The pled0067e was, and these are the substantive words, by the Leader of the House on 20th March:
    "I say now on behalf of the Government that we are prepared to arms the Report in the spirit as well as in the letter and to take all the necessary steps to carry out its recommendations without delay."
    The recommendations were, great reduction of hours of the miners and great increase of wages, and those two have been fully carried out. One shilling and two-pence per ton was not a recommendation. It is referred to only twice in the recommendations, and first in Section 6 of Mr. Justice Sankey's Interim Report in these words:
    "It is thought that these results may be obtained as explained in our Report without raising the price of coal to the consumer."
    And again, in paragraph 8 of the Report, we find these words:
    "To meet this (that is the deficit) it is proposed … to allow the coal-owners to retain is. 2d."
    1688
    Therefore the 1s. 2d. was a proposal of financial machinery and not a recommendation. Any other financial machinery to meet the necessities of the case would be an equally good fulfilment of the pledge. So I claim to have shown that this Bill is not needed to fulfil the right hon. Gentleman's pledge either in the letter or in the spirit. The pledge was undoubtedly given, if not to the miners then to Labour generally. Labour is very largely and ably and responsibly represented in this House, and if Labour as so represented here repudiates this Bill, surely that again relieves the right hon. Gentleman from his pledge. If the people to whom the pledge was given do not want it to be fulfilled, whoever does? Moreover, the estimates upon which Mr. Justice Sankey based his proposal have been falsified by events. The price of coal for export has not fallen, as he said it would; it has risen, and instead of a deficit of £9,000,000 at this point, there is a profit of £16,000,000.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I do not know about that profit of £16,000,000. This is one of those myths that is rapidly growing, and I would like to check it if possible. In the Debate on Friday week, I think it was. I said that if things went on as they were as regards sales, and if the price was not altered, the forecast was that at the end of the financial year there would be a profit of £17,000,000. That is quite different from saying there is a profit or £16,000,000 now.
    Sir H. NORMAN: I am willing to modify my statement to any extent that may be necessary because of my right hon. Friend's interruption, but I venture to suggest that my statement need not be modified in any substantial degree. There is in all probability a profit—
    Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, no! That is the whole, point. Prices have been changed, and therefore there will be no profit.
    Sir H. NORMAN: I can only say I wish I had the subtlety of mind of Einstein without his nationality, because I find it very difficult to follow the constant changes of calculation. However, I pass over that.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me? This is a thing that has got wrong somehow, and is being represented quite differently from what will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There has been no change of calculation

    1689
    in connection with that matter at all. The statement was quite clear at the time that this possibility of a profit made it possible to do another thing, which was done, but there is no profit.
    Sir H. NORMAN: Very well, then, in that case the House will take the facts upon that point put as my right hon. Friend states them, and not as I believed them to be. But there is the other point, in regard to Mr. Justice Sankey's Report, that the output of the year will not be 250,000,000 tons; probably it cannot be more than 225,000,000 tons, which again alters the calculation. Thirdly, the 1s. 2d. per ton in the Bill does not benefit the miners by a halfpenny, and the consumer can be safeguarded, it seems to many of us, in infinitely less objectionable ways. Thus, if there is any cogency at all in these arguments, it shows that from every point of view this Bill is not required.
    What is it precisely that we find so extremely objectionable in the Bill? It relates, I contend, in spite of all that has fallen from my right hon. Friend, to principles and profits. Let me take the latter first as the least important. In regard to the use of the word "coal-owners," no doubt many people think the word means a few rich men who have made large fortunes out of the coal trade, but those men are very few in number, and it must, in fairness, be said that their fortunes, to a large extent, have been re-invested in the coal trade. The real coal-owners are not the few, but the many, and they are the shareholders. Most of them are men with very small holdings in shares, and they are the men that those of us who are directors of mines see coming to meet us and demand an account of our stewardship at the annual meetings of colliery companies. Nobody who ever looks at an annual meeting of a colliery company will think he has an assembly of capitalists before him. Many of them have invested all their lifelong savings in the coal industry. If the Bill becomes law, and if the figures of the Inland Revenue are correct, there is every reason to fear that these people of small means will lose an important part of the capital value of their investments. I will not put it higher than this, and I am not responsible in the slightest degree for the statement issued by the Mining Association. I have considered this matter as closely as I can, and I am profoundly convinced of that, that they may lose an important part of the capital value of their investments.
    1690
    Those, therefore, who support this Bill to hit the capitalists are really striking 100,000 or 150,000 people in the small savings of years of hard work. It may be urged—indeed, it has been urged by my right hon. Friend—that these Inland Revenue figures are based upon a few boom years.
    Sir A. GEDDES: The standards were the two best or the four best out of the three or the six years, or they were percentage standards, so that right through the whole industry each undertaking was put at its high water-mark, and therefore the correct standard is the sum of individual high water-marks and not a reproduction of anything that ever happened in any year.
    Sir H. NORMAN: I will adopt with pleasure my right hon. Friend's word, and I will not say the boom years, but the high water-mark years. I admit fully that the omission of coke and other ancillary enterprises makes the shareholders' position much better, but that apart, I venture with great respect to submit that that argument would really hardly be used by anybody who is familiar with the coal trade. It is precisely by those boom years, it is precisely by those high water-mark years, that the average colliery dividend is maintained. It is common knowledge that a large number of collieries work at a loss or for trifling dividends for several years, sometimes seven or eight, in anticipation of two or three years' boom. During the last fifty years that boom has generally occurred something like every ten or twelve years. To give an example from my personal knowledge, in the case of a colliery which has been working for a little over fifty years, for several years in succession it paid a dividend of 20 per cent., and for some other years 15 per cent. Someone may say, "What outrageous profits to take out of the coal consumers' pockets!" Yes; but for the fourth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth years it did not pay a halfpenny of dividend at all, and for six years it paid dividends of 3 per cent. or under. So if for four years it paid 20 per cent. and for six years 15 per cent., it was precisely for those years that the money had been originally invested, and its average of fifty-four years was under 7½ per cent. Does anybody suppose that a speculative enterprise like coal-getting and coal-

    1691
    selling will attract money with a dividend averaging less that 7½ per cent.? That is true of one of the best collieries, and best managed, in the United Kingdom. With regard to the limitation of profits to a fixed sum, collieries of this class will certainly not continue to operate at a loss for many years; they will either go into the Bankruptcy Court, or they will close down as the wiser policy. I am not defending capitalists' excessive profits. I have long held that there cannot be industrial peace and justice until capitalists' profits are shared with the men who help to make them. I am only pointing out how grave will be the effect of the proposals of this Bill upon the coal industry and how bitterly unjust to the real coal-owners, namely, the 100,000 or 150,000 small shareholders in colliery companies. The, great recent drop in the price of colliery shares shows this, and the almost complete stoppage of development, for which, by the way, this Bill does nothing. In Yorkshire alone developments requiring £12,500,000 to finance them are absolutely in abeyance.
    But even graver still are the principles involved in this Bill, and I cannot for a moment admit that there are not principles at stake in this measure. The first of them is the limitation of profits, regardless of cost or price, to a fixed sum or a fixed percentage. It is not restriction of price; that is totally different. It is not taxation of excess profits; that, again, is totally different. It is saying, "However wise the choice of your business, however efficient has been your management, however hard you may have worked, you shall not make a profit of more than so much per unit of production." It is perfectly obvious that this is a death blow to initiative and individual effort, that it puts a premium upon extravagance in management, and that one of its certain results will be to increase the price to the consumer. But it is doubly indefensible to apply this principle to one industry alone. If coal, why not iron, why not shipping, why not cotton? There is no answer. Obviously, the limitation of profit in this sense, right or wrong, imposed upon one business, must be imposed upon all businesses alike. And which industry has been selected for this destructive blow? The basic industry of the nation, the industry which is the very foundation of our commercial and industrial existence, a highly speculative business, a pioneering business.
    1692
    I submit to the House that these principles embodied in it utterly condemn the present Bill. It seems to me no economist, no student of industrial conditions, no simple man of business can possibly support it. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, when he comes to speak, may repeat, in even stronger words, what the President of the Board of Trade has already said, that it is "only for a short time." But if the principle is adopted, it is adopted, whether it is for an hour or whether it is for an age. I recollect my right hon. Friend saying in a subsequent remark that this limitation of profits would not be done again "in anything like this form." That leaves a very wide open door. But, in the second place, the Leader of the House has said, and may say again, that it is "not to be a precedent." No, Sir, not for him, but it will be a precedent for others. He will even admit that it is not a sound principle, that it is a vicious principle, but in that case he will have had the responsibility of putting a vicious principle upon the Statute Book. The hideous muddle—these are not exaggerated words—into which the coal trade and the coal interests in the widest sense have been allowed to drift, will never be cleared up until there has been a really competent and independent inquiry into the whole question of the coal industry and its relations to the public.
    I earnestly ask the Government to withdraw tins Bill and institute such an inquiry. The Sankey Commission will never be accepted as a satisfactory investigation. Without going so far as to say, with Professor Bone, that it was a mixture of punch and judy show and trial scene in "Alice in Wonderland," it was unsatisfactory for many reasons. In the first place, it was working against time. In the next place, it was not a fair tribunal. Again, it was a tribunal in which the judges became witnesses, went into the witness box, and then came back and took their scats on the bench and adjudicated on their own evidence. The witnesses there were browbeaten and irrelevancies almost innumerable were committed. It reported on certain matters without having heard the evidence upon them. The Chairman's Report was signed even before it was discussed by the Commission. For many months nobody knew what its Report meant. I wish the Government would institute a real inquiry.

    1693
    What they are doing now is to introduce indefensible principles into legislation; to inflict a grave injury upon a very large body of people, to imperil the development of our basic industry. They may be helping a lame dog over a stile, but at the same time they are hobbling a sound dog. They are fettering efficiency, and they are offering crutches to incompetence. They talk about protecting minor key industries from attacks abroad. I submit that they would be better occupied in defending the great key industry upon which our industrial and commercial existence rests against attacks at home.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The President of the Board of Trade, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill this afternoon, told us that its terms were very much misunderstood, and that he did not think it had many friends in the House. I venture to suggest to him that if its terms were very much misunderstood, we did not in the course of his speech get very much enlightenment as to some of the leading provisions in the Bill. The Bill is one of the most important and far-reaching that has come before the present Parliament. As the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has said, it deals with an industry on which the future of our industrial prosperity, as a nation, entirely depends. Not only is the future of 1,200,000 persons engaged in tile industry involved, but the future of the whole of our people is bound up in the industry with which this measure seeks to deal. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the House and the country should give close and careful attention to this measure, which, if placed on the Statute Book in anything like its present form, will undoubtedly create a serious condition of things in the mining industry in this country. The President of the Board of Trade told us that it was a highly technical Bill. I would rather be inclined to say that it is a craftily drawn Bill, because, while it pretends to deal principally with the limitation of coal-owners' profits to 1s. 2d. a ton, from the explanations that we got, we are in a position to draw our own deduction as to whether the figure named as the figure to which profits are to be limited is a correct one or not. For instance, the President told us that by-products did not come within the terms of this Bill. But I think, if my memory serves me right, we had the information given in connection with the
    1694
    Commission that if the profits made from by-products were spread over the whole industry, it would add something like 6d. a ton to the profits earned by the owners. Then he told us that loans and debentures were outside, and that certain charges would be permissible for redeeming the capital that was sunk in certain parts of the industry.
    So that, from the information he has given us, while one cannot just correctly assess the profits that will be made, it is certainly a profit of much more than 1s. 2d. a ton. There have been rumours going round that deputations have been waiting upon certain members of the Government, and that these deputations have been getting assurance that the profits which would accrue to the trade in terms of this Bill, if it is passed in its present form, would be possibly double the amount that is mentioned in the Bill, namely, the sum of 1s. 2d. If this Bill is given effect to, it will create, in our opinion, a serious condition of affairs in the coal trade of the country. The President, in the course of his remarks, told us he was of opinion that there was less industrial trouble in the coal trade at the moment that we had in the spring of the present year, when the Commission sat, and when effect was given to certain of the Commission's findings. In my opinion, if this Bill were given effect to in its present form, it would simply mean the return of that industrial trouble that was apparent in the spring of the present year.
    6.0 P.M.
    There are several questions in connection with this bill that I would like to put to the President, or whoever is to reply later on to the criticisms that may be levelled against the Bill. He has told us that, so far as profits are concerned, the-provision will end on the 31st March next, and one of the questions I would like to put to him is this: Will the control of the coal trade be removed on that date? And if it is to be removed, if the Government are to cease to take any hand in controlling the industry after the 31st March, what system do they propose to put in the place of the present one? I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, according to the Interim Report of Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues who signed it, upon the evidence that had been given during the first inquiry, the present system of ownership and working in the coal industry stands condemned, and that some other system must be substituted for it. We have not had any clear indication up

    1695
    to now of the nature of the system that the Government intend putting in the place of the present one, if control is to be completely removed after 31st March. Undoubtedly, some system will be required to take the place of the present one. As I have already pointed out, Mr Justice Sankey says that the present system stands condemned. Does the Government, or the House, or the country believe that in these circumstances the leaders of the Miners' Federation can advise their members in the various parts of the British coal field to return to a system that already stands condemned in the opinion of the Commission that was set up to go into the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I just heard, as I entered, what my right hon. Friend said. Undoubtedly the main reason for this Bill is the fulfilment of the pledge. We are, obviously, no longer bound by that pledge if those to whom we make it relieve us of it—if, on behalf of the Miners' Federation, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say, "We do not wish you to fulfil that pledge by passing this Bill!"
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: He has said it!
    Mr. BRACE: If my right hon. Friend is putting that by way of direct question, it is necessary really for us to say that at the executive meeting to-day a specific resolution was carried objecting to the Bill upon entirely different grounds. We say that we want the Government to carry out their pledge, and they are not attempting to carry out their pledge in the way we think they ought to do.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have no objection to the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think he was present when I put the question that I was confirming at the moment of his entrance. I had just put a question to the President of the Board of Trade, and I want to put it to the Leader of the House if he is to reply later. Does the present system of Government control end on 31st March as well as the limitation of profits? As I asked the President, I now ask the Leader of the House, if the present system of control is to end, what system do you intend to take its place? You cannot go back to the old system. It stands condemned in the terms of the Report which you in this House pledged yourselves to give effect to
    1696
    in the spirit and in the letter. We have seen some indication that the Government are more favourably disposed to adopt the plan suggested in the Report of Sir Arthur Duckham, a member of the Commission. If his system were put into operation it would mean setting up in the British coal fields a number of trusts. It would mean the establishment of some very big combines in the mining industry of the country.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Would it be as big as nationalisation?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better let me deal with the subject in my own way. If what I say is the Government's idea, if that is the plan they intend to adopt in the place of the present system, I can tell them that the miners would rather continue under the old system than accept one of that character until they are able to secure the nationalisation of the mines. Not only are the miners up against the establishment of a system of the kind that is outlined in Sir Arthur Duckham's Report, but the coal-owners are as greatly opposed to it as the miners can be, because they say: "If you are to establish a system of that kind in the mining industry, we would rather that you faced now the question of nationalisation." The President of the Board of Trade gave us a very careful explanation of the manner in which profits are dealt with in this Bill. He did not condescend to state the figure. He told us that the Government would not be in a position to name the correct figure until the end of the financial year in March. Before the Leader of the House came in I pointed out that rumour had it that deputations of coal-owners had been waiting upon some of the leading members of the Government recently, and that they were reputed to have put the profit per ton at 2s. 4d. instead of 1s. 2d., and that that information was given to them with the view of modifying the opposition that was likely to be given to this Bill. We certainly do know from the limited amount of information which we have been able to get out of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon, the profits that will accrue to the coal-owners under the terms of this Bill if passed. This Bill only limit the profits to one year, to 31st March next. I ask the Leader of the House if that was the idea in the mind of Mr. Justice Sankey at the time he issued his Report?
    Mr. SONAR LAW: It says so in the Report.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Limited for one year? If the position be examined from the point of view of the two Reports, I think it will be found that the period of time that was running in Mr. Justice Sankey's mind was three years—until the question of nationalisation could be arranged.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not give a pledge about a Report which came out three or four months afterwards.
    Mr. ADAMSON: When the Leader of the House was dealing with the first Report he told us that he would give effect to it in the spirit and in the letter. He made a very careful explanation of what would be the future proceedings of the Commission. He certainly created the idea in our minds that as future Reports came along they would be favourably considered.
    Mr. BONAR LAWwas understood to dissent.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The Government, we were informed, does not approve of the limitation of profits. That was one of the things that the President in the course of his remarks this afternoon made perfectly clear.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Direct limitation!
    Mr. A DAMSON: I took it that the right hon. Gentleman did not approve of the limitation of profits.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Direct.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I was going to ask how the Government intended to give effect to the numerous pledges if that was the decision: how they were going to be able to give effect to these pledges given to the working classes, who in recent years have again and again been told that they were entitled to a greater share of the wealth earned by the united energies of the people than they have been able to secure up till now. How are they going to get that unless you have limitation of profits, not only in the mining industry, but in all the other parts of the industrial system? If we are to give to the working classes a higher standard of life than hitherto they have been able to obtain it can only be done by a limitation being placed on the profits of the employers.
    The next point I want to put to the President, or the Leader of the House
    1698
    is, will there be any limitation of prices placed upon the coal-owners after 31st March next? Will the Government's responsibility for the payment of the Sankey wage to the men, the increase of 2s. per day, cease after 31st March? The wages of the men can only be protected on their present basis through some system of pooling the profits. Under present conditions you have higher prices obtaining in the export part of the trade than in the home trade; you have higher classes of coal commanding higher prices in some districts of the home trade than you have in others. Unless there is some system of pooling we will be unable to protect the wages of the men on their present basis. Does the Government, or the House, expect the Miners' Federation, at the end of March to be prepared to enter into a series of fights in order to protect the wages of their members in the various districts with the variations that exist? No, Sir; I do not believe they will. I do not believe the Miners' Federation will be consenting parties to being attacked singly and overcome in detail. If they are to have a struggle, a fight, to protect the interests of the men, it will be a fight for protecting the wages of the whole of the men. It will not be conducted in any sectional manner
    This Bill pretends to give effect, as I have already pointed out, to the Interim Report of Mr. Justice Sankey. Where, however, it gives effect to it on the one hand, in our opinion it takes away with the other. To give effect to it in that way is not carrying out the proposal in the spirit of the letter. We do not believe that Mr. Justice Sankey intended that the limitation of profit and prices and the present wages and the control of the industry was to end in one year. The settlement proposed in this Bill under those circumstances would be no settlement at all, and it would simply mean that you would have the fight renewed within the next three months. Therefore, I think we had better give more serious consideration to the matter when we are dealing with this Bill. I hope when the Leader of the House replies he will give us an answer to the following questions: Does this Bill end Government control of the industry on the 31st of March next, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman say in specific and plain terms what system the Government intend to put in place of the present one? Does the limitation apply to prices after the 31st of March as well as to profits,

    1699
    and does the 31st March end the Government's responsibility to the men for the payment of wages under the Sankey award? These are important matters so far as the mining section of the community are concerned, and so far as the Labour party in this House is concerned? Therefore, we would like before the discussion ends to have an answer in plain specific terms to the questions I have put. The Leader of the House has asked whether we want this Bill or not. I understand him to mean by that question if we do not want the Bill he will be prepared to withdraw it. I say frankly in reply to the question as to whether we want it or not it depends upon the nature of the answers which are given to the questions which I have put on behalf of the mining industry and the Labour party. We shall hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and then we shall quite frankly tell him what the attitude of the miners and the Labour party will be in regard to this Bill.
    Lord R. CECIL: There is one observation made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to which I find myself altogether out of agreement, and it is his statement that the position of the workmen could not be improved unless you limited the profits of the coal-owners. I respectfully express an entirely different opinion, and I even go so far as to say that as long as you preserve the present system you cannot improve the position of the workmen if you limit the profits. I did not, however, rise to enter into an economic discussion on this question, but I did so because I think the situation has been entirely changed by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade and by the information which has reached many hon. Members from other sources, namely, that the Labour party have resolved to vote against this Bill, and they have done so with the assent and approval of the Executive of the Miners' Federation. That may not be true, but that is the rumour going through the Lobby at the present moment. That leaves unofficial Members of this House in a very astonishing position, and certainly the Government are to be commiserated with in connection with the coal question, as they do not seem even by accident to hit upon the right thing to do. I was not in this country when the great coal crisis arose. I understand it was very urgent and the Government decided to deal with it by a Commission, over which they asked a
    1700
    learned judge to preside. I think that was a profound mistake. When a learned judge is asked to decide a dispute between two parties no doubt he does it as well as any man could do it, but it is quite a different matter to asking him to lay down a policy for the organisation and management of a great industry like the coal industry.
    The next great crisis arose over the increase in the price. I do not pretend to understand why the increase in price was made in that particular way. It certainly was a very strange proceeding, as subsequent events appear to have shown. Then came a declaration by the Government against all subsidies, and almost immediately afterwards 10s. per ton was taken off the price of coal. I do not know whether that had anything to do with the pending election. Now comes this Bill. As for the merits of this measure, there is no dispute in any part of the House, for it is universally agreed that it is a thoroughly bad Bill. The principle of the limitation of profits is rejected by everyone who has spoken except the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Adamson). Almost the most decisive effect of the Bill is in Clauses 4 and 5, which prevent any mine-owner doing anything to develop his mine without the consent of the Coal Controller. I cannot conceive of anything more destructive to the industry than that. No condemnation could be more whole-hearted than that which fell from the President of the Board of Trade, for he condemns the Bill most fully.
    I agree very much with what has been said as to the great difficulty of the Government dealing with this question without having any really comprehensive policy. Ever since March last we have known that there is a very great crisis in this industry, and the Government have had a variety of proposals put forward for meeting it, but they have never decided exactly what they are going to do. Some of us asked repeatedly in the summer what the policy was going to be, but the Government declined to tell us, and just before we adjourned the Prime Minister made a comprehensive speech, to which we had constantly been referred as the declaration of the policy of the Government, and when the Prime Minister had finished, my impression of what the Government intended to do was still very far from concise, and we had no indication from the President of the Board of Trade as to what is to happen when this Bill

    1701
    comes to an end on the 31st of March. The Leader of the Labour party said it is all very well to pass this as a makeshift, but unless you have a policy to deal with the situation you are only putting off the crisis, and it will arise again on the 31st of March.
    There is only too much reason to think that the economic situation in Europe generally and also in this country may be even more grave and difficult in March than it is now. Why are we to put off a settlement until that date, because at that time we may be in even a more difficult position than we are at the present time? I understand the nationalisation policy, but I do not agree with it, because it means State management, and that I dislike most profoundly. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I am not sure what hon. Members mean by nationalisation. If you are going to bring the State in and make the State finance the mines in this country then you must have State management. If you are going to allow the Treasury to finance the mines you will have to put yourselves under the bureaucracy of Whitehall. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think you will find in practice that that is the way it will work out if you ever get your way. Something has been said about pooling the profits, and a reference was also made to the pledge given by the Leader of the House on the 15th of March. I admit most fully the strength of that argument, although I do not go so far as the President of the Board of Trade. I cannot, however, admit that a statement by the Government binds the House of Commons. I cannot admit the analogy which the right hon. Gentleman drew between the leaders of a trade union, the members of the Government, and the Members of the House of Commons, because each Member of the House of Commons comes here charged with a public duty to do what he thinks right, in the first instance in the interests of his constituency, and in the second place in the interests of the country as a whole—or perhaps it is the other way round. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Perhaps the latter view is the one more generally accepted, and for that reason I cannot admit that the mere statement of a member of the Government is binding on the House of Commons.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I did not say that the statement of the Government bound the House of Commons.
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think the distinction drawn between the supporters of the Government and the House of Commons and the House of Commons itself is a very practical one, but I do not wish to go into too much subtlety over this matter. I only enter that caveat because I think it is a sound doctrine that the House of Commons can be bound only after it has been consulted and has had an opportunity of expressing its opinions. Therefore, I wish to make that reservation. I am so far in agreement with my right hon. Friend, however, that I think, after the Government had made that very specific statement, and it had been assumed that something would be done, it would have been a very serious thing if they had not made an attempt to carry out their pledge. It would have led the miners to say, and to say with some truth, "That is what we say about the governing classes; they never can be trusted; they play fast and loose," and all the rest of it. It is very unfortunate the Government did not produce their legislation immediately afterwards, when the whole matter was fresh in the minds of the House of Commons. Therefore, although I do not think that I could have ever brought myself to vote for this Bill—it seems to me so bad—I do not think that I would have voted against it if the situation remained as is was when the Debate began.
    Now comes a very different state of things We have had a positive statement from the Leader of the Labour party today that he does not regard this Bill as a fulfilment of the pledge, and that he cannot accept it as such. He went on to say, with my concurrence, at any rate, and I believe with the concurrence of an enormous number of the Members of the House, that he thought it was a very bad Bill. It did no good, and only postponed matters. He used arguments which were very well founded. What, then, becomes of my right hon. Friend's case? Why should we now vote for a Bill which we all believe to be a thoroughly bad Bill in order to fulfil a pledge given by the Government, when the other party to the pledge says, "We do not regard this as a fulfilment at all"? That is carrying Parliamentary prudery, I was going to say, to an extreme. Surely if the other party do not wish this Bill to be made law, there is only one course open to the Government, and that is to withdraw it. I quite admit that the position is very difficult, and it

    1703
    may well be—I merely throw this out as a suggestion—that the best course would be to adjourn the Debate. We entered upon this Debate in one sense, and now an entirely new state of things has arisen. We ought to know fully what that new state of things really is, so as to enable us to consider the matter afresh. The House, I understand, sat till 6.30 this morning, and hon. Members would not be altogether sorry for a short Sitting to-day. There are other Orders, but I am not so sure that the Government might not have an access of generosity even at this moment. I do not want, however, to speak lightly. It is a very serious matter, and I venture to ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not think that the proper course would be to adjourn the Debate. I feel quite sure, if the Government insists upon going on in the present state of things, that a very large number of their supporters will find their consciences very severely strained if they have to vote for this Bill, which is not wanted by the miners, and which they themselves, every one of them, think a thoroughly unsound and disastrous measure.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Everyone who has listened to the Debate must have realised that we are getting into quite an interesting position. It has been suggested that this proposal to limit profits to 1s. 2d. a ton is in some way part of the miners' proposal. I cannot understand from where that idea comes. The Sankey award which was accepted by the Government and which they said they would carry into effect in letter and in spirit was not signed by a single representative of the miners who sat on that Commission. As a matter of fact, our representatives in their Interim Report went strongly, not for a limitation of profits, but for the nationalisation of the mines. We were on entirely different ground. In the second Report, Mr. Justice Sankey recommended that the 1s. 2d. should be continued for the three years which he suggested should run before State purchase took place. Our representatives on the Commission gave a very general assent to the terms contained in Mr. Justice Sankey's second Report, but on this particular question they said:
    "As we are in substantial agreement with the Chairman's Report, we think it unnecessary to
    1704
    set forth any separate statement of our views, but in assenting to that Report we wish to emphasise the following points."
    They then enumerated them, and on this particular question of the 1s. 2d. they said:
    "We think it important that whatever payment is made to the owners, nending the general acquisition of the mines, should not be computed upon the tonnage got."
    Therefore, so far as our representatives who sat on the Commission and made a Report were concerned, not only did they not sign a Report in favour of this 1s. 2d., but they reported against this method of solving this part of the question. Whatever may be said for or against the proposal contained in the Report of Mr. Justice Sankey, it is not our Report, and it is not what we asked. We have asked for an entirely different thing, and we are to-day in precisely the same position as we have been all along. I do not understand what all the fury is about. I have heard statements made in this House that the coal-owners have been badly treated, and that they have not had such profits as they ought to have received. As far as I am able to judge from the statistics available, they have done very well indeed. On 1st December I asked a question in this House and received a reply. The question was:
    "If the President of the Board of Trade state the total profits, including royalties, made by the British coal-mining industry in each of the years 1908 to 1918, inclusive, and during the first six months of the present year, and. if he will state for each year how the aggregate-profits were divided between royalty-owners, mine-owners and the Government respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1919, col. 119.]
    I received a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The figures contained in that reply are intensely interesting, and I should like to give them for the years before the War and the years during the War. We were told by witnesses who appeared before tire Commission that the five years ending 1913 were the best five years in the history of the industry and that the two years upon which the prewar profit standard is based were the best two years in the history of the industry. During those five years, 1909–13, the profits, including royalties and after allowing for wear and tear, were as follows: 1909, £14,700,000; 1910, £15,100,000; 1911, £13,140,000; 1912, £22,350,000; 1913, £26,980,000. During those five years the average profits, including royalties, amounted to £18,500.000 per annum. It was stated before the Commission, and it.

    1705
    is fairly well corroborated in this reply, that from that sum must be deducted £6,000,000 as belonging to the royalty-owners. Therefore, according to this reply, you have about,£12,500,000 as the average profits of the coal-owners during those five years. The figure given before the Commission was about £13,000,000; the figure given by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday was £12,800,000, and the figure given here is about £12,500,000, so that there is not much in it in any case. Let us now look what the profits were during the War: 1914, £18,960,000; 1915, £31,160,000; 1916, £46,590,000; and 1917–18, £34,210,000. During those four years, therefore, they got an average of £32,730,000 as against an average of £18,500,000 in the pre-war period. Surely they have not done badly during the War. In each case, you have to deduct £6,000,000 a year on account of royalties.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Would not that be increased in the same period owing to the sliding scale?
    Major WHELER: Is it not a fact that the rise in the royalties proportionate to the increase in the price of coal is an infinitesimal amount?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I have not any figures to show how that was modified. I am simply giving the figures supplied to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as being the figures the coal-owners themselves admit as their profits for the purposes of the Income Tax. I would like to give the figures after everything has been deducted. It is sometimes said, "It is true that they have had enormous profits, but the Excess Profits Duty has taken a big slice of them, there has been an increase in the Income Tax, and there has been the coal mines excess payments. All these items have taken so much from the coal-owners that they have been no better off and possibly worse off, during the War than they were before." This Return gives the actual profits received by the owners after deducting royalties, Mineral Rights Duty, Excess Profits Duty, Coal Mines Excess Payment, and Income Tax. In the last column you get the actual net profits of the coal-owners. Let us take the pre-war period and since. In 1909 their net profits were £8,591,000; in 1910, £8,846,000; in 1911, £6,571,005; 1912, £16,248,000; 1913, £20,464,000. During the War we got these figures, after making deductions for
    1706
    Income Tax and everything else: 1914, £12,364,000; 1915, £21,522,000; 1916, £28,590,000; and 1917, £15,473,000.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: What does the hon. Gentleman allow for the fact that the sovereign is now worth only 9s. 6d.?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Every right hon. and hon. Gentleman will be able to put his own valuation on the figures I have given. But they show that the coal-owners have received per annum, during the four years of war, profits enormously in excess of anything they got before the War, after they had paid everything in the form of royalties, and every other item. Now I come to the real position as to 1913. In 1912–13 we had the best two years in the history of the industry. What happened? Under the Control Agreement, the coal-owners were entitled to take the average of the best two of the last three years. Naturally they took 1912 and 1913, and so they have taken their basis for pre-war standard profits, the best two years they have ever had in their history; consequently all through the War, before the Government have been able to take anything to assist the finances of the country, the coal-owners have been able to maintain the abnormally high standard of profits which they secured during those two particular years. How did they come to have these exceptional profits in those two years? Chiefly because the miners in nearly every coalfield in Great Britain had in their Wage Agreement what is called the minimum and the maximum. We had got standard rates, but on the top of these we were entitled to a minimum and maximum percentage, and it did not matter how high the price of coal went, we got no more than the maximum percentage. During this period, although the price of coal went up enormously, the miners got not one cent out of it; the whole of the surplus prices went into the pockets of the owners, and they were able to establish a standard of profits which is far above the normal state of the industry, and have been able to maintain it all through the War before ever the tax-collector could come upon them for a single penny.
    I do not think the coal-owners are playing the game in kicking up all this fuss about this attempt on the part of the Government to carry out what they regard as the pledge they gave to the miners in relation to the Sankey Award.

    1707
    Surely everybody who was here in March last will know that that pledge was given not with a view to the limitation of profits at all, but with a view to coercing the miners. We had refused to accept the award. We had said we wanted 30 per cent. increase, and we were only offered 20 per cent. We had asked for a six-hour day and we were only offered a seven-hour day. Therefore we were not prepared to accept the Report. But that was not the only Report which was issued. There were three Interim Reports. The one the Government accepted was signed, I think, by only four members. There was another which was signed by six, and we said the Government had no right to set aside the Report of the six men and to pick and choose the one particular Report which suited them. The Leader of the House came down and said the Government were in a mess, that they had gone through Justice Sankey's Report, and they were going to stand by that Report against all comers, and in fact, if the miners would not accept it, let them put up a fight, and the Government were prepared to use all the resources of the State to compel them to accept it. We took a ballot vote of our members, and upon that vote we agreed to accept the Report, and to accept the Government decision. Why is it that the coal-owners, having regard to the very splendid time they have had all through the War, are kicking up this fuss at this moment because there is a proposal to limit their profits, not below what they were having before the War, but to fix a limitation at a substantially higher figure than they ever had before the War at any time in the history of the country, except one or two occasional years?
    But that is not all. This is. 2d. is not all the profit that the coal-owners are being given. In the five pre-war years they got 1s. a ton profit. That was their average profit on the coal produced. But that 1s. a ton included all the profits they derived from coke and the by-products, and we were told in the evidence put before the Committee that the profits on coke and by-products were, at least, 6d. per ton, spread over the whole coal output of the country. If you take that basis, you are getting 1s. 2d. per ton plus, at least, 6d. per ton in the aggregate. But I am going to show that it is a much bigger sum, if you take the evidence put before
    1708
    the Commission. In any case, you get. 1s. 8d. per ton, as against 1s. per ton before the War. Then we have certain other concessions made in this Bill which add somewhat to the 1s. 2d., which is the nominal amount; so that, so far as we on these benches are concerned, we think Mr. Justice Sankey, in fixing 1s. 2d., was absolutely fair to the colliery owners. We are not objecting to the provisions of this Bill on the ground of that 1s. 2d., and we are not opposing this Bill on the ground that the Government are carrying out their pledge in this respect; but we are opposing for other reasons which, in as few words as possible, I will endeavour to explain to the House.
    The first thing I would like to mention is that one of the greatest objections which we have to this Bill is the period for which it is to run. This Bill comes to an end on the 31st March next. It does not in the least matter to us whether the 1s. 2d. is paid up to the end of March or not. That is too trivial to talk about. It leaves us cold. We are uninterested in it entirely, and if that is all that is meant by this part of the Sankey Award, as far as we are concerned, we have no interest in it. But we do not understand the Sankey Award to mean that, and I do not think, in view of what the Leader of the House said, that the award was to be accepted in spirit as well as in letter, that it is possible to read that interpretation into it. The Government take the opposite view. I am not going to find fault with them on that score, but we do say that if it is to be given this limitation we have no further interest in it. But we have other reasons for our attitude than the one that the 1s. 2d. is to come to an end then. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) was very anxious to get an assurance from the Government that while the pledge is being carried out nothing more than the pledge shall be attempted in this legislation—that the Bill shall be limited to the pledge and nothing more. As far as we are concerned we are not very much troubled about the Bill not going beyond the pledge but we are anxious that the pledge should be redeemed. There is something more in the Sankey Award than the 1s. 2d., and I would like to read this paragraph:
    "We recommend the continuance of the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, subject to certain suggestions indicated in our Report."

    1709
    Do the President of the Board of Trade or the Leader of the House contend that that recommendation is carried out in this Bill? With that recommendation, that agreement goes on for six months after the War, but under this Bill, so far from continuing it it repeals it as from last April. That is one of the chief objections we have to this Bill. It is a vital objection. It is vital because we know that, once this Bill becomes an Act, when we reach the 31st of next March we shall have got into a state of chaos in this country which will be worse than anything ever experienced in the mining industry during the lifetime of any of us. It is for that that we are opposed to this Bill, and unless we can get some of these provisions changed, we shall certainly vote against the Bill.
    7.0 P.M.
    During the War, we have had an entirely changed method of dealing with the wages system as compared with pre-war practice. Before the War every coalfield built up its own wage system on what might be termed the economics of the district. If you have got a district where an inferior quality coal is being worked at a high cost, experience has taught us that the wage for that district could not be nearly as high as that in some of the more profitable coalfields. And so we had a district system of wages built up. But during the War we have gone into federation. The coalfields of Britain have gone together, and have received a flat-rate advance. We have had 5s. a day, in the form of 3s. war wage and 2s. Sankey award. By this Bill control ceases, or at any rate the agreement which makes control effective comes to an end, on the 31st March. That places the colliery-owners of this country in the position of going back to where they were before the War. The colliery-owners in some of the coalfields of this country will be obliged to do one of two things under this system: they must either raise the price of coal or close their collieries. The President of the Board of Trade recently reduced the price of coal for inland domestic consumption by 10s. a ton, simply because he was able to use the surplus that came from the export districts in order to make up the deficit. But if we are going to abolish the Coal Control Agreement, and the export districts are to run the show on their own, and the home consumption concerns are to be worked on their own, what is going to happen? A very substantial increase in
    1710
    the price of coal is bound to take place in some of the home-consumption colliery districts, and we say that that means a very disastrous state of things as far as this country is concerned. But we know also that if you once abolish the policy of control, and get back to the old times, you will have in one part of Scotland an application from the owners for a reduction in wages, and from another part of Scotland an application—quite justifiable—for a very substantial advance in wages on prices alone. We can go down to South Wales to-morrow, on the selling price of export coal to-day, and demand a very substantial advance in wages. Before the War our wages have always been regulated according to the selling price of coal. To-day we see those miners who work in an exporting district exploiting the conditions that arise out of the War. Let us have a sort of general average, and let all the miners engaged in the industry have a little bit, instead of some having all and others none. We have gone on that basis for two or three years. If you attempt to revert on the 31st March, you will have applications for reductions in wages in some parts of the country, and you will have applications for advances in others. Of course, I do not believe at the moment that the Government intend to leave the mining industry where this Bill places it. The industry is in an impossible position under this Bill, but we want to know what is to follow. The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be certain Regulations after the 31st March. After the 31st of March is too late; whatever is done wants to be done before this Act terminates, otherwise we shall be in a very serious situation.
    This matter was discussed this morning at the Miners' National Executive, and the feeling was that the Government had submitted to the pressure that has been exerted upon them, by the representatives of industry in this House, to abolish control, to get back to the old days of private ownership without any limitation of profits, and to put us back where we were before the War. I certainly think this Bill does that, in the absence of anything else, and we have nothing else before us. The executive certainly was bound to come to a decision as to this Bill with this Bill only before them. I think this House may take it—I do not say it as any sort of threat, and I hope it will not be taken in that spirit—that the conditions that will

    1711
    develop after the 31st March will be of such a character that the Miners' National Executive, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, will find it absolutely impossible to avoid chaos and a terrific eruption in the mining industry of this country, as the result of what will come into operation after this Bill comes to an end. That being the case, we say it is infinitely better that we should have a continuance of the Coal Control Agreement until such time as the Government have made up their minds as to some sort of policy, and let us know what their policy is to be. We, of course, stand for nationalisation, and do not hide it at all. We are prepared to do all that we possibly can to induce the nation and the Government to accept it. If they do not, then we shall get something, but in any case we shall get nowhere from this Bill.
    With reference to Clauses 9 and 10 of this Bill, if hon. Members will read those Clauses they will find that they aim at continuing the fatal policy that has been pursued by the Board of Trade up to now—the policy of maintaining silence and secrecy, of hiding the facts of the industry, and not letting anybody know what is going on in the industry. Not only shall we not have the facts published, but we shall not even be allowed to go and talk about them or to see them until we have sworn a declaration of secrecy. That is the sort of idea that has dominated the Government's mind. I do not care what their future policy is to be; if they bring that kind of idea into it it will fail, whatever it is. May I just read what the Commissioners say about this in their second Report, after they have made a very exhaustive investigation of the whole situation? We have had four Reports, and it is remarkable what unanimity exists on this particular question. As far as this one point is concerned, there is no division of opinion among all the Commissioners. Mr. Justice Sankey says:
    "The following statistics ought to be made public: The quarterly financial return from each district; the output from each district; the numbers of persons employed above and below ground; the cost per ton of getting and distributing coal, showing the proportions due to wages, material, management, interest and profit; the amount of coal produced per man per shift; and the amount of absenteeism."
    That is to say, the facts of the industry ought to be made public, and our representatives were in substantial agreement with the chairman as to that. Then we
    1712
    had another Report, signed by three colliery-owners and two other captains of industry, and they say this, in dealing with the scheme that was submitted by the Coal-owners' Association:
    "The authors of the scheme contend that want of knowledge with respect to prices, costs, and profits, and the absence of machinery conferring upon the workers opportunities for obtaining information and influencing the conditions under which they work, have been to a great extent the cause of the existing discontent."
    The coal-owners themselves say:
    "Machinery ought to be set up. This information ought to be made available,"
    and yet we get in this Bill, "Keep it dark."
    Then there is one other Report, and that appears to be the Report upon which the Government say they are going to build their policy. Let us see what that gentleman said about it—
    "It is essential that there should be complete publicity as to the operations and financial results of the coal industry. The Ministry of Mines should be expressly charged with the duty of publishing, not less than once a year, figures showing the cost of getting coal in each of the districts of the country, and the proportions chargeable to material, wages, general expenses, interest, profits, and other general items."
    In other words, let the mine-owners, the miners and the general public know the facts relating to the mining industry. I want to say, as a Labour leader, and as one who has had a considerable experience of dealing with wage disputes, that I have on scores of occasions, told the general managers with whom I have done business, "You ought to let these facts be known to the workmen." If you only let the workmen know the facts you will get rid of much suspicion, and I am prepared to admit that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the minds of the workmen, and also in the public mind, both as to the profits of the owners, the wages of the miners, the cost of production, and everything else. You sometimes hear it said, "There you are, the collieries get half-a-crown a ton, and we pay £2 10s. What is happening to the difference?" To a practical man the explanation is simple, but these facts are not made known as they ought to be, and this Bill says, "Oh, no, keep it dark." We have had enough trouble since last July on this score. Has anybody been able to get at the facts? Has anybody been able to ascertain what really are the facts of the mining industry? Nobody at

    1713
    all. And now we are told that it is to be come a closed box, and that nobody is to have any access to this information. We are anxious to see a settlement of the mining industry on terms that will enable us to get a very much larger output of coal, so that a filiip may be given to the industries of this country, and yet here is the Government coming on with another policy that is bound to lead to disaster. We are not being asked what we think about it, nor are the coal-owners; we are getting it dumped on us. We want to give a warning to the House and to the country. If this Bill passes, and the state of things materialises which it aims at setting up after the 31st March, an impossible position will have been created in this country such as none of us can control, and such as may have very fatal consequences.
    Sir E. CARSON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    I have not risen to discuss the main features of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, nor, indeed, am I competent to do so, but I should like to know where the House stands at the present moment. I am one of those who approached the consideration of this Bill, when it, was printed, not from the point of view of the coal-owner, nor from the point of view of the employé, but from the general point of view of the community at large; and I am bound to say, frankly, that I thought it one of the most mischievous Bills that I had read for a long time. In the first place, I do not believe in this attempt to guard against Bills being precedents by statements in the Preamble or statements in this House. Every Bill creates a series of circumstances and results over which you have no control. It is the circumstances and the results, and not the statements in this House which will regulate whether a Bill is a precedent in the future or not. I also dislike it for this reason. I believe any such Bill as this inevitably leads to nationalisation. You cannot create these dual interests and these controls without it being said fit the end: "This is a vicious system, and we must get rid of it, and the only way to do that is to buy out the owners and nationalise the industry."
    On the other hand, when I read the memorandum attached to the Bill I found that the Government had given a pledge. Of course it is a truism that the pledge does not bind the House, but for the
    1714
    Government to break the pledge, under the circumstances in which we are met above all things, is a matter to make one pause before you try to force them to break a pledge, and I should like hon. Members to consider what it would be if you had an agitation, which is at any time ready to break out, and one of the excuses was that the Government had made a pledge in a different atmosphere from what we have now, and had then gone back on it. I do not think even my objections to the Bill would have been strong enough in my own mind to enable me to vote against it and thus try to make the Government break their pledge. But as I look at the situation now I think that is entirely changed. Hon. Members opposite, whom I may call the other party to the arrangement, say this carries out no pledge as I understand it. The hon. Member (Mr. Hartshorn) has said the passing of this Bill will be disastrous. I should like to know under these circumstances where we stand. What is the good of our going on discussing this matter unless we know now what the effect of the different position is upon the intentions of the Government. What is the good of our arguing this, that, and the other about the Bill when we do not know whether the Government are affected by the fact that their attempt to fulfil what they believe to be a pledge has now been repudiated? I do not think you can carry on business under these circumstances, and I think at the earliest moment the House requires now the clearest guidance from the Government of how they view the situation and the clearest intimation how they view the fact of the fulfilment of their pledge being now repudiated by hon. Members opposite. In order that we may have an opportunity of hearing such an answer from the Government, though I should be prepared to withdraw it if one of the Government gets up, I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am, like my right hon. Friend and others, in a difficulty, and if it were not for the near approach of the end of the Session I should have no hesitation whatever in moving that the Debate be adjourned till we see where we are, because what the hon. Member (Mr. Hartshorn) has said entirely alters the situation. He is a member of the Miners' Federation. It was to that Federation that we gave the pledge, and the fact that it cannot be broken by a decision of the Labour party

    1715
    is obvious for this reason, that it is not merely a pledge to the Miners' Federation. The miners took a ballot as to whether or not they would accept our proposal. The ballot decided that they would accept it, and, obviously, no decision of the Labour party, as a Labour party, can free us from the pledge we gave under those circumstances. But now that the hon. Member (Mr. Hartshorn) has said he prefers the continuation of the agreement—it is quite obvious that he is speaking for the Miners' Federation. I can take that as being the view of those to whom I gave the pledge?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Certainly.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That really puts the matter in an entirely different position. The difficulty in which I stand is this: It is not my fault, nor I think anyone's fault. I think we are free to reconsider the position from the point of view of the pledge. I hope the representatives of the Miners' Federation will agree with me there. But all the finance of the year since 20th March has been based on this method of dealing with it. The result would be that if we went back to the Coal Mines Agreement we should get into a financial position which may mean an enormous loss to the Treasury. This whole question of control is not liked by anyone, and it got into such a position that the coal-masters are not allowed to sell their coal at a fixed price. Control is not confined to that. If one coal-master wants to sell coal at 60s. for export and his colliery is in such a situation that the Coal Controller says it is a waste of energy and of transport facilities to send it for export, and he must sell it inland at a price perhaps something like half what he could get by selling it for export, see what follows. Under the Coal Mines Agreement Act the individual coal-owner gets whatever profit he can make on the price at which he is permitted to sell, less the percentage which he gives for the Excess Profits Tax. Take, for instance, big colliery owners in Scotland or the North of England. They can sell and have been selling the whole of their output at these absolutely monopoly prices. They get into their own pockets all the advantage of this monopoly price, less what is taken from them by the Excess Profits Duty, which is now reduced to 40 per cent. On the other hand, the coal-masters in the inland areas, who have to sell to a particular market at
    1716
    fixed prices, are in many cases selling below what it absolutely costs them to produce the coal. See what that means. By the arrangement on which this has been financed it is all put into a pool. The coal-master who sells at the export prices does not get an advantage through the luck of his being allowed to choose that market, but it all goes into the pool, and all the coal-masters who are under dictation, and are not allowed to sell freely, are put on the same footing and get the same share of the profits. If you go back to the Coal Mines Agreement, this at once follows. The coal-owners who are making these enormous profits, which neither the Government nor the House nor the-country would have allowed them to make with these monopoly prices, will be-allowed to keep these profits, and the Treasury will be called upon to make good the losses which are incurred by the inland collieries.
    Sir C. CORY: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Under the Coal Control Agreement they only got, before the Finance Act, 5 per cent. of the excess profits. Now, under the new arrangement with regard to excess profits, they only get 15 per cent.—that is, 10 per cent. more—and not the whole.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I never said they did get the whole. If you take a price twice that at which coal is selling inland, and allow the coal-owner who gets that price to have his pre-war standard, and, in addition, take 15 per cent, of the excess, he is obviously getting, at these absurd monopoly prices, in spite of that limitation, enormous profits.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that they shall have that after 31st March?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; certainly not. I am in this difficulty. I should at once adjourn the Debate if we had longer time, but the finance of the year must be allowed to be arranged. If we put this off till the House met again it would be very difficult to do it, and I am afraid in the interval the Treasury would be called upon to meet the losses incurred by these inland collieries. It is very difficult to agree to an Adjournment in these circumstances.
    Captain S. WILSON: You cannot pass the Bill this Session.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Once the Second Reading is passed everyone, mine-owners and men, will regard the principle as absolutely settled, and we shall get the money in from the Treasury. That is the position. I should be very glad if I had the opportunity to argue this on its merits, but I cannot do that. I must deal only with the Adjournment. In view of the change in the situation, which is created by the fact that the representatives of those to whom we gave the pledge say that they would prefer the Coal Mines Agreement, I do not think I could ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill now. What I wish to do, and I hope the House will assist us in this, is to have the exact financial effect of the change examined. Let us see exactly what going back to the agreement would mean from the point of view of fairness to the coal-owners and fairness to the Treasury. I hope it may be possible to do that between now and tomorrow. I am afraid that we cannot go back to the Coal Mines Agreement, and that we must have some other method of meeting the situation. What I am going to do now is to accept the Motion for Adjournment on this understanding, which I am sure the House will give, that if we find it necessary to ask for a Second Reading of this Bill to come on at a later stage, they will take into account the hours we have spent on it and try to reduce the discussion in consequence.
    Mr. BRACE: I feel very much like sympathising with my right hon. Friend. He seems to have got himself and the Government into a rather awkward situation.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends who have got us into this difficulty.
    Mr. BRACE: I wish I could take it to ourselves, as mere modest politicians, that we were able to get the Government into an awkward situation. We have not, I assure him. It will be a mistake for the Government to take the view that we are opposing this Bill because we are not in favour of the limitation of profits. We are most strongly in favour of the limitation of profits. I hope the House will pay us the compliment that we have some regard for the welfare of our country, and when we came to examine this Bill to-day we found a satiation created that really staggered us. Under Clause 13 the old order passes, and if this Bill
    1718
    was allowed to become law we should on 31st March, 1920, be faced with a condition of chaos, a condition of things in the, mining industry reaching a revolutionary atmosphere. Let that not be forgotten. That is the position. This Bill wipes away all the conditions of employment which exist now. What is the Government going to put in place of the present control? We shall have no system for regulating wages, no system for regulating profits, no system for managing the industries. The result would be that on 31st March, if we allowed this Bill to pass into law, we should have no system under which our workmen's wages would be regulated, and we should be faced with a general strike in the mining community. That is why we are opposing the Bill, not because we object to the limitation of profits. We say to the Government, "You ought not to live from hand to mouth in matters of this kind. You ought not to be operating your Parliamentary policy upon the principle or from the standard of expediency." The Government ought to have a clean-cut programme and proposal for dealing with the situation. If they want to abolish the control, if they want to abolish the old order, then they ought to come to the House with their new order. Under this Bill, automatically, the present arrangement comes to an end on 31st March, 1920, and there is nothing to take its place.
    The War did much more than destroy Kings and Emperors. The War has created an absolutely new school of economic thought amongst the workmen of this country. They will not stand by, and see the old condition of things being continued, and they must be given to understand quite clearly where they stand and where the Government stands. If the Government comes down to the House with a Bill of this kind, they must also come down with a scheme to take the place of the present economic order which is in operation in the mining industry. If my right hon. Friend is going to take the Adjournment with a view to preparing the scheme which is to take the place of the existing order on 31st March, we agree to the Adjournment, and if he will come down and say, "At last, not because we like it, but because of the pressure of economic circumstances, we have been driven to adopt nationalisation," we shall think that the Adjournment will have been of great national value. In any ease, I must make it quite clear to my right hon Friend that whenever he comes

    1719
    down with this Bill, whether it is to-night, to-morrow, next week, or next Session, unless it is accompanied with a clean-cut, understandable scheme under with the mines of this country are to be conducted, we shall oppose this Bill upon these grounds. We dare not allow this Bill to become law. We dare not allow such a condition of things as I have described to be created, affecting the great mining community, with more than 1,000,000 resolute fighting men, and the conditions under which they work. These are the reasons why the Miners' Federation came to the -resolution they did. They say:
    "The reason why we cannot accept this Bill is not because we are against limitation of profits by law, but because this Bill contains no provision for working the coal mines of the United Kingdom or regulating workmen's wages or limiting coal-owners profits after March. 1920."
    That is why we are opposing the Bill, and I should mislead my right hon. Friend if I allowed him to take the Adjournment under the impression that if he comes down to-morrow or next week with this Bill that we shall not oppose it. We shall relentlessly protest, under the opportunity which this Bill gives us, against allowing the old order to pass without the Government coming down with a clean-cut programme which will establish the new order in such a way that everybody will understand it. In saying this, I speak not only for the Miners' Federation but I speak for the Labour party, and I appeal to the Government to let us have some kind of understandable, clean-cut programme for the management of this great industry, which has reached a state of chaos and confusion that it is a danger to the State and it is becoming more dangerous day by day. It is no use simply to talk about this Bill as the redemption of a pledge. We ask the Government to redeem their pledge upon nationalisation. That is the- only redemption of a pledge that will meet the situation, in the opinion of the Labour party and of the Miners' Federation.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman not put this matter to the issue now? It seems to be perfectly clear from what the last speaker has said on behalf of the Labour party that they are ready to wreck this Bill now and at any other time. The essence of the economic and industrial situation at the present time is that we should have a clean-cut pro-
    1720
    gramme, and if the programme embodied in this Bill is the best that the Government have to offer, the sooner the issue is settled the better. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to press on with the Bill or scrap it, and not to postpone it. It is in the interest of getting something done that I appeal to the Government to stand by this Bill.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would like to appeal to the House, now that we have agreed to the Adjournment, not to take tip further time by discussion. I want to point out to the hon. Member who spoke last that it is not so simple a matter as he seems to think. This Bill was really introduced purely as an interim measure. It is nothing else. It was brought in entirely in accordance with the pledge we have given. There is no object in pressing on with this Bill in this form unless it satisfies those to whom we gave the pledge on the one hand, or unless it, is necessary on account of our having worked so long on this system to do this for the sake of our financial arrangements. I should be very sorry to do that. It is not a case of having pressure put upon us by the industrial side, as was said by one hon. Gentleman. I do not think anyone, including hon. Gentlemen opposite, likes limitation of profits or limitation of the share which the owner gets which assumes a form which takes away all incentive. I cannot imagine anyone liking that, and we only agreed to it because it was to meet, an emergency. It is impossible that we could take an issue upon that as our policy. We had to get rid of our undertaking in regard to the Interim Report of the Sankey Committee before we could attempt to bring before the House a further policy for dealing with this industry. We have to do that in one way or another. I hope it may become possible, perhaps by some agreement with the coal-owners, since the Miners' Federation take no interest in the matter, to arrange the finance without going on with this Bill
    Mr. HARTSHORN: We do take an interest.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know they take an interest in the coal-owners not getting profiteering profits, but since they do not take any interest in the method I hope it may be possible by agreement to get our financial arrangements made without proceeding with this Bill. It would not be right for the House to go away with the impression that this Government or any

    1721
    conceivable Government, if the state of things in the coal market continues as it is to-day, is going to allow control to disappear on the 31st March. That is absolutely unthinkable.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: It does under the Bill.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It does, unless another Bill conies. It is no use having any disputes about that. What the House wants to know is the attitude of the Government on this point, and I say that that in the view of the Government is an unthinkable proposition. The price of coal to-day is a monopoly price, which is due directly to the War. If it was left to the free play of the market I do not think there is any doubt, in view of the fact that we must, if we have any money at all, buy coal, that the price of inland coal would rise to a figure which would make the whole nation rise in indignation. That is a matter with which we have got to deal apart from other considerations. It is easy to say, "Why have you not got some cut-and-dried scheme?" but that is not so easy. Here are conditions which are changing from week to week. We are blamed for the fact that we put on 6s. in one week and took off 10s.—though a different kind of 10s.—another week. My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil), however wicked he thinks we are, does not think that the head of the government is stupid in electioneering, and if the object of taking off the 10s. was electioneering, he would scarcely have done what he actually did—that is, after discussing for two or three days, coming to a decision after four by-elections had taken place. So I think that we may dismiss that. The whole of the difficulty is this: It is not the want of clearness of my right hon. Friend. He was told by his accounting authority that the 6s. was necessary in order to get a balance between profit and loss. He may have been right or wrong, but we offered the hon. Gentlemen opposite the appointment of a Committee. The Committee could have reported whether it was right or wrong. Then, owing largely to the American strike, the price of export coal rose to a figure that no one could have foreseen. You have got to deal with changing situations, and I can only say that not merely my right hon. Friend but the Government realise that we must try to get some stability in this matter, and I, for one, am thankful, and I think it was necessary, that there should be an interval
    1722
    at the end of the Session which will give us all some kind of chance to have time to think about these things and to have some proposals to give to the House of. Commons when we reassemble.
    Sir C. CORY: I claim the indulgence of the House to correct what I think was an unintentional misleading of the House by the right hon. Gentleman as to the export profits of coal. The coal-exporting collieries do not get anything more than the pre-war standards.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he is very firm about allowing these firms' profits to go into the coal-owners pockets, and he says that, since we do not take any interest in it, he will probably be able to make arrangements with the coal-owners themselves. Our case is that you can get all that under the Sankey award if you will apply the Sankey award. All that it requires to be done is this. Mr. Justice Sankey says
    "we recommend the continuance of the Coal Mines Agreement Confirmation Act, 1918, subject to certain alterations indicated in our Report."
    The 1s. 2d. is one of the modifications, which he proposes in that agreement. We-say: Continue the agreement with that modification until you have got your coal policy determined upon. There is no reason why that should not be carried into, effect, and it is only because you are not carrying out the recommendations of the Sankey award and are discontinuing the agreement, against the recommendations, that we are opposing this Bill. If you are prepared to adopt the Sankey recommendations, you are out of your trouble and we will cease to oppose this Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION) AMENDMENT BILL.—
  [Progress, 9th December.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION) AMENDMENT BILL.—

    CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Additional Weekly Sum Payable under 7 and 8 Geo.5. c. 42.)
    As from the commencement of this Act the additional weekly sum payable under the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917 (in this Act referred to as "the War Addition Act"), shall, in the case of a workman who at the time when any payment falls due under that Act is of the age of twenty-one-

    1723
    years or upwards, instead of being a sum equal to one-quarter of the amount of the weekly payment, be a sum equal to three-quarters of the amount of the weekly payment.
    Amendment proposed [9th December]:Leave out the words
    "in the case of a workman who at the time when any payment falls due under that Act is of the age of twenty-one years or upwards."
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."—[Mr. Adamson.]
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): The Debate on this Amendment was adjourned when it became apparent that there was a misunderstanding in regard to the extent of the arrangement which the Home Office believed to be reasonable between the Miners' Federation on the one hand and the Mining Association on the other, and in accordance with the arrangement we made that evening the parties have been to the Home Office, and it became apparent that there was a misunderstanding. To make a long story short, the Government have decided to advise the House to accept this Amendment. We have done so because it would be unwise to prolong the period of uncertainty which prevails until such a measure as this is passed. Therefore it becomes most important to get this measure on the Statute Book. I have seen a certain number of the people concerned, though not all. But I have seen the representatives of the Accident Offices Association, and it is largely because of the patriotic attitude which they have adopted that it becomes possible without further reopening the question with those whom we negotiated before to accept this Amendment. The Accident Offices Association have informed us that they can accept the increased liability caused by the removal of the twenty-one years' limit without any additional premium. As I informed the House on a previous occasion, they have also undertaken to meet the increased charges that will at once become payable when this Act passes, so far as the men at present receiving compensation are concerned, and they are doing so without any increased charge. I think that that is an important consideration, and having regard to the necessity of getting this measure through, I trust that the Committee will support the Government in accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has seen his way to
    1724
    accept this Amendment. It brought us face to face with a rather serious difficulty in connection with this addition to the Workmen's Compensation Act. However, the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made relieves the situation to a very large extent, and we are very much indebted indeed to him for it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "three-quarters" and insert instead thereof the word "twice."
    The object of this Amendment is to make an effort to deal with the necessities of those who are in receipt of this workmen's compensation in view of the increased cost of living. The Bill provides for increasing by 75 per cent. over the pre-war rate the compensation payable. As is well known, the cost of living has increased by over 100 per cent. At the moment it is standing at 122 per cent. over the pre-war rate.. It will be very difficult for those in receipt of workmen's compensation, which has only been increased to the extent of 75 per cent., with the increased cost of living standing at at least 115 per cent. I move this Amendment in the hope that we may get similar consideration as in the last case from the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State himself.
    8.0 P.M.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. The whole question, as he knows, has been one of considerable discussion and discussion of various interests concerned. Of course, one of the chief interests concerned is that of those responsible for paying this money. As my hon. Friend has said, the insurance companies, who are the persons who will actually make the payments, have behaved in a very broad-minded way. They have accepted certain premiums in order to meet changed provisions. Now we have accepted the position that the twenty-one years' limit shall not be imposed, and that, of course, increases the liability which the insurance companies are bound to undertake for the same premiums. We are now asked to put in words which would increase very largely the liability of the insurance companies. It would increase very largely the number of cases in which the man would get just as much if ill as he would if working.

    1725
    There would be no incentive to get well and no incentive to return to work again. I am quite sure hon. Members opposite will appreciate what I say when I state that, having discussed these matters with the insurance companies who are liable, we could not possibly accept an Amendment which would add very substantially to their liabilities. If this were carried it would be very difficult to know what our position would be, having regard to the fact that we have made these terms with the insurance companies.
    Mr. SPENCER: I am very sorry that the Home Secretary cannot accept this Amendment. It is a very modest request and one which undoubtedly is overdue. Before the War began the maximum sums payable for compensation were totally inadequate, and that inadequacy has been very much emphasised during the War owing to the increased cost of living. The condition of many working men whose recovery from an accident has been protracted has been very pitiful; in many cases they have had to pawn furniture and other things in order to keep the home going. The Amendment would have extended compensation only to £2, instead of 35s. It would have been a slight advance for the sufferer. I think the Home Secretary made one slip when he said that if this was accepted the effect would be that some men would actually get as much by staying at home as they would get when at work. The Home Secretary is a lawyer, and I give way to him on points of law. But if I understand the Act aright, the only thing a man would be entitled to would be £2 if that sum represented half his wages. That being the case, the criticism of the Home Secretary is not well founded. There is another serious aspect of the question. Owing to the fact that the compensation paid to these workmen has been so very limited there has been a demand made upon the Poor Law of this country to assist them in their destitution. It is very undesirable that the Poor Law should have to come to the relief of the employer in keeping a man when he has met with a very serious accident, and at a time when he certainly needs more rather than less assistance. The most deplorable aspect of that side of the question is that the man immediately becomes a pauper and loses his rights as a citizen.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I regret very much that the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment. He is certainly under a misaprehension in stating that the workman, by receiving £2 a week compensation, will be receiving as much or nearly as much as he would receive if he were working. I am speaking about my own industry, the steel industry. The men in that industry work under sliding scales, and in some districts the pay is from 100 to 120 per cent. above the pre-war rate. If we take as illustration a man earning £3 per week in pre-war time, to-day, as the result of the sliding scale, he is picking up £6 per week. It is ridiculous to suggest that a, man so employed would remain home after an accident merely to pick up.£2 per week for being idle when he could pick up £6 a week for working. The statement of the Home Secretary on that point will not bear investigation. There is another point that the Home Secretary has not taken into consideration. We on the Labour benches have some experience of the men who suffer as the result of an accident. I have been at home for three months, and even for six months, at a stretch as a result of an accident, and I guarantee that it was far more, costly to keep me at home when I was ill than it was to keep me when I was working. This extra expense is inevitable when men are kept at home through no fault of their own. I know some insurance companies think that a man purposely seeks an accident in the works simply to pick up the compensation. In view of the appeal made from these benches, I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the matter and increase the compensation as the Amendment suggests.
    Major BAIRD: I do not think that hon. Gentlemen who support this Amendment quite appreciate how far it will carry them. It is, indeed, the fact that a man under the proposal advanced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) would get considerably more than his wages. I am not sure whether the Amendment clearly gives expression to the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Members will note the latter part of the Clause with their Amendment included, it would read as follows:
    "instead of being a sum equal to one-quarter of the amount of the weekly payment, be a sum equal to twice the amount of the weekly payment."
    The "weekly payment" is the technical expression used to represent the weekly

    1727
    payment made under the 1906 Act, which is 50 per cent. of the weekly wage up to a maximum of £1. If you make it twice the weekly payment, a man whose wage is £2 would be getting a weekly payment of £1, and twice the weekly payment would be £2. The man whose weekly wage is £2 would be drawing £3 as compensation. So I am informed. Hon. Gentlemen shake their heads, and that makes it clear to me that that is not their intention. None the less, I am advised that that would be the effect of what has been proposed in the Amendment.
    Mr. SPENCER: It may be bad drafting, but our intention is that where a man is now entitled to £1 maximum compensation, and his earnings are £2, he shall be entitled to £2 instead of the £1. If his earnings were £4 he would be entitled to £2.
    Major BAIRD: That would alter the whole basis of the compensation, I think. It would mean removing the present minimum of and giving a man 50 per cent. of his wages. I can only remind hon. Gentlemen of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We cannot at this time of day re-open this question to that extent. May I also remind hon. Members of the extreme urgency of this question, and that there is now sitting a Departmental Committee which is going most thoroughly into the whole matter. That Committee will report early next year, and the Government will then be in a position to bring in legislation to take the place of this measure, or if they so decide put forward this measure as part. It is recognised that the present position with regard to compensation is not satisfactory. At any rate, I beg hon. Members not to press the point now, but to accept the assurance that this is a temporary measure.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
    "and such sum shall also be payable to any person or persons who are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of a person upon whom he or they were dependent, whether or not such compensation has been or is paid in a lump sum."
    The worst-hit section of our people in connection with workmen's compensation payment are undoubtedly the widows and the dependants of the men who had had the misfortune to lose their lives.
    1728
    Neither in the amending Bill of 1917, nor in this Bill, is there any provision made for any increase on the maximum amount of compensation payable to the dependants of a workman who meets with death in an accident. They, like every other section, have to meet the increased cost of living, while they receive the same compensation as in 1914. That places them in great difficulty, as it means that the compensation is really worth less than half what it was worth in 1914. I think that is an aspect of this question which deserves serious and favourable consideration. I do not see any justification for this section of our people being left out, and I think it is a scandal that no attempt has been made, either in this Bill or the Act of 1917, to improve the conditions of the very worst paid section of our people. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way seriously to consider this Amendment.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: May I also express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman accept this Amendment in the interests of the widows and dependants of the men who, unfortunately, meet with death in their industry? I can quite understand there may be difficulties at the end of a Session in making so big a change. It is very much to be regretted if those difficulties do exist, and in that case I hope-the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance that this most important matter will be dealt with very early in the new Session, because it cannot be denied that there is very grave hardship suffered by these poor people.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed for very much the same reasons as I mentioned on the last Amendment. Whether it is within the scope of the Bill or not I am not quite sure. The amending Bill only dealt with incapacity, and not with death. But however that may be, may I remind hon. Members that there is, at this moment, sitting a Committee which is going into a number of these questions. This is purely a temporary measure, and, as soon as we have the Report of that Committee, steps will at once be taken to put the questions concerned on a more satisfactory measure. This is simply an Amendment of the Act of 1917, and provides for an additional payment to the weekly payment. It does not provide for the payment of the lump sum. Therefore this is introducing rather more than the Bill attempted to do. It

    1729
    would involve very extended liability, and it would be a liability which it would not be fair of me to accept, having regard to the arrangements I made. The whole question will be dealt with as soon as the Committee reports.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the deliberations of that Committee be suspended by the Prorogation? Is it a Committee of this Mouse?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is a Departmental Committee.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Then it will not be interfered with.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
    "and such sum shall also be payable to any workman who is at any time during the period for which the War Addition Act continues in force entitled during partial incapacity to a weekly payment by way of compensation."
    This deals with a section of persons who, in consequence of injury, are entitled to compensation, but who have so far recovered as to be able to do light work, and are only entitled to receive partial compensation. There is no provision hero to increase that; and in consequence those people are very badly hit owing to the increased cost of living. That is an unfair position, and I think it is incumbent on the Government to remedy it at the earliest possible moment. I hope we may be met in a more generous spirit with respect to this Amendment than we have been with regard to the two previous Amendments.
    Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid this is an entire departure from the Act of 1917, which dealt only with total incapacity, while this Bill is simply for the purpose of altering the figure which was put in by the Act of 1917. On that basis we have conducted all our negotiations and arrived at all our calculations, and on which the insurance companies arrived at their calculations. It would make the matter extremely difficult if you were to bring in the whole of the partially-insured people as well as those suffering total incapacity, and the additions would be simply enormous. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I am sure we all want to get this Bill, which does bring relief to some people. The time is very short, and if I
    1730
    had to reopen negotiations it would simply mean losing the Bill this Session.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 (Extension of Right to Additional Sum to Persons Entitled to Compensation tinder the Workmen's Compensation Acts 1897 and 1900) and 3 (Commencement and Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported.
    As amended, considered.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Additional Weekly Sum Payable under 7 and 8 Geo. 5. c. 42.)
    As from the commencement of this Act the additional weekly sum payable under the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917 (in this Act referred to as "the War Addition Act"), shall, instead of being a sum equal to one-quarter of the amount of the weekly payment, be a sum equal to three-quarters of the amount of the weekly payment.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of September, 1919."
    On the Committee stage I moved a somewhat similar Amendment. My object in moving this Amendment, both in Committee and on Report, is that there may be some little recompense given to those in receipt of compensation for accidents for the very hard time they have been going through within the last two or three years. As I have pointed out in connection with other Amendments, the cost of living has been gradually rising until it has reached well over 100 per cent. The only addition to the compensation payable that has been made up to the present is an addition of 25 per cent. over the pre-war rate made in 1917. That section of our people who have been in receipt of workmen's compensation consequently have been meeting the increased cost of living with an increase of 25 per cent. on the compensation paid to them. This, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, has entailed great hardships upon them, and it would be some little recompense, it would in some little way help them to redeem the miserable position that many of them find themselves in to-day if we were to bring this increase into operation on the 1st September last instead of on the 1st January next year, as provided for in the Bill.
    This is a question, like the amount of compensation payable, that was under dis-

    1731
    cussion between the Executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and the representatives of the Mining Association of Great Britain, and they had come to an agreement on the 28th May last. For some reason or another the other employers of the country could not be got to fall into line with the employers in the mining industry, and instead of this Amending Bill coming in in June or July last, as it ought to have done, it has been delayed until now. Consequently, those in receipt of compensation have gone on suffering and meeting the increased cost of living with only a 25 per cent. advance on the compensation payable before the War. In these circumstances we think it would only be fair to have the compensation made payable from the 1st September. I understood that at a recent meeting between the representatives of the Home Office, the miners, and the Mining Association this matter was again discussed, and they tried to settle it on a somewhat similar basis to this. I do not know what consideration the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State may have given to the matter since that discussion took place, but I hope they can see their way to give us this Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I quite appreciate the hardships which have been suffered in consequence of the delay—the unavoidable delay, I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends opposite—in bringing in this Bill. At the same time, I would ask the House to recollect what the difficulties were with which we were faced. After all, since 1897 the intention has always been that as far as possible the cost of workmen's compensation should fall upon industry as a whole, and that intention has been carried out largely by means of insurance. You have, therefore, a state of things in which the individual employer insures, as part of a regular charge upon his industry, with certain insurance companies who accept the liability. The liability at the time of the insurance is known; they know exactly how much he insures, and he pays a premium in consequence. If you make this retrospective, instead of making it as from the date put into the Act itself, a date which can be foreseen and is foreseen and can be provided for and readjustments of premium made, what is the result? You have individual employers who are only insured under a certain rate of insurance for
    1732
    liabilities of a certain limited character, and you put upon them a liability to pay more than they have insured against. That is a great hardship, and instead of the system which has been adopted and carried out ever since the beginning of workmen's compensation, making the industry pay the compensation by means of the insurance companies, you put upon the individual employer a personal liability which he has never had an opportunity of meeting by insurance or in any other way.
    But there is another difficulty in addition. There have been since that date a very considerable number of cases which have been settled for a lump sum consideration upon the basis of the payments then made under the War Addition Act, 1917. If you are going to be fair, you would have to re-open every one of those cases, start the whole negotiations over again, and settle them on the basis of the new terms that are to come into existence. The difficulties of that, financially and administratively, would he very great indeed. I am afraid the Amendments have been on rather an ascending scale, and I hope the House will mat take this as a parrot cry if I say that this is a very important Amendment and a very far-reaching one. It imposes liabilities that people have never had an opportunity of meeting, and which, with all fairness, they ought to have had an opportunity of arranging by insurance. It would create difficulties which would make it extremely hard to carry out this Bill. It would require all kinds of new arrangements. Something would have to be done to meet the employers. It would not be fair for this House to put a retrospective liability upon individuals, unless the House were prepared also to come to their assistance, in some measure, at any rate, out of public funds. That we cannot do under this Bill, and therefore it comes to this. The House is asked to do something which is very unfair to individuals, unless some assistance is given, which cannot be done under this Bill, and, therefore, if you are to be fair to them, you must postpone your Bill. Having regard to all the difficulties, and the desire we all have to get a measure of relief for the many hundreds of people who are unable to live properly on the compensation, we have got to do what we can to meet their necessities, and I ask my right hon. Friend not to press this Amendment, but if it is pressed, I shall ask the House to vote against it.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I am very surprised to hear the statement to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman. When the Bill came before the Committee an evening or two ago Progress was reported in order that we might clear up some misunderstanding that had arisen, and we have held a meeting at the Home Office since then with representatives of the employers and representatives of the trade unions. I understood we had come to an arrangement—a very fair and definite arrangement so far as employers and eve were concerned, unquestionably—that this Bill should date back to the 1st September, that the twenty-one limit should go out, and we agreed to accept the flat-rate instead of the scale that had been suggested and previously agreed to.
    Major BAIRD: As to what occurred, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, there is no conflict. It is perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman and his friends representing the workmen, and representatives of the mine-owners did agree undoubtedly, but they did not represent the whole body of the industries concerned, and, for the reasons which my right hon. Friend has given to-night. I said it was quite impossible for me to pledge the Government to that course of action, but that I would represent to my right hon. Friend how strongly the hon. Gentleman and his Friends felt on the subject. But I made it perfectly clear that I could not give a pledge on the subject so far as the Government was concerned, and I feared it would be impossible to meet the views put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I am prepared to admit at once that the hon. Gentleman did not definitely pledge the Government, and that he stated that before he could he must make representations to the Home Secretary.
    Major BAIRD: And to the other sections concerned.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: And to the other employers. I think that is correct, but we understood that that was all to be done before the Bill came up for Report, because we discussed how it could be done, and that as it had been passed in Committee, it could only be brought up on Report. We have done this, as we understood, in accordance with the arrangement made. I know that Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis and Mr. Evan Williams, repre-
    1734
    senting the employers, said, "We will go down and see the representatives of the employers in the House. We cannot say they will support this, but we will say that they will not oppose it." And they came down to get this thing fixed up. I am very surprised, after the negotiations that took place, that there is any quibbling about this at all.
    Major BAIRD: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. There is no question of quibbling whatever. What we said we would do we did. We have consulted the other people, and have been unable to obtain their consent.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: What was the use of our going to the office at all? We got Mr. Smillie and you got the employers, and we had a joint conference for the purpose of coming to an arrangement. We had these points in dispute, and why were we discussing these points with these people if we could not come to terms? I can only state that Mr. Smillie reported to the Miners' National Executive that we agreed to accept the 75 per cent. flat rate, that you had agreed to delete the twenty-one years of age provision, and that you had agreed, or rather that the employers and we had come to an agreement, and we understood that, subject to the approval of this House, these arrangements were going into this Bill. After all, Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis and Mr. Evan Williams, as representing their association, have been in communication with employers in other industries. As a matter of fact, it was they, in the first instance, who supplied you with the views of other employers. The employers and ourselves agreed as a mining industry as far back as 28th May. The sub-committee that was appointed, so far as the owner side was concerned, said, "We will put it before our association, and you should have a definite reply by 20th June." On the 20th June they agreed, but they said, "Before we go to the Home Secretary, we want to consult the other employers," and in July they had consulted the other employers, and supplied you with the-information as to the views entertained by the other employers. When we were discussing that the other day, we were certainly under the impression that we were fixing up an arrangement which was subject only to the decision of the House. I do not know whether it is in order to report Progress here, but I should certainly move if it

    1735
    is in order. In any case, I would rather this Bill were deferred again than that we should have this misunderstanding.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I think my hon. Friend has given a clear résumé of what took place at the first meeting yesterday in connection with this Bill. We certainly understood at the later meeting that the whole of the employers had agreed—we heard so.
    Mr. SHORTT: That may be.
    Mr. WILSON: Had agreed that the Bill should be retrospective as from the 1st September. I want to put another point to the right hon. Gentleman. He made it appear that the employers did not insure at the higher rate when compensation was to be paid. I put it to him during the last five years the employers have been paying a great deal higher rate of premium than they paid for the individual men before the War. I mean that the employers insured their workmen on the wage basis and not on an individual basis. The wages now, and for practically three years at least, have been 90 per cent. and in some instances probably 110 per cent. and 120 per cent. higher than before the War. This means that the insurance companies have received a very largely increased premium for the insured individuals. Having, therefore, received that very much higher premium for the men employed, the companies are in a position now to pay compensation back as from 1st September last. To prove what I am saying, I am given to understand that the Mine-owners' Association came to an agreement some time ago with the insurance companies to reduce the amount of premium paid by one-third. We must not forget the men and boys employed in the mines meet with an extraordinarily large number of accidents. That being so, if in an industry where a large number of accidents occur, the insurance companies can afford to accept one-third less premium for insured persons than before the War, that in the case of other industries in the country, where they have been paying the full premium—I am told they are now—the insurance companies must be in a position to pay increased compensation as from 1st September. I do not think that the administrative difficulties are quite so bad as from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman they would appear to be. The Bill would
    1736
    certainly be received with much more appreciation if the Home Secretary dated it back to 1st September, and give some of these men—and women as well—increased compensation from that date. If the right hon. Gentleman is not himself prepared to make the change, I would suggest that he should leave it to the free judgment and vote of the House as to whether or not this Amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. SHORTT: The fact that the Mine-owners' Association agreed with the, Miners' Federation is not in the least binding upon the shipbuilders or engineers or any other of the employers.
    Mr. WILSON: I did not say so.
    Mr. SHORTT: No; but it has been so argued. The mere fact that the workmen and owners come together in one industry cannot possibly justify the Government in imposing a liability upon other industries. The amount paid, and the amount received in wages, is wholly irrelevant. It does not matter what are the premiums paid; the point is what, under the policy, are the insurance companies liable for? The companies are only liable for the-specified amount of the policy. If this, as suggested, he added, the insurance companies can say, "It is all very well to make that arrangement retrospective, but we will not pay it." We have gone into the matter most carefully, and there are administrative difficulties. Other employers, the engineers and so on, will not agree to this. This is a temporary Bill which has been subject to great negotiation.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: We have been waiting eight months for it!
    Mr. SHORTT: After all, if this Bill had been brought in to deal with the coal industry alone we should have had it in then summer—I quite agree. But other industries are concerned, and have to be consulted. Negotiations have to be entered into, and we cannot he held responsible for not being able to bring other industries into line with the coal industry so quickly as we should like.
    Mr. HARTSHORN: You were not trying.
    Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member does not know how much trouble we have taken. For him to make that remark, having regard to what we have done, is-not quite called for. He does not know a

    1737
    enth of the difficulties we have had to overcome with regard to this Bill. The Bill is based on negotiation. Where you have a Bill based on negotiation you are bound in honour not to do things which tell against the arrangement entered into. Where a Bill is based on negotiation you must keep faith with those with whom you have negotiated.
    Mr. SPENCER: The inability of the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment to the Bill has come as a very rude shock to us. We were labouring under the impression till to-day, in view of the representatives of the mining community meeting at the Home Office, that whilst the Government were not in a position to accept the provision antedating this Clause to July, they were in a position, on the joint understanding of the owners' and men's representatives, to accept 1st September of this year. Now we find the right hon. Gentleman giving, no doubt, proper reasons why the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment It seems a pity that the Government, being unable to get one section of the employers to agree, that another section of interested parties are to be deprived of the advantage of an arrangement. If the right hon. Gentleman and the employers in other industries could have seen their way to accept this very simple and moderate request I am quite certain it would have gone a very long way to reconciling us to the provisions of this Bill. It does not at all meet the situation, which is a very alarming one, as has already been stated. The right hon. Gentleman is not associated with the workmen and the sufferings of those who come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He does not know the enormous distress that has been caused throughout the community, and that section of the working classes that are so subject to accidents as are the mining community.
    If it had been possible to have accepted this Amendment it would have reconciled us to this measure. Now it is bound to create a great deal of dissatisfaction, and that dissatisfaction has been outlined in many of our mining meetings at which we have been told that we have been asleep. We have done our best in this matter, and, though it is imperfect, I say that if we could have gained our point about the elimination of the provisions in regard to those under twenty-one, and this Amend-
    1738
    ment, we should have been somewhat reconciled, and I believe it would have given a degree of satisfaction to these men who have been suffering for a long time. This Bill will not be satisfactory so far as the provision itself is concerned; but, what is worse, it will be unsatisfactory so far as negotiations are concerned. We are totally dissatisfied in respect of the negotiations, because we were led to understand that we were being led to a point along with the employers at which we were going to accept this Amendment. Therefore, we are dissatisfied both with the Bill and with the negotiations, and we feel very strongly upon this point—in fact, we should go almost as far as wrecking the Bill but for the sake of the poor people who are suffering. We fully recognise what the Home Secretary has said, that the improvement which will be made will be of inestimable value to those who are suffering, and we do not want to deprive them of that advantage. I hope even now that it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter reconsideration and make a change in the direction we have indicated, for that would give a degree of satisfaction of which the right hon. Gentleman is not aware. I hope he will listen to those who have made this plea and, if possible, reconsider this point.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. NEIL NIACLEAN: I join in the appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. So far as I can gather frosts the defence which has been made by the Home Secretary, while I admit his appreciation of the difficulties and the conditions of the people who have to suffer, the main reasons why he cannot accept the Amendment are the difficulties in regard to insurance paid by employers. So far as the Government of this country is concerned, when they are talking about the conditions and circumstances of those who have been injured they should not be placed in the background in order to serve the interests of the insurance companies. Everybody knows of the large profits made by insurance companies through the lapse of policies and other matters. The individuals who have suffered the accidents are now suffering badly, and they are only receiving a 25 per cent. increase upon their pre-war allowances. I think the Government might have been a little more active in trying to induce employers in other industries to come into line with the

    1739
    employers in the mining industry, and they should have tried to get the same agreement for those engaged in other industries. The mine-owners and workers agreed to the present terms in May of this year. I think the Government was to blame and is to blame for not setting up conferences of workers in other industries in order to arrive at the same agreement as that which has been reached by the miners and mine-owners. I do not think we can represent those who sent us here in a proper manner unless we divide the House on this matter. For these reasons I trust the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, and make this particular allowance retrospective from the 1st of September.
    Mr. WIGNALL: This Bill has been described as an allround and comprehensive measure, and those reading the Report may be led to think that it is simply a measure to meet the requirements of the miners. I endorse all that has been said by the previous speakers, and I am connected with all outside body of workers who have long been looking forward to this overdue measure to assist weak men who have been bearing the heaviest of burdens. I can assure the House that for many months all the employers that I have come in contact with have been looking forward to a measure that would give a larger amount of compensation than is being paid, because I think everybody is agreed that the time has gone by when this measure should have been introduced. The Home Secretary stated that he has had great difficulty in getting the various interests to agree to this measure, and I think I am right in saying that there is a very large section who have not agreed and who have not given their consent to this measure being introduced at all. Some of the larger associations may have done so, but there is a very large body of employers who would never give one single penny of an advance, it they were left to themselves, and consequently there is not that measure of agreement that one may be left to suppose exists.
    As regards this retrospective payment, I know that the insurance companies will object to it, and certainly the employers will object, because they will say they have not made provision for it. Nevertheless, I think they have been putting a bit aside for it, and they will be grateful if they
    1740
    are not called upon to pay it. Retrospective payments are objectionable, but how many times have we, in Courts of arbitration on wages questions, argued against a hostile body of employers for retrospective payment and they have protested and argued and declared emphatically that if the Court of arbitration made the payment retrospective it would ruin the industry, and some have said, "Even if you do award it we will never pay it." The Court has awarded it, and with very few exceptions they have paid it. If the Home Secretary and the Government can see their way clear to give this measure of fair play to the persons who can least afford to suffer to-day, it will be greatly appreciated. We in the Labour movement come face to face with these cases, end we see the poverty, suffering and hunger very often acute to the greatest possible measure in the home. We should not want compensation if we could prevent accidents happening, but, while they happen it is unfair to let the weakest men suffer because they have not the power of resistance. We are not asking for a gift; we are only asking that these people should be given that to which they would have been rightly entitled if this Bill had been brought in when it should have been brought in six months ago. We are now only asking you to split the difference, but there is no spirit of compromise in the Government. If we had claimed all that is due, we should have asked for the six months, but we have split the difference, and you will not accept our compromise, although the benefit would go to those in greatest need of it. After all, there is not a great multitude of cases to meet. I daresay that it would amount to thousands, but they are all cases that can be easily dealt with, because the records are kept. Of course, you will have grumbling. It is natural to insurance companies, but they always pay with a grunt. Give them an opportunity in this case to give some of that which is due to men who have been made to suffer not only pain, but hunger and poverty, which adds to their torment. I hope that the Government will see their way to meet us in this matter.
    Question put, "That the words 'commencement of this Act' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 52.

    Division No. 153.]

    AYES.

    [9.8 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Forrest, W.

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Armitage, Robert

    Faxcroft, Captain C.

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Astaury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Gangs, E. S.

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Atkey, A. R.

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, S.)

    Glyn, Major R

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barnett, Major Richard

    Grayson, Lieut.-Col, H. M.

    Pickering. Col. Emil W.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Pratt, John William

    Bennett, T. J.

    Guest, Capt. Hon, F. E. (Dorset, E.)

    Pulley, Charles Tharnton

    Bigland, Alfred

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leis., Loughboro')

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hacking, Colonel D. H.

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Blades, Sir George R.

    Hailwood, A.

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Blair, Major Reginald

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

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Berwick, Major G. O.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Rankin, Capt. James S.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)

    Raw, Lt.-Colonel Dr. N.

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Hennessy, Major G.

    Renwick, G.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Britton, G. B.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Hilder, Lt.-Colonel F.

    Robinson, T. Stretford, Lancs.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Rogers, Sir Hallowell

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Hinds, John

    Rowlands, James

    Campion, Colonel W. R.

    Hood, Joseph

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Carr, W. T.

    Hope. James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

    Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

    Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Cecil, Rt. Hen. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Hudson, R. M.

    Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hurd, P. A.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hurst, Major G. B.

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, S.)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Smithers, Sir Allred W.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Ashton)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

    Coots, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Johnson, L. S.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

    Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl.)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Ward, Dudley (Southampton)

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)

    Wardle, George J.

    Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Waring, Major Walter

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Dixon, Captain H.

    M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

    Whitla. Sir William

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Maddocks, Henry

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

    Matthews, David

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Elliott, Lt.-Col, Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Moles, Thomas

    Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Cot. J. T. C.

    Younger, Sir George

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Talbot and Mr. J, Parker

    Foreman, H.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)

    Simm, M. T

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hanna, G. B.

    Sitch, C. H.

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Hartshorn, V.

    Spencer, George A.

    Benn, Captain W. (Leith)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Widnes)

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Swan, J E. C.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Bromfield, W.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Wallace, J.

    Cairns, John

    Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, E.)

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)

    Cape, Tam

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Wignall, James

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Kidd, James

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Casey, T. W.

    Lawson, John

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc,)

    Lann, William

    Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Lynn, R. J.

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

    Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Robertson, J.

    Tyson Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.

    Ninth Resolution read a second time.

    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY— [10TH DECEMBER].
  Resolutions reported;
  SUPPLY— [10TH DECEMBER].

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,077,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, Royal Marines, Women's Royal Naval Service, and Mercantile Officers and Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £,25,816,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    2. That a sum, not exceeding £2,385,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £7,623,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    3. That a sum, not exceeding £150,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £479,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    4. That a stun, not exceeding £118,004, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £378,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    5. That a sum, not exceeding £99,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £318,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    6. That a sum, not exceeding £110,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £353,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    7. That a sum, not exceeding £109,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920,
    1744
    in addition to a sum of £350,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    8. That a sum, not exceeding £2,862,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to the sum of £9,146,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    9. That a sum, not exceeding £2,546,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to the sum of £8,139,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    10. That a sum, not exceeding £9,975,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £31,880,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    11. That a sum, not exceeding £3,763,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments and Aviation, which will coins in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £12,027,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    12. That a sum, not exceeding £1,336,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £4,331,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    13. That a sum, not exceeding £1,455,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, in addition to a sum of £4,601,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    14. That a sum, not exceeding £453,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £1,447,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    15. That a sum, not exceeding £308,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £988,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    1745

    16. That a sum, not exceeding £3,607,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £11,527,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

    17. That a sum, not exceeding £171,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £547,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Under this Vote His Majesty's ship "Repulse" is shown as being under repair at a cost of £739,000. This sum approximates to half the original cost of the vessel, and I think the House is entitled to some explanation with regard to this very heavy expenditure.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend has said with regard to His Majesty's ship "Repulse." It is most essential we should have some details of this. I see the greater part of this money, according to the Estimate, is to be spent on armour. Above the item for the "Repulse" appears the name of the "Renown," and an estimate is given there for armour for the same amount as for the "Repulse." It seems very extraordinary that these two ships, laid down in 1915, according to a design by Lord Fisher, of great speed and great gun power, are now to have these large sums spent on them for armour after being purposely built with light armour to carry out the ideas of that great master of strategy. I think it is extraordinary that these sums of £700,000 each should be spent in tinkering up each of these vessels, and I hope their Lordships will think twice before they carry on this rather extraordinary policy. In the Debate last night I was unable to obtain information, although I had given notice that I intended to ask for it—but, by a mistake, it was not forthcoming—with regard to the case of the cruiser "Antrim," an obsolescent armoured cruiser built in-1902 and quite useless for
    1746
    modern fleet work. She is having a sum of over £161,000 spent on her for the purpose of making her into a signal vessel. I think a more modern ship should have been utilised for the work, and the money spent on her, so that she could be used in war-time, which the "Antrim" will never be. Then there is the case of the ancient protected cruiser "High-flyer," which was laid down in 1897, has a speed of only seventeen knots, and is fitted with old-fashioned Scottish boilers. She is having a sum of £95,000 spent on her. Hon. Members seem rather surprised at these details, but they are responsible for the expenditure of this money. The Scottish boilers serve their purpose. They have been the most successful boilers in the world, but under modern conditions with oil-driven engines and turbines, they are like the ancient ark and have passed their sphere of utility for naval purposes. Finally, there is a sum of £850,000 for the purchase of vessels.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): That is on the next Vote.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question I have put.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will do so at once. I did know that the hon. and gallant Member desired to raise the case of the "Highflyer" in yesterdays Debate, and I had a note upon it, but in the endeavour to condense as much as I could a reply which had to cover a Debate lasting between seven and eight hours, I am afraid I condensed that note out of existence altogether. I apologise for having done so. The "Highflyer" was selected as the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief, East Indies, because the modern light cruisers designed and built for the late War were unsuitable for the purposes of a flagship, and the accommodation which the Commander-in-Chief at that station would require. The "Highflyer" had previously been used on that station, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, as the flagship, and had proved quite satisfactory. She was selected after very careful consideration indeed of all the facts of the case. As regards the figures on this Vote and elsewhere, I need not remind my hon. and gallant Friend that when he speaks of £95,000, which is the figure in the Estimates for the "Highflyer," you have to

    1747
    divide that at least by two and more than two, to get back to the figure we should have paid under the Estimates which were presented in 1913–14. That is owing to the increased cost of labour and material.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Had not a class of vessels been built especially to serve as flagships on foreign stations, with a much greater fighting power?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that, but the modern light cruiser is not suitable for the service. Having gone carefully into all the facts, the Board came to the conclusion that she was the vessel most suitable for the service. In order to arrive at a fair comparison between the figures now and those of 1913–14, you have to multiply the cost of alterations, repairs, and refits by more than two. As to the "Antrim," I explained yesterday that she was going to be fitted as a signal ship. She is being fitted as a signal and wireless telegraphy experimental seagoing ship. I have now given her precise function in full. She was completed in 1905. She is not expected to fight. She was specially selected for this particular purpose as being the most suitable vessel. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the only alterations contemplated are those necessary to fit her for her new duties, which obviously are considered very important. As to the "Repulse," she was laid down in 1915 and completed in 1916. The expenditure upon her is for the purpose of increasing her protection against gunfire and against torpedo attack. She was originally specially designed—no one knows this better than the hon. and gallant Member—for high speed. The experience of the War has shown the Naval Staff that in her case it is desirable to increase her protection against gunfire and torpedo attack, and for that purpose this sum of money is required. As to the "Renown," she was laid down in 1915 and completed in 1916. She is the sister ship to the "Repulse." The alterations carried out in the case of the "Repulse" have not been done in the case of the "Renown," but provision has been made in the Estimates for the taking in hand and progressing with her protective work. I do not think any other ship was mentioned.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Tenth Resolution read a second time.
    1748
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This Vote includes £835,000 for the purchase of vessels. In view of the great strength of the Navy when Peace came, it seems extraordinary that this sum should be expended on this purpose. Does it include the purchase of the minelayer "Princess Margaret," the ex-Canadian Pacific Railway liner? If so, it throws an extraordinary light on the policy pursued during the last eighteen months. She is an enormous ship. No one seeing her on the sea could mistake her. For that reason alone she is unsuitable as a minelayer. She has been on hire agreement during the whole of the War at very high cost; indeed I am told that she has been paid for twice over. Now this rather unsuitable ship has been purchased for something like £400,000. It shows an extraordinary extravagance, to put it mildly, to purchase this ship for this service, in view of her many defects and the high cost she is hound to incur. We are entitled to some explanation of this item of £835,000 for purchases.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The First Lord yesterday stated that this was for Fleet auxiliaries, and that is broadly true. The vessels which are here covered are two auxiliaries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me if the name of a particular ship was included. I cannot answer that offhand. Perhaps he will put a question on the Paper. There are two auxiliaries, both of which have been employed on their respective services during the War. Special service vessels are included in this amount, and a ship specially fitted for experimental work. The remainder represents some prize ships, the value of which is shown, in order to credit the Prize Fund with their value.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Eleventh Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I should like to know what is being done with the two airships R 34 and R 33, whose property they are, and to what use they are now being put.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume they have been transferred to the-Air Ministry.

    1749
    As to the remainder of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, I should recommend him to address an inquiry in that quarter.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we not finding the money for this, and are we not entitled to raise the point?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is some money in Vote 9 for construction purposes, there is some money in Vote 10 for land and sheds, and there is some money in Vote 12 for the staff at the Office, but all that referred to the earlier part of the year and was supplied for the Service. They have now been transferred. If I am asked, to what use the transferred property is now being put, I cannot answer the question.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Twelfth Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Commander Viscount CURZON: There is an item of £8,550 in. respect of Osborne College, and I should like some information as to what it means. There is another large item for Invergordon. I should like an assurance that the dockyard at Invergordon is nearly being wound up at the earliest possible moment. A good deal of money is still being spent on the new pier at Dalmore. I should like to know that it is really necessary for peace-time purposes as well as for wartime.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The expenditure at Osborne is immediately necessary in order to secure the comfort of the cadets and to make it satisfactory from the health point of view. That does not mean that the future policy at Osborne has been determined. The whole matter is under reconsideration. Whatever we do at Osborne in the future, we were bound immediately, on the best advice we could get, to spend the money. Invergordon is being closed up, We do not propose to retain this yard for peace-time purposes. I cannot say how the new pier stands. I imagine we are endeavouring to dispose of it for commercial purposes, but Invergordon as a naval base will be closed down.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Thirteenth Resolution agreed to.
    Fourteenth Resolution read a second time.
    1750
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth, agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: With regard to, the remuneration of the Board of Admiralty, I am not at all satisfied with their attitude on the question of the payment of the junior officers in the Service, lieutenants in particular. I think they are not paying sufficient attention to that having regard to the great increase which has been made in the corresponding ranks in the Army.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): This is a matter which should have been raised on Vote 1. On the Report stage of a Vote we are confined strictly to the matter contained in each Vote. There is no general discussion. On this Vote anything to do with tine staffing of the Admiralty is in order, but not the general pay of the Service.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I wish to draw the attention of the Admiralty most seriously to the very grave responsibility that lies upon them in connection with, seeing that our Air Service associated with the Navy is maintained efficiently, which it is not at present.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Those who have been on the Admiralty staff will welcome the small item in the, brochure to the effect that it is intended apparently to keep on the Training and Staff Duties Division of the Admiralty. This Department, the idea of which is borrowed from the War Office, will be, if it is properly run and organised and given a chance, of incalculable benefit to the efficiency of the whole Service. It will have the whole of the training which will be co-ordinated with the general staff work and it will be a part of the Staff, and it ought to be divorced entirely from the domain of the Second Sea Lord's activities with personnel apart from training. I beg my right hon. Friend to let me have an assurance that the matter is being carefully considered at the Admiralty. If the Staff is to be efficient in the future the appointments of Staff officers to particular Staff posts must be in the hands of the Training and Staff Duties Division, and if the appointment of Staff officers and officers training in staff duties is held and exercised by the Second Sea Lord, that division, from which we progressives in the Navy hope so much, the

    1751
    Training and Staff Duties Division, will be much hampered, and its usefulness will not be nearly so great as if it were run on Army lines. I do not want to press my right hon. Friend, but if he could give me an assurance that the training staff is a live power and that it has full power over the appointment of Staff officers, the Navy would be relieved.
    Viscount CURZON: I should like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in regard to the Naval Staff. In the Plan Division, which is one of the most important branches of the Naval Staff, there is at present one director, two assistant directors, and one staff clerk. Three officers and a clerk to constitute the brains of the Plan Division of the Admiralty, one of the most important divisions. I do earnestly press the right hon. Gentleman for a better statement than we have had up to now as to the policy of the Admiralty towards the Naval Staff. I should like to be certain that the thinking Department of the Admiralty is not being cut down too much under the influence of the very natural and laudable desire for economy. By all means economise, providing you economise in the right way, but you must have a thinking Department available which will afford you the opportunity, should it ever unfortunately become necessary again, to rapidly expand your naval organisation, to keep closely in touch with all the details relating to modern war. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance on the point that the Staff Division of the Admiralty is not being unduly cut down in response to pressure on the part of the economists.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Last night the First Lord, in introducing the Estimates, referred to the need for co-ordination between the various Services. I think we are entitled to a little more enlightenment as to what policy he intends to adopt before we pass this Estimate for the Naval Staff. I agree with both the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have just spoken that the planning section and the thinking department of the Admiralty must not be in any way restricted and cut down. We saw a very good example of staff work last night. After thirteen months of peace the First Lord comes to the House and says that he is unable to
    1752
    state a policy. During that time the allied staffs have been discussing in Paris the future of naval policy, and it seems to me a remarkable thing that after thirteen months deliberation they have not arrived at any decision. The point upon which I should like to be enlightened relates to the co-ordination of the three Services, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Is it intended to revive the Committee of Imperial Defence, without any constitutional powers, and with all the farce that existed before the War? It will be remembered what used to happen at the Committee of Imperial Defence. The heads of Departments attended the meetings of the Committee, and they were probably agreed on policy, but they went back to their respective Departments of the Admiralty and the War Office, and in their different capacities as members of the Admiralty Board or the War Office, they would reverse decisions which had been arrived at at the Committee of Imperial Defence. If a central body, whether it is the Committee of Imperial Defence or a Ministry of Defence is set up, it must have executive power, and must be under a Minister responsible for defence. We have seen failures resulting from this policy in numerous operations throughout the War. If we had had a staff capable of coordinating the three Services, a great many of the disasters and calamities which occurred during the War might have turned out to be most brilliant achievements, such as the Dardanelles operations, and operations in the North Sea.
    Mr. ACLAND: I wish to refer to the subject I raised last night and on which I received an announcement to-day from the Leader of the House, and that is the financial organisation of the Admiralty. It appeared from the answer the First Lord gave to me yesterday and the answer I got from the Leader of the House to-day that the matter has only just been taken up, although the Report of the Public Accounts Committee was rendered in July. I am sure that neither the Admiralty nor other public Departments wish to ignore the strong recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. I do not know of whom the Public Accounts Committee may consist next Session, but the setting up of a new Public Accounts Committee next Session is not many months off, and it would be a pity

    1753
    if it had to be reported to the Public Accounts Committee then that no progress had been made in investigating this very difficult and extremely important matter. If the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty would consult the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, he would realise that the matter is important. I can only ask for the assurance now that so far as my right hon. Friend at the Admiralty is concerned, he will do all he can after these five months' delay to see that the matter is very seriously gone into.
    Major GLYN: As regards the Department of the Director of Transport there is a foot note which says that the whole staff of this Department is loaned to the Ministry of Shipping. If that is the case, I understand that officers serving in the Ministry of Shipping are in receipt of hgher pay than they previously received in serving the Admiralty, and I should be glad to know whether when these officers return to the Admiralty they will be in receipt of their present rate of pay, or will come down to their previous rates of pay. All Army officers serving in the Dardanelles were very much aware that there is great need for a complete revision of the handbook on combined operations. They knew of the reluctance of fighting officers of the Navy to take on work dealing with the Mercantile Marine. Their training is absolutely different from anything which has to do with the Mercantile Marine. Now at the Ministry of Shipping there are officers who have been loaned from the Admiralty Transport branch who have great experience of war and when the time comes to transfer them, and these officers and the personnel of the staff go back to the Admiralty, if their experience of the War and the lessons taught by the War which cost, us so much life and wealth, are not taken into account, we shall have forfeited lessons which test us very dearly, especially in Gallipoli. Perhaps we might have a little information as to what is to be the future of the Transport Branch. I trust after what has been said as regards the importance of a joint General Staff that before any final decision is taken in regard to the future of the Transport Service, it may be considered whether or not some fresh arrangement in regard to transport might be considered, so as to include officers of experience in the Mercantile Marine, who
    1754
    have rendered very great service to the Army and the Navy in the transport of troops during the War.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Davidson) has raised a very important question of co-operation between the heads of the three fighting Staffs. The hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan (Major Glyn) especially emphasised the transport aspect of such cooperation. I confess frankly that I cannot dogmatise on these matters with anything in the nature of a weighty opinion. I have been at the Admiralty twelve years, but I am conscious that I am not a sailor. I am a civilian, and I hesitate to dogmatise about these matters or to speak at all confidently about them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has referred to the thinking Department being cut down. He need have no apprehension upon that point. We have as the Chief of the Staff Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beattie, fresh from the sea, and he has around him as his colleagues men who have all come like him straight from the sea, with very large naval experience, so that my hon. and gallant Friend can have a further reassurance that the thinking Department is not being cut down. With regard to all these matters, all comments which hon. Members of the House are good enough to give are very carefully tabulated after all these Debates, and they are referred to the competent authorities responsible, who will examine them and consider them, and, where necessary, report the matter for consideration to then Board of Admiralty; and I will take care, though I do not feel that I can deal with these matters with such confidence as appears to be possible to others, that they shall all be represented.
    Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: There is the question of the full efficiency which depends on a proper effective co-ordination between the three forces responsible for defence. That is the whole question and a most important question.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That was heartily represented yesterday, and again to-night with no less stress, and it shall be put before those who are responsible for this great Service.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Are we to assume that nothing has been done so far?
    10.0 P.M.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend heard what the First Lord of the Admiralty said yesterday in reply. I cannot go beyond that. As regards the Transport Department, the work is steadily coming back to us. I am not aware that, during the time that the offices have been seconded, if that is the term, to the Shipping Controller, they have been more favourably treated from the point of view of emoluments. I cannot give any undertaking as to what would be the position when they return to us, but it will have to be carefully considered. My right hon. Friend referred to the second report of the Public Accounts Committee. It was a report, as regards the paragraph which he had in mind, which deals with the matter of controlling finance, and after describing the War Office organisation it went on to says:
    "Your Committee do not hesitate to say that their actual experience of the accounts of the Departments amply confirms the natural expectations that the War Office system would show the better results in practice."
    I make no comment on that. It goes on:
    "The strength and efficiency of that system lie essentially in the fact that one and the same man handles the actual expenditure in the account and gives financial advice. His knowledge of actual expenditure gives his advice a great part of its value, and the fact that he and his subordinates in touch with the military branches share the discussions on policy as affecting finance and know the real intention enables them to see that the intention in fact is carried out."
    That is the matter to which our attention is called by the Public Accounts Committee. It goes on:
    "At the Admiralty on the other hand there is no such vital touch under the hands of one person and his staff between finance and administration. The Accountant-General's staff make an estimate of any financial proposal at its inception but then lose touch with it. The Assistant Secretary for Financial Duties hears of it at a later stage only if and when it is referred to him by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary."
    Further, they state,
    "with regard to the general system of financial control, your Committee cannot but view with grave apprehension the diminutions of the powers of the Accounting Officer of the Navy, and they are of opinion that there should be an independent inquiry into the whole system of internal financial control at the Admiralty."
    As far as I am concerned we will be only too glad to have the two methods, the War Office method, with civilian touch on these points, as against the Admiralty method, examined to see—after all the proof of the pudding is in the eating—which is the
    1756
    better system. I do not know what particular form of inquiry the Public Accounts Committee wishes to propose, but so far as I am concerned and the Board of Admiralty are concerned, we will lend every assistance possible to any effort to find out the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Fifteenth Resolution agreed to.
    Sixteenth Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Viscount CURZON: I would like, if I may, to press once again on the Admiralty the position of the old Royal Pensioner. As the House will remember, the question of naval pensions was dealt with in the Jerram Report. Under the Jerram Report the pensioners who did not serve during the War, the old pensioners, were left out, and no increase whatever was made in their pensions. The reason given by the Government is that this is part of a large question which cannot be dealt with alone, so far as the Navy is concerned, but must he dealt with by all the Services—Navy, Army, Air Force, Civil Service, and so on. I would like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the case of some of these old Royal Pensioners, and to give particulars of a case I have here. It is that of a man who was a seaman in the Royal Navy and who lost both arms by an accident on a cruiser in Rio Harbour in 1879. He received a pension on the injury scale of 2s. 0½d. a day from naval funds, supplemented by a Greenwich Hospital special pension of 5½d. a day; making in all £45 12s. a year, or 17s. 6d. a week. This is the case of a man who is totally unable to help himself. When be reaches the age of sixty-five he will get an increase which will bring his pension to £50 7s. a year. It is obvious that a man in a position like this cannot possibly maintain himself on 17s. 6d. a week. If there is anything I can say on behalf of the old pensioners. I hope that it will be borne in mind by the Admiralty and that, if possible, they will make representations to the Treasury upon the point.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I find it a very ungracious duty not to be able to say at once that I will do what the hon. and gallant Member suggests. I can say that I sympathise, but that will not help much—not

    1757
    at all, as a matter of fact. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that recommendation No. 51 of the Jerram Committee was that the revised scale of pensions should apply to all pensioners now on rolls, in consideration of the increased cost of living and the higher standard of comfort normally aimed at. He asks, why do we not carry that recommendation out? It would cover all the old pensioners over fifty-five. The Government decision was that the revised scale would apply, as from 1st April, 1919, to all future pensioners, all pensioners now serving, and all who have served during the War, including those serving in a civilian capacity under the Government who, although under 55 years of age and therefore liable to service during hostilities, were retained in their civilian employment, and that the revised scale will not apply to other pensioners—that is to say, to the old pensioners over 55 on whose behalf my hon. and gallant Friend has appealed. That is the Government decision. I can only add this fact, that we have on our rolls approximately 37,000 life pensioners, and 25,000 of them come under the Government decision. That is, they get the new basic rate increase. That was the effect of the Jerram decision. Those who are not eligible are approximately 1,200. I am sorry I cannot carry the matter beyond the decision given; I have no authority to do so. My hon. and gallant Friend was quite right in saying that the main reason was the fact that we could not legislate for the Naval Service alone in a matter of this sort. That is the difficulty. You would have to be ready to revise the whole roll of pensioners in all directions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know the right hon. Gentleman is not personally responsible for the decision, but his statement is very disappointing, and he knows it is disappointing. It simply points the moral of the great evil of wasting money on obsolete ships and spending money on the armouring of ships that were never meant to be armoured, and on other extravagance to which attention has been drawn in the Committee.
    Sir J. DAVIDSON: I think it is a very great mistake to hold a very strong opinion and not to express it. There is no one in this House who is more convinced than I am of the necessity for economy and for making our expenditure balance our revenue at the earliest possible moment. At the same time, I think it is
    1758
    grossly unfair that these pre-war pensioners should not get an increase commensurate with the existing increase in the scale of pensions. It is extremely hard, because you have got to deal here with a class of person over 55 who are very likely incapable of doing any work. The same applies to the Army and the Police and The Civil Service. I have asked what it all amounts to, but I cannot get a reply. I think it is a matter that the House must be told something about, because on the face of it it is grossly unfair.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Seventeenth Resolution agreed to.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY [CAPITAL ACQUISITION].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such further sums, not exceeding in the whole two million and fifty thousand pounds, as are required for the acquisition of share or loan capital of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company; to authorise the Treasury to borrow money by the creation of securities for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof, the principal of and interest on any such securities to be charged on the Consolidated Fund; and to authorise this payment into the Exchequer and the application of dividends or interest on the capital acquired."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): In passing the Committee stage at an early hour, I gave an undertaking that on the Report stage I would give a brief explanation of this Resolution. The Bill to be brought in on the Resolution is an Amendment of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Act of 1914, and hon. Members who are familiar with that Act will remember the circumstances in which it was passed. It was at a time when the Persian oilfield was being developed, and simultaneously with that the use of oil was rapidly passing from the experimental stage. The Admiralty were very anxious that, if possible, one of the potentially great oilfields of the world should be not only worked by British capital, but be actually controlled by the Government, holding sufficient capital in that business to give it the deciding voice in the policy. Under those circumstances a sum of £2,200,000

  1759
  was taken from the Old Sinking Fund. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) led the Opposition on that occasion and I had the honour of following him into the Lobby, but circumstances have changed since then. We know two things which we did not know for certain then. We know this is a great oilfield and we know that oil fuel has come to stay. The Anglo-Persian Company has been successful beyond, I should imagine, the hopes of its most ardent admirers in the old days. So much has the business developed that they have had to raise a considerable amount of fresh capital, and the question, of course, then arose was the Government to apply for enough of that new issue of capital to still maintain its controlling interest in the Company, or was it to give up the position it had held and run the risk of the shares being otherwise taken up and acquired by various people and by various interests, and that thus we should lose the position we had acquired and held? Apart from that, although I should never be one to advocate the investment of public money in a company for the sake of gain and only on the ground of policy, yet I would remind the House that there is every prospect of this Anglo-Persian investment being an extremely remunerative one. Although during the first few years of the company's existence it paid nothing on the ordinary shares, last year and this year it paid dividends of 10 per cent. free of tax, and the prospects of the company in future are, I think, very bright. I do not know that there is anything more I need say at this stage, although I shall be very pleased to answer any questions, if capable of doing so. I would remind the House that this is only the Report stage of the Finance Resolution. On the Second Reading of the Bill it will be open to discuss the question in much wider measure. Hon. Members may ask what is the urgency of getting this Bill through. I am very sorry it has had to be done in a hurry, but we gave notice to the House in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Major Barnes) on the 3rd of this month of the Government's intention in this matter, and the application for the Government portion of the shares has to be sent in at once. The prospectus came out about ten days ago, I think, and I was particularly anxious not
  1760
  to make formal application until, at any rate, we saw -that the policy which we proposed received the assent of Parliament.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend has quite rightly said that in the year 1914 there was considerable opposition to this measure, and he has also said that at that time he followed me into the Lobby. He says positions have changed. They have I remain on the Back Bench and still hold the opinion I then held. My hon. Friend has been promoted to the Front Bench, which has apparently changed his opinions. I would like the hon. Gentleman to answer certain questions. He says that this Resolution if passed will be followed by a Bill, and that it would be possible on the Second Reading to discuss the policy embodied in that Bill. Shall we have an opportunity of discussing that Bill, and, if so, will it be 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning or about 5 or 6 in the evening, because it makes a considerable difference? If the Government are going to suspend the Eleven O'clock Rule and take most of the measures on the Paper, it may be that the discussion promised by my hon. Friend will come on when the majority of the Members are in bed. That is not a very great opportunity to discuss measures of this sort, and, therefore, I hope he will give an undertaking that the Second Reading of the Bill, at any rate, shall be brought on at a time when Members are able to discuss it with all their faculties intact. My hon. Friend says that in 1914 this House decided that it was in the interests of the country to acquire a controlling position in this company. I think the present Secretary of State for War, who was at that time First Lord of the Admiralty, was principally responsible for bringing in the measure, and I believe one of the arguments was that there were to be pipes conveyed along a road of great length. We asked how the road was to be guarded, and what happened in the War I do not know, whether or not we got the oil, but, as I understand from my hon. Friend, that no dividend was paid until quite recently, it rather looks as if during the War we did not get the oil we thought we were going to get. That is an important consideration in considering this Resolution. The Resolution says that
  "Such further sums, not exceeding in the whole two million and fifty thousand pounds, as are required for the acquisition of share or loan capital."

  1761
  I have had some little experience of the City, and I have yet to learn—I may be wrong—that the holding of loan capital in a company gives you any voice in the management of that company. Therefore, I would like to know why the words "or loan" are put in? Speaking generally, it is quite a wrong thing for the Government to take shares in any company. It is quite true that years and years ago the late Lord Beaconsfield did take shares in the Suez Canal Company, and that that policy was resisted by the then Liberal Government, and especially by Mr. Gladstone, but that that resistance was wrong, that, in the first place, the acquisition of those shares was commercially a very successful operation, and secondly, it led to the control of a great country on our road to India. That was a very exceptional case, and I do not think it ought to be quoted as a precedent. This is merely a case in which the Government goes into partnership with certain very estimable people—I am sure I do not know who they are—who have invested their money in a legitimate undertaking—the discovery of oil in Persia.
  I venture to say that if the Government are continually going to invest money in undertakings of this sort, the result will be that the Government will become shareholders in all kinds of companies. I do not think that is a policy to be followed. I think it is inevitable—I have often said so in this House—that when once we begin investing money in anything, or authorising the expenditure of money, we are always told at the beginning that all that is necessary is a certain sum that is going to do wonders, but after a certain number of years we are told that the sum is not sufficient, and that in order to retain our interest we must go wrong again, and invest a certain amount more. That is exactly what has happened in this case, and I should like to know whether this is the limit, or how much more money is going to be expended in the acquisition of share capital in this company?
  Supposing this company is a great success, it may be that it will necessitate a very large additional expenditure of capital. Surely that ought to be a matter for private enterprise, and not for the Government. Having originally subscribed a certain amount of money which had the effect of starting the company, would it not be better to say, "Very well, we have started this company; it
  1762
  has paid us 10 per cent. free of Income Tax"—I do not know whether the Government pay Income Tax on their own undertakings, but it has paid 10 per cent., which is not a bad investment, although it will not bring the Government under the Profiteeripg Act—"We have started this company on the way, and have received a very fair return on our investment, and we will now leave the company." Personally, I think it would be the right course. But if my hon. Friend will give me some explanation why "loan" is included in the Resolution—because I do not think anyone in the House will question my statement when I say that the acquisition of loan capital does not give you any control over the company—if he will give me some explanation of that, and if my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) will give me some undertaking that the Second Reading of this Bill will be taken at a normal hour, then possibly we may not persist in our objection at the present moment.
  Sir J. D. REES: It has escaped my right hon. Friend, who is so keen a man of busines, that this is the very best investment any British Government has made. Neither has my hon. Friend, who dealt with the case in a short speech, pointed out the enormous appreciation of capital value of the £2,000,000 which the British Government invested.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My objection is to the principle. I do not think that it makes it right for the Government to speculate because they have made a good speculation. My objection is to the Government entering into a private enterprise or mixing themselves up with a private enterprise and whether a profit or loss is made does not enter into the consideration of the question. It is a question of principle, and not of money.
  Sir J. D. REES: But my right hon. Friend would prefer, if the Government made a speculation, that it should be a good speculation; and that it is. But I submit this was not a speculation. I remember what happened in 1914 very well. The question then was the supply of fuel for the Navy—a great Imperial question. It was not a money speculation, but if in the course of action taken for the British Navy, and for a great Imperial purpose, the Government also happens to make a large profit, which is extremely unlike most of the operations originating in this House, it does not

  1763
  seem to me to be a great additional reason for reproving the action they then took, because the British taxpayer has gained largely by this operation. I confess it is rarely that one sees in this House any operation in which the British taxpayer is exposed to any other fate than being ground down to powder and bled white. These are extremely relevant facts. There is also the fact that my right hon. Friend left entirely out of consideration that this investment gives the British Government a prepondering influence in Persia. Apart from the trade of Persia, this is a most important link between the Mother country and our Indian Empire.
  The right hon. Baronet referred to the words "loan capital." I understand this simply refers to the fact of an issue of debentures as well as share capital. If the Government did not take their share of the new issue they would lose that preponderating control which they now have, to the detriment of the British taxpayer. I happen to know, as one with a lifelong interest in Persia, that there was oil got there before and during the War. The damage done to the pipe-lines by the nomadic tribes in Persia was not, I believe, an extremely serious matter. The prospective cost of putting the matter right is between £300,000 and £400,000, which will most likely be recovered from the Persian Government. The right hon. Gentleman said if this was not a success there might be a further issue of capital. There was never a greater success. The capital of the association is enormous. The interest paid now is very large. If the Government had not put up the amount with which the Resolution deals they would have lost that position they have gained in this enterprise which the British Government has never gained in any other commercial concern in the world. This is a far better investment for the British taxpayer than was that of Lord Beaconsfield in the Suez Canal. The right hon. Baronet also overlooked the fact that there is one of the most able business men in the country representing the Government upon this Board—Lord Inchcape. It is extremely improbable that the interests of the British taxpayer and of the British Government will not receive complete justice in such competent hands.
  Colonel GRETTON: I was one of those who opposed this Resolution in 1914, because in those days the whole position was speculative in the highest degree. The
  1764
  situation has altered completely. The Persian oilfield, I understand, is situated on the frontier between Persia and the old Empire of Turkey, in a sort of no man's land, where neither Power held any real control over the population.
  Sir J. D. REES: This is in Persia.
  Colonel GRETTON: It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that this is in Persia, or on the Persian side of the frontier. But in one of the parts of the country the pipe-line of some hundreds of miles has been at the mercy of the tribes whom no power controls. The Persian oilfield ought to extend into Mesopotamia, so that one Power at any rate should have control over an oilfield of great potentiality, and quite free from the dangers existing on the Persian side of the frontier. The Government should retain British influence on the Turkish side of the oilfield. This is really a question of high policy. The British Navy may in the future depend very largely on oil fuel and clearly we must have a larger measure of control to secure a supply for the Navy. I think we might consent to pass this Resolution and afterwards examine this question more closely on the Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: This is an investment of over £2,000,000 and it is one which entails an insurance afterwards in the way of advances to Persia this year of £2,068,000, and therefore we have to consider this amount and take into account the sum spent in protecting those rights. This policy in Persia may lead to a vicious circle, but that question may be discussed on the Bill. I should like to know whether this measure is likely to be a preliminary to a further investment in oil interests or whether anything of this sort is contemplated?
  Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: What class of shares is it intended to take up?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Ordinary.
  Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the business has extended very considerably? Is it the same undertaking? Is the Anglo-Persian Oil Company exploring in other new fields or sticking to the undertaking which they originally acquired?
  Mr. ACLAND: Before we pass this Resolution I must enter a caveat on one

  1765
  point. It does not seem quite fair that as matter of principle when we have put money into a concern for some great Imperial necessity, as was the case in 1914, to make sure of a certain supply of oil, that we should be compelled for all future time, as the company expands its capital, to acquire a larger amount in order to keep our balance of control over the operations of the company. I do not think that principle ought to be admitted.
  Mr. BALDWIN: With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has just said, of course in this matter we are merely following the policy of the Government of which he was a very distinguished member, and on future occasions when the Government of the day may think it desirable in the event of further extensions of capital they will have to get the consent of Parliament just as we are getting it today. Hon. Members will see that the sum in the Resolution is strictly limited to £2,050,000. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Williams), and the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I may say that the £2,050,000 is for ordinary shares only. When any right hon. Friend asks me what is the meaning of "loan" capital in the connection in which the word is used, I must tell him that I am not a draftsman, and I never do understand draftsmen's phrases. I have no idea why the word is put in except that it occurs in the 1914 Act. If it should turn out to be unnecessary, I shall have no objection to taking it out.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think, with regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel Malone) has said, that there is any connection between the investments that the Government have made in this company and the money being spent in pursuance of quite other matters. The hon. and gallant Member also asked me about amalgamations and the policy of the company. I am afraid that I have no knowledge at all on those subjects. Whatever may be contemplated at any time as regards the policy of this company it must always be remembered that we have the controlling interest and have two representatives of the British Government on the Board. The directors are Lord Inchcape and Sir Frederick Black. As to the time when the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken, I think I am in a position to give an assurance that it will be
  1766
  taken when most of the Members of the House are about. Probably, it will be tomorrow.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Only one stage in one day?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly, one stage in one day. I do express my regret that, owing to the exigencies of the situation, we have to push this Bill on, but we are near the end of the Session, and it is essential that the Royal Assent should be obtained to it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the said Resolution, and that Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Baldwin do prepare and bring it in.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY [CAPITAL ACQUISITION] BILL—"to amend the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Act, 1914," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 239.]

  COUNTY AND BOROUGH POLICE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir F. BANBURY in the Chair.]

  COUNTY AND BOROUGH POLICE BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 22 and.23 Vict. c. 32 s.4.)
    Section four of the County and Borough Police Act, 1859 (which relates to penalties for resignation or withdrawal from duty of police without notice), shall have effect, and shall, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be deemed to have had effect as if for the word "forfeited" there were substituted the words "liable to be forfeited."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Captain W. BENN: I hope we shall have some explanation of this Clause. It appears to be retrospective in its action.
    Major BAIRD: The Bill is very simple. Under the Act of 1859 if a man resigns or withdraws himself from duty without leave or the notice required, he has to forfeit any claim to pay which he has earned but as not received. This Bill makes it possible for certain boroughs and counties to pay over to men who have so resigned or withdrawn from duty any such outstanding pay. It is brought in specially to meet a few isolated cases.
    Captain BENN: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation. I take it the Bill has reference to cases of disputes with the police which took place recently.

    1767
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR F. BANBURY in the Chair.]

  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Dogs' Licence Duty.)
    The Licence Duty payable for a dog licence under the Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1866 (in this Act referred to as the "principal Act"), shall be at such rate, not exceeding six shillings for each dog, as may be prescribed by Regulations of the Lord Lieutenant under this Act.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I beg to move, to leave out all the words after "at" ["shall be at"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the rate of four shillings instead of two shillings for each dog."
    The object of this short Bill is to meet representations which have been made to the Irish Government by philanthropists and representatives of the agricultural community from all parts of Ireland. It proposes to raise the tax from 2s. to 4s. In England the tax is 7s. 6d. In the Bill we had provided for power to raise it to 6s., but representations were made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) and others, a I agreed to accept the sum of 4s.—hence my Amendment. It was in 1865 that Sir Robert Peel, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, introduced a Bill to put this tax on for the first time in Ireland, and the receipts went in payment of the Petty Sessions clerks who acted as collectors first, the balance going to the local authorities. No change is now proposed in that respect. I may explain that representations came to us from the General Council of Agriculture because of the considerable losses inflicted on farmers by sheep and lamb worrying; they also came from county councils and other bodies, and I think it will be admitted that it is a most unreasonable fax.
    Mr. EDWARD KELLY: It would have been impossible, Sir, to choose a Chairman who would be more opposed to increasing the burdens on the owners of dogs and on the dogs themselves, than
    1768
    yourself. I have watched you with great interest from the commencement of the Attorney-General's remarks, and I have failed to see the slightest gleam of sympathy from your eyes, or the slightest sign that you had any sympathy with the additional burden which was to be imposed, not only on the dogs, but on the owners of the dogs. When I fail to find that sympathy from you shall I look for it from any of those hon. Members who, again and again have opposed you in some of your most cherished schemes for the amelioration of the lot of our canine friends? Therefore I give it up as a bad job. I had an Amendment under which I hoped to confine the duty on Irish dogs to 2s. 7d., but I have come to the conclusion that our dogs, like everything else, are going to cost us more, and that we might as well make the best of a bad job and get off as lightly as we can. I am the more reconciled to accepting the Amendment of the Attorney-General when he explains that it is necessary for us in Ireland to keep dogs in order to pay our Petty Sessions clerks. That is an anomaly equalled only by another anomaly by which an Irishman had to drink a lot of Irish whisky in order to pay for secondary education. As the force of all those arguments oppresses me so strongly, and the Attorney-General has such a persuasive way, it is really very hard to oppose any Amendment or proposal he makes to the Committee. Therefore I shall not move my Amendment.
    Mr. LYNN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Kelly) had arranged to bring the dogs over here to keep us awake, I would join with him in keeping the tax at 2s., but, as he cannot do that, I must support the Attorney-General, as the tax is not by any means exorbitant.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 (Amendment of Sections 6 and 20 of Principal Act as to the Taking Out and Duration of Licences,) 3 (Regulations), and 4 (Interpretation, Construction, and Citation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Salaries of Petty Sessions Clerks, etc.)
    The power of the Lord Lieutenant to fix the amount of the salaries to be paid to Petty Sessions clerks as defined in the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Act, 1681, shall include power to Brant increases of salaries to take effect for such time and to be reckoned for superannua-

    1769
    tion purposes in such circumstances and to such extent only as may be directed by the Lord Lieutenant, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section one or Section five of the said Act.—[Mr. Henry.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. HENRY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    We have in Ireland a number of very deserving Gentlemen known as Petty Sessions clerks, who correspond to the clerks of justices in England. They have very small salaries, and it is desired to give them a larger salary, but, owing to the fact that there is a provision in an Act of Parliament of 1881 that if you once raise their salaries you can never reduce them it is impossible to give them a bonus unless it becomes permanent, and my Clause will enable the Lord Lieutenant to give them a bonus, and if we arrive at happier times they will come back to the old salary.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of County Councils to Adopt the Public Libraries Acts.)
    (1) The council of any county in England or Wales shall have power by resolution specifying the area to which the resolution extends to adopt the Public Libraries Acts for the whole or any part of their county, exclusive of any part of the county which is an existing library area within the meaning of this Act, as if the area specified in the resolution were a library district for the purposes of those Acts.

    (2) Where any resolution is passed by the council of a county under this Section the Public Libraries Acts shall, as respects the area specified in the resolution, be carried into execution by the council as the library authority of the area, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, the power to adopt those Acts for any district comprised in that area, being a library district within the meaning of the Public Libraries Act, 1892, shall cease.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like some explanation of this Clause. It empowers the council of any county in England
    1770
    or Wales—I do not quite know why Ireland is left out — to adopt the Public Libraries Act for the whole or any part of the county. Why is it necessary to take them from the existing authorities and take them under their own protection?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. H. Lewis): The right hon. Baronet has not observed that the terms of the Bill expressly include existing library authorities, therefore if there is any library authority in being now it is entitled to remain for the future as an independent authority. The reason why these powers have been given to county authorities is partly because the Carnegie trustees, who have in their hands a very large sum of money, for the purpose of establishing rural libraries, commenced their work in certain counties by establishing libraries at their own expense, and undertaking to maintain them for a period of, I think, three or five years, as the case may be. It is doubtful whether at the present time the county authority has the power to give an undertaking to carry on these libraries. I feel sure the Committee would desire that the work of the Carnegie trustees should be encouraged in this respect, and that life in our villages should be made a little more interesting by the supply of books, both for children and adults. The scheme is worked very cheaply. I trust the right hon. Baronet will not object to the county authority having this power.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does this transfer of power connote any power for raising further rates? Is it a fact that any participation in Carnegie money makes necessary an imposition of some rate upon the already overburdened ratepayers?
    Mr. LYNN: My right hon. Friend raised the question why Ireland is left out, and the hon. Member has not replied to that point. Why is Ireland left out? Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that because we are so intelligent in Ireland we do not need libraries?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: What would be the effect of this Bill on the rural authorities? In some of them there are already reading rooms, and very valuable places they are. As the hon. Member probably knows, there is often difficulty in getting suitable supplies of books. Will this Bill enable the county council to supply addi-

    1771
    tional books for the reading rooms, and in cases where there is no reading room will any provision be made by this Bill for erecting or equipping these rooms?
    Mr. LEWIS: This would enable the county authority to establish a central depot from which books may be provided for the various centres in the county. Under the Carnegie scheme the elementary schools are very largely used for the purpose both for children and adults. The hon. Member (Mr. Lynn) asked why the Bill did not apply to Ireland, and suggested that I had some low opinion of the intelligence of his fellow countrymen. That is not the case. I regard them as the most quick-witted race in the world; but I cannot venture in this Bill to touch Ireland, because it is introduced by the Board of Education for England and Wales, which has no jurisdiction over Ireland. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. D. Rees) asked whether there will be an addition to the rates in consequence of this Bill. This Bill throughout is an enabling Bill. No authority need adopt it unless they wish to do so. Every county authority is, of course, responsible to its own ratepayers, and it will make itself responsible for a certain amount of expenditure.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We will deal with the question of expense on Clause 4, which is a very important Clause. Clause 1 is to allow the council of any county in England or Wales to establish public libraries in addition to the public libraries already established by other public library authorities. The reason given for this is that the Carnegie Trust has spent a certain amount of money. It is another example of the evil of giving a certain amount of money. As soon as you have got a little you want more. When you bring in a Bill like the Anglo-Persian Oil Bill asking for a certain amount of money you are going to spend a lot more money. I do not see why at this particular period in our history we should be going in for spending additional money. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this will enable people to read books. What sort of books? My experience is that public libraries are places where, if the weather is cold, people go in and sit down and get warm, while other people go in to read novels. I do not believe, speaking generally, that public libraries have done any good. On the contrary, they have done a great deal of harm, because the books read, as far as my in
    1772
    formation goes, are chiefly sensational novels, which do no good to anybody. Except for spending public money, I do not see any object in this Bill. It would be very much better if the Government would wait until we are in a better financial position. I will deal with the financial aspect when we come to Clause 4.
    Mr. R. RICHAROSON: I was extremely glad to hear the hon. Gentleman refer in connection with this Bill to our elementary school life. I heard with delight the fact that there is some system of giving books to the young children in our elementary schools. I agree with my right hon. Friend that up to the present public libraries have not been a success in our rural areas. We want to give our young pupils in the elementary schools good books to read, so that when they leave school they will have a taste for good books, which they cannot have when reading the same old type of books from the age of ten to fourteen. We want to do the best we can to make the people of this country a thinking people, because the coming nation will be a nation of thinkers, and I want to give the children a chance of being better equipped than they were in my time. I believe that by means of the proposals of this Bill we shall build up a better race of people than England has hitherto known.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I want to remove what I think is a misapprehension in the mind of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). He fears that under this Bill there might be a duplication of libraries. As I understand the Bill, the county council would make provision in areas which are not already provided for, and there would be no duplication. What the Bill does is to give the power to make provision in rural areas exactly to the same extent as provision is made in urban areas at present. At the moment the rateable value in rural districts is so small that it would be impossible for the rural councils and the parish councils to maintain a library, but by this unification of the work of the whole county it would be possible to place these districts in the same position as the urban districts. If that is the object, it ought to secure universal approval. If we desire to make rural life more attractive there ought to be greater opportunities of reading. I heard with pleasure the speech of the last speaker. Will he allow me to say this, that I hope that provision will be made in the rural districts, as in the towns, for good healthy fiction and litera-

    1773
    ture of a kind which is more for the purpose of entertainmern than for ordinary education. After all, I think that the large numbers of works of fiction which go out from the public libraries have done a great great deal to brighten the lives of the people. While I sympathise heartily with every effort for increasing education, I hope there will he no effort to crowd out works of that kind. I hope that no attempt will be made to concentrate merely upon the provision of scientific works and books of that kind.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: I extend an invitation to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) to visit the public library in my own Constituency, where, in spite of the fact that owing to the scarcity of fuel there is not very much chance of getting warm, he will find the place occupied night after night by young men who are studying technical books. They are young men training themselves after the War for the work they are hoping to take up. That library, I believe, is typical of the public libraries in many of our growing industrial towns, where the demand for really useful technical works for adults is very great. There is a large demand for Parliamentary papers, and I have no doubt they read, to the great benefit of the people of that Constituency, many of the speeches of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. CAIRNS: When I was at home we had no books, and we had to get them at the village institute. We read histories and other books. It is a good thing to sit by the fire and smoke, and better still to take a book away; such as a history, to fit us to come to such places as this.
    Mr. LYNN: I think the speech of the right hon. Baronet is a strong speech in favour of libraries, because for want of training people read rubbish instead of the real sort. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke of the immense value of libraries in rural districts. In the city you can easily get books, but not in the rural districts. I think it is an enormous advantage in rural districts in England or Ireland to have plenty of good books, especially in the winter evenings. I am strongly in favour of any movement which will give people more to read, especially in the form of fiction, whether Parliamentary or other fiction.
    Mr. R. McLAREN: I entirely disagree with the right hon. Baronet. In my town we claim to be the first town in the three Kingdoms to inaugurate the library and
    1774
    put on a, penny rate for that purpose, and it has done a great deal of good to the whole community. When I was a boy I was glad to go there and get a book and take it home and read it, such as Scott and Dickens and Thackeray, and some of the heavy books which some people to-day discard. I think it is a good thing to have a Bill extending libraries, and that it is well that boys are not content to sit doing nothing. I am glad boys are beginning to fit themselves to take the places of those who have gone before them. It is necessary they should have good books. I strongly support this Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 2 (Arrangements between Existing Library Authorities and County Councils) and 3 (Reference and Delegation of Library Powers to Education Committees) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Provision us to Expenses and Audit, 55 and 56 Act. c. 53.)
    (1) Section two of the Public Libraries Act, 1892 (which imposes limitations on the amount of the rate winch may be levied for the purposes of that Act) shall cease to have effect, and where the expenses incurred by any library authority for the purposes of the Public Libraries Acts during the financial year current at the commencement of this Act exceed the amount produced by the maximum rate which the authority have power to levy for the purposes of those Acts, no part of those expenses shall be open to objection on the audit of the accounts of the authority on the ground that the statutory limitation on expenditure has been exceeded, if and in so far as the expenses were in the opinion of the Ministry of health reasonably incurred:
    Provided that if the library authority of any library district, either at the time when the Public Libraries Acts are adopted for the district or at any subsequent One, by resolution declare that the rate to be levied for the purposes of those Acts in the district or any specified portion of the district in any one financial year shall not exceed such sum in the pound as may be specified, the power to raise a rate for the purpose of those Acts in that district shall be limited accordingly, and any such resolution shall not be rescinded until the expiration of twelve months from the date on which it was passed.
    (2) Any expenses incurred by the council of a county under the Public Libraries Acts shall be defrayed out of the county fund, and the council may if they think fit, after giving reasonable notice to the overseers of the parish or parishes concerned, and in the case of an area situate within a borough or urban district, after consultation with the council of the borough or urban district, charge any expenses incurred by them under those Acts on any parish or parishes which in the opinion of the council of the county are served by any institution which has been provided or is being maintained by that council under those Acts:

    1775
    Provided that the council of a county shall not charge any expenses so incurred on any parish or parishes within an existing library district without the concurrence of the library authority of that district.
    (3) The accounts of the receipts and expenditure under the Public Libraries Acts of the council of a county shall be audited in manner provided by Section seventy-one of the Local Government Act, 1888.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is a most extraordinary Clause. First of all it will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), because it abolishes the penny rate and allows any rate to be imposed for the purpose of a public library. That is a very wrong thing to do at the present moment. Not only are we groaning under the burden of enormous taxation, but every time those of us who are unfortunately ratepayers receive a demand note, as I did only two days ago, we find that the rates are increased enormously. In the part of the country in which I have the misfortune to live, there has been an increase of something like 25 per cent. in my rates during the last year, and now there are to be further increases in order to enable certain hon. Gentlemen to read Dickens and Thackeray and other interesting books. I do not doubt it is a very good thing to do, and I hope when they took them away they always returned them, but there are a good many things which we should all like to do but which we are not able to do in these days, when there is very little money in the country and when we have an extremely extravagant Government. Therefore, I object strongly to this Clause, which does away with the limit of a penny rate. It may be all right that the county councils, in addition to the existing authorities, should have power to levy a rate, but that that rate should be increased beyond a penny is, I think, extremely wrong, and I hope there are sufficient economists left in the House to back me up in that particular matter and to reject this Clause. It is a most extraordinary Clause, and I cannot understand what can have happened to the draftsman or the Department of the Government which is supposed to be responsible for this Bill. All through this Bill the Education Department is the Department concerned, but when we come to Clause 4 we find a limitation of the penny rate abolished, and the only limitation is this: "In so far as the expenses
    1776
    were in the opinion of the Ministry of Health reasonably incurred." What on earth has the Minister of Health got to do with it, unless it is that my statement that the libraries were in many cases used in the cold weather by people who wanted to go in and get warm is correct, and that the Minister of Health, thinking that a good thing, has introduced this Bill so that a large sum of money may be spent in conducing to the health of the particular people who are likely to use the libraries?
    Mr. RAFFAN: He takes the place of the President of the Local Government Board.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Does he? I do not know; I am so confused with all these various new departments and officials, but after all, this is a question for the Education Department, and surely it should be left to them to say whether or not in their opinion the expenditure of money is likely to increase the education of the country. What has the Ministry of Health got to do with it? I do not think the Local Government Board has been absolutely abolished, has it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am sorry to hear it, because the introduction of the Ministry of Health into this Bill would lead me to suppose—in fact, I am quite certain—with the predilections of the right hon. Gentleman who is the head of the Ministry of Health that economy does not in the least matter. He has not any idea of economy. He sees something which he thinks is good and is prepared to spend any money on it, and not always with success. He sometimes has to abandon a Bill which he has brought in—no doubt for excellent purposes—and has to introduce another Bill to do that for which the first was framed. Therefore, if you are going to bring in this right hon. Gentleman to exercise economy and business principles over a county authority, I think you are-going to fail grievously, and I would much prefer my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench as the authority to decide whether or not the proper amount of money is being expended in this way. But I do hope the Government will consider whether it is advisable at this particular moment to give a blank cheque to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend has failed to observe, I think, that the first paragraph of Clause 4 is divided into two portions, the first dealing with the abolition of the limitation upon the amount of the rate, and the second dealing with the expenses which are incurred by any library

    1777
    authority "during the financial year current at the commencement of this Act." The fact is that during the current financial year library authorities have found it almost impossible to carry on, and there are certain library authorities who, unless they are to close branch libraries in all directions, will be obliged to exceed their expenses for the current year. The proper authority for audit in a matter of that kind is the successor to the functions of the Local Government Board, namely, the Ministry of Health. My right hon. Friend has asked why the limitation should be abolished. I will give him the reason. From all parts of the country we have been receiving the most urgent appeals on behalf of the local authorities who are themselves responsible to the ratepayers for the abolition of this limit. As a matter of fact, the men in their employ can hardly live at the present time. I feel sure my right hon. Friend, having regard to the increased cost of living, would agree that these men are entitled to some advance on their salaries. War bonuses in some cases have not been paid to these men, and they have had the mortification of seeing their colleagues in the same municipal offices receiving one bonus after another, whereas, owing to the limitation of the 1d. rate, it has been quite impossible to give them any increase. I am sure my right hon. Friend is a. man of humanity and would desire to see these men treated fairly. At the same time, there are libraries all over the country which are not able to order any new books at the present time so circumscribed are their powers. It has been felt by the local authorities throughout the country that the time has arrived for the abolition of this limitation. They cannot go on otherwise.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to ask where is the ratepayer to get the money from? That seems to be forgotten by all those people who are anxious to do philanthropic work with other people's money. The ratepayer is in just as bad a position as these people in the library who have not got the increase of salary that they think they ought to have.
    Mr. LEWIS: It is for the local authorities to judge, for they are responsible to the ratepayers. Surely we cannot leave these men to starve under the conditions to which reference has been made? This
    1778
    is their life's work. Under all the circumstances, it is absolutely necessary to take this action.
    Sir J. D. REES: I feel it my duty to rise and say that the very points that, occurred to my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) occurred to me. My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench says that the libraries find it difficult to carry on. The ratepayers find it difficult to carry on, too! The ratepayer has two pockets; out of one he pays rates, out of the other taxes. Between the two operations his pockets are very nearly empty. My right hon. Friend refers to the humanity of the thing. Why is he not equally humane to the larger number as to the exceptional few who draw salaries at these libraries? He says they cannot live. How many ratepayers find it difficult to live? The position of the taxpayer and the ratepayer really seems to me to be overlooked by educational authorities; and I cannot but deplore that, following upon grants to Serbian youths, and to certain officers for education at Oxford and Cambridge out of the taxes, we should here have proposed the abolition of the penny rate, and the giving to the local authorities of these extended powers to add more weight to the already crushing burden imposed on the taxpayer.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I am entirely in sympathy with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman up to a certain point. But I quite agree the penny rate is insufficient. Is that, however, really a reason for the abolition of the limitation? To entirely remove the limit at this late hour and in a small House is really a strong order. The right hon. Gentleman says that the ratepayers can bring the local authorities to book. We all know that the control exercised by the ratepayers over the spending of the local authorities is very small. The case is analogous to this House, where, I am afraid, we indulge in some expenditure that the electors look upon with great disfavour. Therefore, I would really suggest to my right hon. Friend that while he is perfectly right in removing the penny limit it is not right, indeed it is rather dangerous, to leave absolutely unlimited discretion to the local authorities as to the amount that they spend on the libraries. In saying that I must not be understood not to have sympathy with the reading public. It is absolutely necessary that you should provide literature for the public; though, as regards what has been said

    1779
    to-night, I do not feel that it is necessary to place in the hands of the public some of the modern novels presented to them. I have inquired in various places as to the books that are read by the public, and a great many of the modern novels are perfectly worthless rubbish. If they would read the works of Dickens, Scott, Jane Austen, and the older novels, well and good, but some of the rubbish I refer to is not only immoral, but perfectly useless. I would earnestly beg the right hon. Gentleman to put some limitation upon the spending powers of the local authorities.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I trust what has been said will not delay the passing of this Bill, because—
    Notice taken that forty, Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. SMITH (resuming): I hope nothing will be done to-night to prevent the possibility of this Bill going through. It has been suggested that our public libraries are more or less useless institutions which have failed to serve the purposes for which they were created. As a member of a local authority, it has been a most agreeable surprise to me when the report of the library committee has been presented to see how much the library has been appreciated and also the good class of literature that has been read. It is not correct to say that the libraries are being used merely for the reading of novels, because I know that scientific and historical works are in great demand, and it would be lamentable just at the time when we have developed this taste in our young people to do anything to unduly limit these facilities. These matters are always in the hands of the ratepayers. The elections in boroughs are annual, and there are ample opportunities of checking public expenditure, and if the local expenditure exceeds a reasonable limit the electors always have the means of checking it. I think it would be a great pity if the library movement were restricted in any way.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The idea that the ratepayers have any control in this matter is absurd, because the vast majority of them do not pay rates and do not care what the expenditure reaches. The people
    1780
    who are interested are so small in number that they do not exercise any check at all upon local expenditure. In the large towns the majority of the electors, as they do not pay rates, are not affected by the extravagance, in fact they encourage local authorities in their extravagance. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Yorkshire is anxious that there should be a limit put to the expenditure. I do not know whether it should be 1½d. or 2d., or what is the right figure, lent I do think that it is absolutely necessary that there should be some limit. I understand that you have put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and therefore it is not possible to move an Amendment at the present time. Would the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill allow this Clause to be negatived in order that on the Report stage an Amendment limiting the amount may be put in? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If he will do that, all opposition to the other stages of the Bill will cease, but, if not, we shall have to divide on the Question. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. LEWIS: If I correctly interpret the general sense of the Committee, they are not in favour of a limitation of that kind. If a limitation of 2d. or 3d. were fixed that very fact very often would be an inducement to an authority to go up to that limit. Therefore, in the interests of economy, it would be an ill-advised thing to fix any limit in the Bill. I trust that the House will accept the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Rescind Resolutions of County Councils Adopting the Public Libraries Acts.)
    (1) council of a county by whom a resolution has been passed under this Act adopting the Public Libraries Acts may, if they think it advisable so to do with a view to the better carrying into effect of those Acts in any district, apply to the Board for an Order rescinding the resolution as respects that district, and the Board may on any such application, if they think fit, make an Order accordingly, and thereupon the Public Libraries Acts shall as respects that district have effect as from the date specified in that behalf in the Order as though the resolution had not been passed.

    (2) Any Order made under this Section may contain such consequential and supplemental provisions with respect to the transfer of any property or rights acquired or liabilities incurred under the Public Libraries Acts from the council of the county to the library authority of the district concerned as the Board think fit.

    1781

    (3) In this Section the expression "district" means, as the case requires, either a library district or a district which would have been a library district if a resolution adopting the Public Libraries Acts had not been passed under this Act by the council of the county.

    Major BARNES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
    "No such liability shall be transferred to such last-mentioned library authority without their consent."
    Mr. LEWIS: I am quite ready to accept the Amendment on the understanding that those in charge of the Bill are at liberty to put it, perhaps, in a slightly altered form.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 6 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported.
    As amended, considered.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I must protest against taking all stages of Bills at this late hour. It is now a quarter to twelve, and I submit it is intolerable this kind of thing should go on. The House of Commons sat all through last night until six this morning, and now, in this small House, after considerable discussion on a very important Bill, the Government are forcing a number of measures through. A large number of hon. Members did not expect what occurred at six or seven this evening, and under the circumstances I hope this Bill will not be proceeded with further. If it is, I shall be forced to move to amend Clause 4. I do appeal to the Government representatives—I do not see a Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench—not to persist in a policy which, while it may have been justifiable in time of war, is certainly perfectly unjustifiable now.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Provision as to Expenses and Audit.)
    (1) Section two of the Public Libraries Act, 1892 (which imposes limitations on the amount of the rate which may be levied for the purposes of that Act), shall cease to have effect, and where the expenses incurred by any library authority for the purposes of the Public Libraries Acts during the financial year current at the commencement of this Act exceed the amount produced by the maximum rate which the authority have power to levy for the purposes of those Acts, no part of those expenses shall be open to objection on the audit of the accounts of the authority on the ground that the statutory limitation on expenditure has been exceeded, if and in so far as the expenses were in the opinion of the Ministry of Health reasonably incurred:
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "cease to have effect," and to insert instead thereof the words "have effect as if twopence instead of one penny were there inserted."
    It is very difficult in the hurry of Debate to put the Amendment in proper form, and I would again ask the Minister in charge of the Bill, in the interests of decency, not to persist in going on with the measure. This is a very important Amendment which is going to affect the whole country, and the right hon. Gentleman surely is not in a position, without consideration, to say exactly what words are necessary and where they should be put in. While I feel I must move the Amendment, I do hope that further progress with the Bill will not be insisted upon. To my mind, the Government are proceeding in an unconstitutional manner in acting as they are doing.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I desire to support the Amendment, not because I am against expenditure on public libraries, but simply because I feel it is proper that some check should be placed upon it. As the right hon. Baronet has said, the ratepayers have very little control over the expenditure of the local authorities. Theoretically they have, but practically they have not. It appears to be a strong measure, after this 1d. rate has been in existence for over twenty years, that we should at this time, in a very thin House and in a way totally unexpected by the great majority of hon. Members, alter fundamentally the principles upon which this rate was originally sanctioned. Go where you will in the country, you hear bitter complaints of the continually increasing rates. They are a tremendous burden especially upon the middle class, the people with fixed incomes or diminishing incomes. Desirable as it may be to promote the study of literature—I fully appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary says about that—the case ought to be met by increasing the rate to 2d., which would give double the opportunity of providing literature and maintaining the libraries. If there is no limitation, you may have an ambitious and not very wise committee of a council who desire to make a name for themselves under the pretence of encouraging literary pursuits. They may add 3d. or 6d. or more to the rates under this Bill and thereby inflict great hardship on the ratepayers. I beg the right hon. Gentleman

    1783
    to consider the position of the ratepayers in this matter. While adding a substantial benefit to those who are desirous, and properly desirous, of maintaining the public libraries by increasing the amount of the expenditure on them from a 1d. to a 2d. rate, he should give some protection to the ratepayers whose interests we in this House are bound to protect.
    Mr. LEWIS: I would point out that this is an enabling Bill, and that no authority need spend a single penny under it unless it so desires. All over the country hundreds of thousands of authorities have no libraries at the present time. My hon. Friends assume that a larger amount will be spent here, there, and everywhere at once. Thai will not be the case. I would appeal to my hon. Friends not to press this Amendment, for one reason because there are towns in various parts of the country now who, under local Acts, are spending the 2d. rate, and the limitation might be very difficult in these cases. I would also urge upon them the danger of fixing a limit of 2d. or 3d. lest the authorities should be tempted unduly to act up to such a limit. As regards taking the Bill now, the Leader of the House stated at Question-time that it would he taken to-night.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Not all its stages.
    Mr. LEWIS: Notice was given to a very large House that the Bill would be taken, and everybody, during the whole of the evening, expected it to come on. We have not received a single protest at the Board of Education from anyone against this Bill. I believe that the sense of the House as a whole is strongly in favour of the Bill as it stands. Only one Amendment was put down, and that dealt with a very trivial matter. I trust that my hon. Friends will not press their opposition to what I believe to be the general sense of the House.
    Amendment negatived.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at, Five minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  CLUBS (RESTRICTIONS).
  CLUBS (RESTRICTIONS).
  CENTRAL EUROPE (RELIEF MEASURES).
  CENTRAL EUROPE (RELIEF MEASURES).
RUSSIA.
  ODESSA (SITUATION).
  ODESSA (SITUATION).
  FORMER GERMAN COLONIES (PROPERTY RIGHTS).
  FORMER GERMAN COLONIES (PROPERTY RIGHTS).
  FLAX, SUGAR, AND TOBACCO (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  FLAX, SUGAR, AND TOBACCO (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  FLAX.
  FLAX.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  TOBACCO.
  TOBACCO.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TYPEWRITERS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TYPEWRITERS).
  TAX CLERKS.
  TAX CLERKS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  CATTLE-GRADING.
  CATTLE-GRADING.
  FROZEN MUTTON (LEEDS).
  FROZEN MUTTON (LEEDS).
  AUCTIONEERS' SERVICES.
  AUCTIONEERS' SERVICES.
  OATS.
  OATS.
IRELAND.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, ARKLOW.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, ARKLOW.
BRITISH ARMY.
  PLEBISCITE AREAS (GERMANY).
  PLEBISCITE AREAS (GERMANY).
  OFFICERS' WIVES, FRANCE.
  OFFICERS' WIVES, FRANCE.
  MARRIED MEN WITH COLOURS, FRANCE.
  MARRIED MEN WITH COLOURS, FRANCE.
  VOLUNTEERS IN FOREIGN ARMIES.
  VOLUNTEERS IN FOREIGN ARMIES.
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
  GUARDS OFFICERS (UNIFORM).
  GUARDS OFFICERS (UNIFORM).
  ARMY BOOTS.
  ARMY BOOTS.
  HOME SERVICE (MEDAL).
  HOME SERVICE (MEDAL).
  SALISBURY PLAIN (WORKMEN'S WAGES).
  SALISBURY PLAIN (WORKMEN'S WAGES).
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY MASSEUSES (GRATUITY).
  ARMY MASSEUSES (GRATUITY).
  DEPENDANTS' PENSION.
  DEPENDANTS' PENSION.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF).
MUNITIONS.
  CURRENT EXPENDITURE.
  CURRENT EXPENDITURE.
  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVICES (PENSIONS).
  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVICES (PENSIONS).
  MAURITIUS.
  MAURITIUS.
  FIREMEN (HOURS, PAY AND SERVICE CONDITIONS).
  FIREMEN (HOURS, PAY AND SERVICE CONDITIONS).
  STRIKES (VOLUNTARY WORKERS).
  STRIKES (VOLUNTARY WORKERS).
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  BENEFIT CLAIMS.
  BENEFIT CLAIMS.
  LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
  LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
TRANSPORT.
  DOCK CONGESTION.
  DOCK CONGESTION.
  WOOL (NON-DELIVERY).
  WOOL (NON-DELIVERY).
  RAILWAY POLICE.
  RAILWAY POLICE.
  INLAND NAVIGATION.
  INLAND NAVIGATION.
  ROAD BOARD.
  ROAD BOARD.
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (STAFF).
COAL PRODUCTION.
  PRICES (WATER UNDERTAKING).
  PRICES (WATER UNDERTAKING).
  EXPORTS TO AMERICA.
  EXPORTS TO AMERICA.
  COAL CLUBS.
  COAL CLUBS.
  DYEING (PRICES).
  DYEING (PRICES).
  PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
  PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
POST OFFICE.
  PENSION (Mr. R. JONES).
  PENSION (Mr. R. JONES).
  EX-SERVICE TEMPORARY EMPLOYES, SHEFFIELD.
  EX-SERVICE TEMPORARY EMPLOYES, SHEFFIELD.
  DUBLIN POST OFFICE (ASSISTANT-SUPERINTENDENTS).
  DUBLIN POST OFFICE (ASSISTANT-SUPERINTENDENTS).
  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING GRANTS.
  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING GRANTS.
  BOOTMAKING TRADE (MINIMUM WAGE).
  BOOTMAKING TRADE (MINIMUM WAGE).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  SCHOOL FOR SEA TRAINING, GRAVESEND.
  SCHOOL FOR SEA TRAINING, GRAVESEND.
  SHIPMASTERS' AND OFFICERS' 1919 RELIEF FUND.
  SHIPMASTERS' AND OFFICERS' 1919 RELIEF FUND.
  EDUCATION RATES (SCOTLAND).
  EDUCATION RATES (SCOTLAND).
  CULTIVATION OF LANDS ORDER, 1917.
  CULTIVATION OF LANDS ORDER, 1917.
  WART DISEASE IN POTATOES ORDER.
  WART DISEASE IN POTATOES ORDER.
  MOTOR GARAGES (MEMBERS' CARS).
  MOTOR GARAGES (MEMBERS' CARS).
  CENOTAPH, WHITEHALL.
  CENOTAPH, WHITEHALL.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (CENTRAL HALL).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (CENTRAL HALL).
  MESOPOTAMIA.
  MESOPOTAMIA.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, communications which have reached me from some of your Lordships show that it is necessary to make an explanation, however brief, of the provisions of this Bill. It is well known that this is the Scottish equivalent of the English Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, which became law last August, and in its main purpose and structure the Bill closely resembles the measure which has already received the assent of your Lordships. There are, as is inevitable from the nature of the case, points of difference, and I am informed that some members of the House who are highly qualified to offer advice in such a matter hold the view that in one or two respects the Act has been imperfectly adapted to Scottish purposes. Any such representations will naturally be carefully considered.
The main purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the settlement of suitable small holders upon land, with a preference in favour of men who have served in the war. The Bill consists in structure of five Parts. Part I, like that of the English Act, deals with the acquisition of land; Parts II and III, which correspond to Part II of the English Act, amend the existing law relating to small landholders; and Parts IV and V, which correspond to Parts III and IV of the English Act, contain financial and general provisions.
892
The differences between the two measures are due to the difference in the pre-existing codes applicable in the two countries, mainly contained as regards England in the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and as respects Scotland in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act,1911, and the Allotments (Scotland) Act,1902. Of these differences two ought to be particularly described. In England the power and duty of providing small holdings lies primarily with local authorities; in Scotland it lies with the Scottish Board of Agriculture. The second principal difference is that in England the small landholder becomes the tenant of the local authority on land purchased or hired by them for that purpose; in Scotland he remains the tenant of a private landlord, at a rent judicially fixed and with security of tenure. He is not the tenant of a local authority nor of the Board of Agriculture.
Let me shortly state the effect of the clauses. Clause 1 proceeds, as does Section 5 of the English Act, to confer power on the Board by way of extending the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918, emergency measures which contained agreement powers only, and the consent of the Treasury and Secretary for Scotland are necessary. Clause 2 I think I need not deal with. Clause 3 confers powers of entry resembling those in Section 2 of the English Act, and also by sub-clause (1) gives force to Schedule 1, which contains the compulsory acquisition procedure and resembles the English code as simplified by Section 1 of the recent Act. Clause 6 is the equivalent of Section 11 of the English Act, and gives directions to the Board in the selling or letting of land acquired. As in England, the tenant is given the right to buy his holding after six years' occupation at an agreed or arbitrated price, unless the Board obtain the consent of the Secretary for Scotland to a refusal to sell. Clause 7 and Clause 8 need not be specially referred to.
Part II is headed "Amendment of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911." That Act is the leading Statute which at present regulates the tenure of small holders in Scotland, and hitherto provided the means for the settlement of new holders. It will continue to do so after the temporary powers of purchase conferred on the Board by Part I have expired, and even during those two years it will provide an alternative means for the settlement of ex-Service men. Both, therefore, from the

893
emergency point of View and with a view to subsequent administration this Bill provides means for the simplification and amendment of the existing law in the light of experience, just as Part II of the English Act is devoted to the amendment of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908.
The small landholders tenure in Scotland has its root in the local conditions of the North and West, where when Parliament came to deal with the matter in 1886 there existed large numbers of small tenants residing on and cultivating their holdings or crofts and paying rents which were often low because the improvements on the crofts, whether by building or by operations on the land itself, were usually made by the crofter himself; but the rents were liable to be raised on account of these very improvements. The Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, applied only to the crofting counties and to crofters as defined in the Act, i.e., resident tenants from year to year of arable or pastoral holdings at a rent of £30 or less. These were given security of tenure subject to statutory conditions at a rent which might be varied either by agreement or by the Crofters Commission established by the Act; subdivision and assignation of the croft were prohibited and a power of bequest conferred which was limited to one member of the crofter's family. The Crofters Commission had power to enlarge the holdings, but none to establish new ones.
Then came the Act of 1911, which instituted the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and substituted the Scottish Land Court for the Crofters Commission, substituted also the statutory term "small landholder" for the "crofter" of 1886, though "crofter" survives in popular language. Existing crofters became "landholders," and so did many tenants not previously crofters, because tenants under lease were included as from the termination of their leases, and the rental limit was raised from £30 to £50. It ought to be added that the Act applies not only to the crofting counties properly so-called, but to the whole of Scotland; but that great extension of the area did not in itself largely multiply the small landholder, because for that status the Act required that the tenant himself, or his predecessors in the same family, should have effected the whole or the greater part of the permanent improvements on the holding, and this outside the crofting area has usually been done not by the tenant but by the landlord.
894
The new Land Court had power not only to fix rents and to revise them every seven years, and to enlarge existing small holdings, but to form new ones, by compulsion if necessary. It is this compulsory constitution of new holdings which has in practice proved to be the least satisfactory provision of the 1911 Act, and it is the provision which in this Bill it is deemed most important to amend, in order that the settlement of new holders under this tenure may henceforth be facilitated. It has been necessary to give this somewhat tedious explanation of the situation in relation to crofters prior to the introduction of this Bill, in order that its proposals now shortly summarised may be understood.
Clause 9, which is the first clause of Part II, proceeds to deal with this change. It proceeds by Amendment of Section 7 of the Act of 1911, which contains the existing law on this matter. Under Section 7 of the 1911 Act the procedure is that the Board of Agriculture, where it deems new small holdings to be required and land to be available, shall first negotiate with the landlord and failing agreement prepare a scheme for the purpose, and if the landlord does not accept the scheme apply to the Land Court for a compulsory order confirming it. If that goes through the scheme becomes effective, the new holdings are formed and equipped, and suitable applicants registered as landholders, their rents being fixed by the Land Court. This is a lengthy and complicated procedure. It is amended and simplified under the terms of this Bill. Several subsections of Section 7 relating to negotiation and agreement are repealed, being unnecessary. Where compulsion is necessary the Land Court is now "cut out," except for the one purpose of assessing disputed compensation. Having prepared their scheme the Board intimate it to the landlord and any tenant or occupier concerned, and after hearing any objections may either drop it or themselves make an Order confirming it, subject to the consent of the Secretary for Scotland. If the scheme is confirmed the Board themselves fix the first rent for the new holders, although the Land Court may vary these at the end of seven years.
As to compensation, that is always a difficult matter so far as compensation to the landlord is concerned. It is particularly difficult in this case, because he does not lose his land but retains it, although the rents are no longer agreed rents. The

895
1911 Act sets out provisions about compensation which have proved to be a hindrance to land settlement by this method, leading sometimes to the abandoning of promising schemes and sometimes to heavy charges on the public funds administered by the Board. Under this Bill, if your Lordships will look at Section 9, subsection (11) these are replaced by provisions which are felt to be both clearer and fairer. Compensation for loss in selling value—hitherto often a heavy claim—is ruled out except in so far as it arises from loss in letting value: and the value of porting rights is to be estimated as the value which such rights would possess if the land were at the same time put to agricultural or pastoral uses. Any enhanced value due to clearances will not be reckoned. The assessing tribunal is to be the Land Court, without the present alternative of a judicially appointed arbitrator, in all cases where claims exceed £300. The Land Court has now had several years experience, and it is hoped that on the whole the new provisions may be accepted as a fair solution of a problem of the difficulty of which the Government is sufficiently conscious.
I do not think I need give any special explanation of the other clauses, which are not particularly difficult. I have only to say that I thought it desirable to give this short explanation because the matter is a somewhat technical one. If the debate in its course elicits any other points on which information or explanations are desired, I will do my best to supply them at a later period. I hope that in the main these proposals will not prove to be unacceptable to your Lordships, and I move the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has alluded to Clause 9 and to the compensation clause of the 1911 Act. The latter has been found fair and reasonable, and there is nothing to show that what has been done under it was in any way excessive. The difference between what is provided in Clause 9 and what has been in operation in the past is that that portion of the cost of forming these holdings which has hitherto been borne by the public funds is now thrown upon the individual land owner whose land is taken. I will, however, deal with that aspect of the case later,
896
As regards the Bill there is in the main no hostility towards it. It is, as the noble and learned Lord said, divided into two Parts, one the Land Settlement and the other an Amendment of the Small Holdings Act, 1911. I do not think it can be said that it is by any means on all fours with the English Act, which dealt almost entirely with the settlement of soldiers and sailors, and it was really unnecessary for that purpose to have this amendment of the Small Holdings Act of 1911. As far as the taking of land for these holdings is concerned, it practically means that in each case the land owner whose land is to be compulsorily taken is to be treated very much worse under the present Bill than he has hitherto been treated.
There is one rather unfortunate circumstance in connection with this. The question was discussed in February, 1918, when the Secretary for Scotland asked a very large number of land owners in Scotland to meet him in Edinburgh. Considering the difficulties of the time and that so many were away at the war there was a very large attendance. The Government then had not been able to formulate any proposals, but after some discussion and after various suggestions had been made a Committee was formed of land owners representative of the whole of Scotland. We understood that the Secretary for Scotland was going to consult that Committee regarding this measure, but that Committee was never called together or consulted, and I think that is very unfortunate, because had it been called and consulted a good many difficulties of the present Bill might perhaps have disappeared. It would also probably have brought about a better feeling between land owners in Scotland and the Board of Agriculture who, up to the present, have not been on so good a footing as they ought to be. I think that the cause of this, partly, was the suspicion aroused when the Board of Agriculture was first created, but of course for that no member of the present Government was responsible. Still a certain amount of friction has been going on, though I do not think it is so bad now as it was, and if the land owners in Scotland had been more in touch with the Secretary many of these difficulties would have been removed, and it would have been easier to draft a Bill that would have been readily accepted, and certain portions of this Bill would not have contained, as they do, great injustices to the land owners in Scotland.

897
Coming to the clauses, one important point is that the purchase of holdings for soldiers and sailors is limited to two years, and a certain sum of money is provided for it. It was said in another place that the time could be extended, but I understand that there were certain objections to that on the part of the Treasury, and I think that perhaps your Lordships would like to have some assurance that there is a prospect during these two years of this money being spent, and that there will be no delay in the purchase of land for the settlement of soldiers and sailors. It was also, I believe, stated that, although the two years applied to the purchase of land, the money would still be available for the equipment. If that is the case it does remove many of the objections which could be directed against limiting it to a period of two years. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us some assurance that this money will be available for equipment when the two years are over.
Your Lordships will remember that whereas in England many authorities are engaged in settling these men on the land, in Scotland there is only one authority, and it is a very big job for that authority to purchase and arrange all these holdings, if there are to be a large number of applications, within two years of the passing of the Act. Some people have a suspicion, which I hope and believe is unfounded, that it is not proposed to use this money so much for the purchase, but to proceed more by the system that has been in operation in the past of settlement under the 1911 Act.
I will now deal with the most important clause in the Bill—Clause 9—which alters the whole procedure of taking land for small holdings. From the land owners' point of view the most objectionable part is subsection (11) (b) regarding the compensation payable. The noble and learned Lord said that this was going to be a fairer way of dealing with it than in the past, but I think that I have only to read to your Lordships the words themselves to enable you to see whether or not there is going to be proper compensation. At the bottom of page 6, line 32, there appear the words—
"The compensation payable under this subsection shall not include—
"(i) any allowance on account of the constitution of new holdings being compulsory."
898
No one has any objection to that. But the second reads as follows—
"(ii) Any compensation for injury done to or depreciation in the selling value of the land comprised in the scheme, or of any estate whereof such land forms part, except in so far as the same arises from injury done to or depreciation in the letting value of the land or estate. …"
I think from the wording of that section that it will be quite evident to your Lordships that considerable damage will be done, and that that loss has to be borne by the land owner whose land is taken, instead of as in the past by the State, because obviously if there was no loss there would never be any compensation paid, and in certain cases under the 1911 Act that has been the case.
The Prime Minister said not long ago that the State, whether it was building or buying land or obtaining the labour it required, would pay a fair price for it. That is only what. is asked, and I hope that when we get to the Committee stage the Government will put an Amendment down to carry out that pledge. The Prime Minister cannot look into everything himself, and I cannot imagine that His Majesty's Government want to do anything which will break a pledge or the word given by the Prime Minister.
There are cases where losses have occurred. There is one that is perhaps the best known—the farm, of Ballencrieff in East Lothian. The rent was about £1400, the farm extends to 590 acres. Thirty new holdings were formed on that farm. It did not come to arbitration, and the compensation which was agreed upon between the seller and the Board of Agriculture was £8,000, which, I believe, included the value of the buildings. The farm was shortly afterwards sold and realised £12,500, making a total return to the owner of the land which had been taken of £20,500, including all compensations. Previous to the Board taking this farm the owner had had an offer from the sitting tenant of £25,000, or over nineteen years' purchase of the gross rent, and a neighbouring farm was sold at an even larger number of years' purchase. So there is a loss to the owner of £4,500, and probably if it had been sold in the open market the loss would have come to another £1,000. That loss was made even after the landowner had obtained the compensation which is now being done away with by this Bill. There was £1,800

899
to £2,000 for compensation, and therefore under the present Bill, as it stands now, the loss in that particular case would have been between £6,000 and £7,000, or possibly more if the farm had been sold in the market.
It has been said that many of these cases will not affect very large owners so much because they would not have to sell their land. But your Lordships must think of the somewhat smaller owner. Unfortunately during the war the owner of land has been very heavily hit. He has had greatly increased expenditure and taxation, especially in Scotland, where there are stipends and other burdens on the property, and against that he has had no increase of rent. whatever. Unfortunately, also, a very large number of properties in Scotland are heavily mortgaged. Take the case in East Lothian which I have mentioned. The farms on that property sold at something like twenty to twenty-one years' purchase. After it was converted into small holdings the price realised when these small holdings were sold was twelve years' purchase. It is obvious that on a small estate which has mortgages there has been very great loss of security to the landlord. Very likely loans will have to be called up, and he will have to sell at a very heavy loss, and the whole of that loss will fall on the owner instead of on the estate.
It may be said that the case that I have quoted was an exceptional one, but I will take another from the Report of the Land Court. This is a farm called Kinninghall, and the Land Court was not supposed to be particularly favourable to the landholders. The Report states—
"It seeems indisputable that Kinninghall itself, if now put up for sale, would not attract the same competition as it would have done prior to 1913. The ordinary landowner will prefer a property where he has control of his tenants, their rents, and their leases. The outsider who wants a small holding for his own occupation knows that after he buys he must undertake the disagreeable task of turning out the present tenant, and must pay some yet-to-be-ascertained sum for his farm buildings. The tenants themselves, if they purchase, at once cease to be under the protection of the Land Acts, and may find themselves called upon by the Board for immediate repayment of the money lent them for erection of buildings. These three classes constitute the most likely buyers of land in ordinary circumstances, and from none of them could keen competition be expected. There remains the ordinary investor who wishes good security and a fair return for his money. There is no reason why he should not find both as the
900
owner of small holdings, but as yet perhaps this is hardly realised, and he may prefer another outlet for his surplus capital. We have accordingly found that the value of the estate of Cavers has been depreciated in one of its parts, namely Kinninghall, by the constitution of the new holdings and that to the extent of three years' purchase''
I think this is a case which, in all justice, should go back to the basis of the Act of 1911. That was settled after considerable consultation, and I think Mr. Asquith, who was then Prime Minister, went into the question himself and came to the conclusion that it was the only fair and reasonable way, in fulfilment of the pledges previously given by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. All that is asked now is that the Government should back up the statement made by the late Prime Minister.
There is another point which this clause deals with in the next paragraph, which, it is true, affects the Highlands much more than the South of Scotland. I should like to point out that there is in the public mind a misconception about sporting rights. I myself am not particularly fond of shooting, and therefore it does not affect me personally. But in Scotland it has been found that the letting of shootings to Englishmen and others who can afford to take them for their autumn holidays is of great value to the community. Although I have not worked it out on my own property the value of the shooting rights would not be more than—it would be under—one to ten as compared with the agricultural rate, and I believe it was something like that before the war. Therefore it is absurd when people talk of any one, at any rate in the South of Scotland, doing this against agriculture and in favour of game; because the return you get from game is as nothing compared with what you get from arable land.
But to show you how it affects the locality, I may say that some years ago one shooting was let for £250 and there was not much return after the keepers had been paid. I asked the tenant what he spent in the last year, and he said that he had spent over £600 during his holidays. That meant a great deal of employment, and also helped to keep the population in the country districts. Over and above that, if there is anything done to destroy these sporting values, instead of getting the money which is made in London and in other large towns, and instead of their

901
spending money in our country districts and helping the population to live there, the people who take the sporting rights will go abroad and all that money would be lost to us. I am pointing that out only with regard to the South of Scotland where it is an immense advantage to the population. With regard to the Highlands, with which I will not deal, it is a larger question and one that is mixed up with rating.
Small holdings are not a new thing; the question is a very old one, and one in which landowners have been interested for a large number of years, yet for some reason or other at the present time it is not thought necessary or desirable to consult them or to ask their assistance. As long ago as towards the end of the eighteenth century au ancestor of mine, the third Duke of Buccleuch, created small holdings in five villages. This was done without any Government assistance; it was carried out by a joint effort between the landowner and the tenants. The principle on which the landowner acted was that he realised what is not altogether realised at the present time—namely, that in the particular district the land was not sufficiently good altogether to maintain the population, and that therefore the principal livelihood of these small holders was to be by village industries. These villages were prosperous for a time, and then some of them went down; but there are two which are flourishing even now, one because a neighbouring manufacturing town employs the people, and the other because many visitors go there. But there are many advantages in this because, apart from the economic side, it enables anyone who has lived on the land and saved a certain amount of money and who is not capable of full work to take one of those houses with a small holding and get sufficient occupation for his age and capabilities. I think it is a pity in some ways that there has not been any effort to try to induce landowners to create more small holdings. If they do create them there is always the fear that they will be taken out of their control and put under the control of a Board of Agriculture and so on.
There are two or three other points in this Bill. In the former Small Holdings Bill there was a sanctioning authority. I admit that there is a certain desirability in "short-circuiting" (as they call it) the system because there was a certain amount
902
of delay in forming the holdings—although the delay was not as great as it was represented—by matters having to go through these various channels. But your Lordships, and also the taxpayers of the country, must remember that if this Bill passes in its present form the Board of Agriculture for Scotland will start the holdings, draw up the plans, and also be the sanctioning authority. There is practically no control to see that the money is properly spent or that the schemes devised are the best possible. I should like to give an instance of a case of my own in connection with the operations of the Land Court. Negotiations were going on with regard to a farm which I said was not as suitable as it might be. The case was taken to the Land Court, and the Land Court, although they sanctioned the scheme, upheld my view and said it was not by any means to be looked upon as an ideal settlement; they did not think that the ground was sufficiently good. However, I did not wish to stand in the way of the Board and we came to an agreement about the matter. There should be, however, some supervising authority. Again, those people whose land is to be taken should have some sort of appeal. Every one wants to prevent unnecessary delay or correspondence, but there are some cases where it is reasonable that the owner of the land which is to be taken should have some right of appeal. So far as I have seen, this Bill does not give any appeal at all. The Secretary of Scotland, it is true, has to sanction the scheme, but it is obvious that he would not have the time to look into everything, nor is there any form of appeal to him.
Another point is that under the former Bill—now swept away—any owner claiming more than £300 had the option of going to the Land Court, or, if he did not like to do that, there was a method arranged for arbitration. I do not know that I myself liked that very much, but I think it would be better if it were left. Parliament has lately passed the Acquisition of Land Act, but it is curious that this Act, which was essentially one for taking land for public purposes, should be absolutely ignored in this Bill. If instead of all this leasing they were going to use the Acquisition of Land Act the whole difficulty would disappear but for some extraordinary reason there seems to me a rooted objection to purchasing the land. I mean by that not necessarily that they should be compelled to purchase, but that if the owner is not

903
willing to lease they should have the option of taking it under the Acquisition of Land Act. It does not seem to be much use for Parliament to pass such an important measure as the Acquisition of Land Act if the various Departments do not make use of it. It surely is not right that each Department should have its own particular way of dealing with any subject of that kind. The probability is that the arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land Act might be a better arbitrator to decide upon the value of the land and the compensation to be paid than the Board of Agriculture in the present case.
There is a further small point on which I should like information—namely, the question of home farms, and so on. In both the English and the Irish Bills on Land Settlement home farms are excluded from the operation of the Bills. Although it may not be of vast importance, if two years only are to be allowed for purchasing and it is possible that the time may have to be extended, I think it is only reasonable that that should be put into the Scottish Bill, and so make it on all fours with the Bills—now I think the Acts—for England and Ireland.
I am afraid I have somewhat wearied your Lordships with a good deal of detail in these matters. The real point is that the land owners of Scotland are anxious to facilitate in every way the settlement of soldiers and sailors. We are prepared to do what we can, and we appointed a Committee to go into these matters. We desire most strongly that the pledges given by the Prime Minister and also by the Leader of the House of Commons, the Leader of the Unionist Party, should be kept in this matter. We consider that certain parts to which I have alluded in Clause 9 are breaches—at least, they are not keeping their words in the spirit or even, in my opinion, in the letter. It is quite impossible, as I have said, for the Prime Minister to know what is going on, but I do sincerely hope that something will be done to meet our views in this respect, because, although it might not be so hard for a land owner who has a large extent of land, and who gets compensation for his loss in letting value (though no compensation in respect of capital value), it is a most serious thing for a small owner. I think it is very wrong that a person not particularly well off, whose land is taken for public purposes, should at the same time
904
very likely be ruined and have to pay a very large proportion of the expenses which ought, undoubtedly, to be borne by the country.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I should like, before the Second Reading of this Bill, to say a few words in criticism of certain lines of unfairness so clearly brought out by the Duke of Buccleuch. We all listened, I am sure, to the statement of the noble Lord on the Woolsack, that he would consider certain views that we might bring forward, in order to see how far effect could be given to them in the Committee stage.
First of all I should like to say, with regard to Part I, that I believe, from what transpired at a meeting which I attended of those interested in the land question in Scotland, that you will find every support to pass Part I as it stands. Undoubtedly, as the Duke of Buccleuch has pointed out, we in Scotland are putting up with certain hardships as regards the acquisition of land which the land owners of England have not been asked to accept. We have perhaps less cultivated and less cultivable land. There is also the question that the body which is to decide compensation is altered, and we hope in future that the deciding body will give fairer decisions than have perhaps been given in the past.
As to Part III, which deals with allotments, I am perfectly certain that that will receive nothing but support from this side of the House. High prices and shorter hours have undoubtedly added enormously to the possibilities of the allotment movement. Speaking for myself, I can only say that I wish this particular Part had gone further, and that a larger sum had been voted for the increase of allotments, especially for allotments in the neighbourhood of towns and villages. I am certain, from the fact that the soldiers who return from the war have had periods of strenuous—one might almost say killing—work alternating with rest in rest billets, that it is much more a question, not of work shyness on their return, but a wish to escape from the dull monotony of one particular job for the whole time. I believe, therefore, you will find, with the shorter hours and the greater advantage to be got from allotments, that allotments, especially by soldiers, will be made the greatest use of, and I wish the sum of £4,000 allotted had been considerably increased.

905
Turning to Part II, on which the whole of my own criticism will be centred, I would like to ask the House first to consider whether it is necessary to have Part II at all. The 1911 Bill was a distinctly bad Bill. It was bad in itself; it was not too wisely administered as an Act; and it failed from the very start, because it did not accept the fact that in order to get settlement in land you want the co-operation of every single individual interested in land—that is to say, the land owner, the tenant, and the Board which has to administer. You are sailing on a very fine margin when you are dealing with small holdings in any part of Scotland. Unless you have the utmost co-operation between the three parties interested, I do not believe that they will succeed on the whole. I believe that if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, had had the good fortune, or the bad fortune, to attend the meeting at which the Duke of Buccleuch presided and to which he has made a reference, he would have appreciated the wish that there is expressed by land owners in every part of Scotland to aid in the settlement of returned soldiers and to give every assistance.
By the 1911 Act it was only possible to get fair treatment by opposing a scheme which was put forward. The noble Lord made certain references to schemes being ruled out on account of expense, although the schemes themselves might have been good. Having had considerable experience of such schemes, let me assure him that a great many schemes were lost, simply because, in order to get your rights, you had to oppose the schemes under this most foolish Act of 1911. Whether it is necessary, as urged by the Government, for the special conditions of Scotland, to have a Bill based on the 1911 Act, I would only say, for my part, that we must be quite clear that justice covers not one bank but both banks of the Tweed. Furthermore, as far as Scotland is concerned, we must be sure that Part I of the Bill is not to be the camouflaged portion of it and Part II, which is merely a prolongation of partisan effort, the really effective portion.
I would commend to the noble Lord's notice that I think your Lordships will probably press to see that we have a quite clear definition as to how much action is going to be taken under Part I and under Part II. It is really extraordinary that a Government should produce one Part of
906
a Bill which is mainly fair in its encouragement, and, in a second Part, an alternative scheme for the same subject which is grossly unfair in a great many respects. You must back one horse or the other. You must say either that you are going to deal fairly with land owners in land settlement, or that you are not going to deal fairly under Part II where you fail to pay the compensation which is due.
Before I deal further with Part II of the Bill I should like to touch on one point which I think is very important—namely, the actual amount of money which ought to be spent under Part I and under Part II. Under Part I you will get £2,500,000, which is the Scottish share of the land settlement money voted by Parliament. Under Part II you have to deal with money which comes under the Agriculture, Scotland Fund, which altogether is about £200,000. Therefore for the next two years you will have the £2,500,000, spent under the grant for soldiers, and £400,000 under the other head. Of this £400,000 you will have to spent £15,000 on housing, you will have all your ordinary upkeep expenses and salaried gentlemen to pay, and for the actual settlement of soldiers on the land I calculate you will have at the outside £150,000 to £200,000.
Therefore I submit is it worth while risking a chance of losing this Bill by insisting on certain provisions in the Bill in order to get 10 per cent., probably 5 per cent., of benefit which is going to come to soldiers under the Bill as a whole? It may be said that we are holding up land settlement if we oppose Part II of the Bill. I wish to make it abundantly clear that if we hold up Part II we only hold up at the outside 10 per cent., 5 per cent. would be much nearer, of the settlement of soldiers by the whole Bill as it stands.
It would be a pity if Part II was lost. It is going to quicken up the method by which settlement will be made. In the past there were references from the Board of Agriculture back to the Land Court, and the process was slow and cumbersome. Little was done. This is going to make the process much quicker; so quick that schemes may be passed which may be unfair. We have to take that risk, and it is a fair and legitimate risk. These men who fought for their country wish to settle on the land and it is important that as soon as legislation is passed action should follow. It would also facilitate settlement by consent,

907
which I think is a most important consideration. The advantages which are going to be given to existing crofters have my entire sympathy.
There are other minor points in the Bill on which I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships. It would be a pity if the Bill was lost simply on the two clauses dealing with compensation against which we can present the strongest arguments. I will not go into the question of the honour of the Prime Minister being absolutely pledged to see that a fair settlement is made and the proper and right interest in land regarded. I can point to the Glasgow speech of Mr. Bonar Law, the Leader of the Unionist Party, in which he made an equivalent statement. We have a right to hold that these election pledges, given at a time when a General Election was being held, should be made good. On the grounds of justice also there is no reason why land owners in Scotland should not be as fairly treated as land owners in England. In one-half of this Bill you treat them fairly; in the other half you treat them with grave injustice.
Another point, which is even more important, is the question of the absolute power it gives to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland practically to make bankrupt any unfortunate land owner in the Northern part of Scotland who derives most of his revenue from sporting estates. It places in the hands of this body the power to make or mar any individual in that area. It is not a question of what might happen; it is a question of what has happened. I can quote two cases. There is a certain property on which the Board of Agriculture insisted that £30 worth of grazing land should be taken by resident tenants. The value of that property was reduced from £1,200 a year to £750, and I am told that it has now been reduced to £450. The rateable value also came down from £1,100 to £450, and as the taxation in this area is going to be something like 10s. in the obviously£ the fall in rateable value will come on the local authority. The decrease in the value of sheep on this grazing land was between £500 and —600 and the amount produced from the area was much less than in the past. This is an example of how far folly can go if you give to a body absolute power to enter into any sporting area, deer forest or otherwise, and turn it inside out.
908
The Duke of Buccleuch made a reference to the question of taxation and its relation to sport. As you Lordships are aware, in the South of Scotland the importance of sporting values is not very great; but in the Northern areas the sporting values are very often in certain parishes 60 per cent. of the total rateable value. That is to say, if you abolish the whole of your sporting value you would double the existing rates. I am sorry to trouble your Lordships with this question of rates, but it is a very important one. In the county of Inverness-shire our police rates have gone up from £9,000 to £19,000 by a stroke of the pen. We had to adopt practically the same regulations which govern the police of London, and the Outer Isles policeman who perhaps does one day's work a week has got to have the same rest day as those who guard the streets of London every day. We have had to have an Education Bill which insists upon travelling expenses being paid, and has increased the rates in certain parishes from 1s. 4d. to 7s. in the £. In the particular parish to which I have referred I think I am correct in saying that the parish rates, which were 2s. in the £, are now 7s. 1½d. We have experienced, of course, the usual advances that poor localities have had on roads and lunacy, which have more than doubled the rates which in many parishes in the Highlands are approaching 10 s. in the £. Now, if you halve your rateable value by the abolition of sporting values you necessarily double the rates, and you may, unless this Act is carefully worked, reduce our Highlands to the same condition as the Outer Isles.
I do not know whether many of your Lordships have travelled in the Outer Isles. I had the fortune or misfortune to recruit there for a good many years, and I am absolutely persuaded that the whole of the misfortunes of the Outer Isles turn to a very great extent upon the question of rateable value. Lord Balfour of Burleigh had dealt with the whole rating question of the Outer Isles and knows more about the subject than I do, but I am sure he will agree with me that if the whole of the Highlands were reduced to the same state as the Outer Isles we might say good-bye to prosperity. I do not wish for a moment that it should be thought that I do not believe that the deer forest question cannot be tackled with advantage. I am a whole-hearted believer in the abolition of a great

909
many of the deer forests of Scotland. A great many of them should never had been put under deer at all. I have always thought that a good many could be used for sheep land, and others for forestry and grouse and sheep and the rates on those might be maintained. A smaller number, being in close connection with crofter ground, could be turned into small holdings or used for grazing extensions. It is necessary, however, to remember a few facts. In 1892 a Commission which held a survey only found 2,500 acres of arable land.
How many men are you going to settle on 2,500 acres? At the most you would be dealing with the settlement of 100 soldiers. Is it therefore worth while to risk the Bill by not paying adequate compensation, because the numbers of persons that you are going to settle on these lands will only be a very small percentage of the total number that it is hoped to settle in Scotland. I therefore would insist again that it is most dangerous to put it in the power of such a body of men, who from their very nature have no interest in the question of taxes and rates, to reduce the sporting value and therefore reduce the rateable value. You may say what is the connection between rateable values and compensation to landlords? It is the very closest connection. It is this, that if compensation is to be paid they will obviously in making schemes take those schemes which are something like economically possible. Without compensation there is no driving force to make them adopt those schemes which by their development, would give the maximum result to the small holders and cause a minimum of hurt to the people in the villages.
With regard to the remarks, which were made by the noble Duke—as to the drop in selling value—I believe that in the South, where small holdings are not so much understood as they are in the North, the drop in the selling value is considerable. In the Northern Highlands it is perhaps not so great, but whether it is great or small it is surely right that the loss should be undertaken by the Government equally in the case of those who dwell north as in the case of those who dwell south of the Tweed. I was particularly interested to hear the statement of the Lord Chancellor that he was prepared to listen to reasonable suggestions. I am sure that he will see that on this compensation question we have got every right to feel that we should be not less
910
well treated than those who reside south of the Tweed. I believe there to be a considerable demand for small holdings. It is only right that the soldiers who fought overseas should be enabled if they wished to take the risk of small holdings, but I feel in justice that it is a liability which is a liability of the nation as a whole and not one which should be thrust upon any particular body of persons.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, practically all the points against this Bill have been made by the two noble Lords who have spoken, but there are one or two on which I should like to say a few words. The Bill tinder discussion is intended to be a measure for settling soldiers on the land, and as such it must obviously receive our most hearty co-operation and support, so far as it fulfills that object and so far as the Government carry it out without injustice to any other section of the population. I do not know how far the demand for small holdings exists in Scotland amongst returned soldiers, for the very good reason that we find great difficulty in getting returns. In the crofting counties, about which Lord Lovat has just been speaking, no doubt there is a greater demand still for small holdings, and I quite understand the desire of the Secretary of Scotland to speed up the granting of these small holdings considering that we are to a certain extent three or four years in arrear on our programme on account of the war. In the Lowland counties I think there is really less demand for small holdings than there was before, and for very good reasons.
In what I say now I am not saying anything against the idea of small holdings, but I think there are certain facts that we ought to consider before we blindly pass a Bill which, as has already been shown, would inflict a certain amount of injustice on certain individuals. Wages are now very high in the country districts in the Lowlands, and men can make more money with shorter hours and with less labour than they could possibly ever make on any small holding, and they have no risks to their capital. A man simply has to go on the railway—it does not matter if he knows anything at all; no questions are asked—and he gets something like 50 s. a week, and he certainly will not make 50 s. a week when lie is seventeen or eighteen years of age on a small holding. Or he can go into the timber trade. Yon see boys of fifteen getting

911
£3 a week for leading a horse up and down the road. Of course, that is a temporary wage, but generally speaking wages in Scotland, agricultural and otherwise, are so high now that it would probably pay a man better to be a labourer in some profession or another than to have a small holding, more especially when you remember that his family can possibly bring in £8 or £10 a week, whereas to a small holder helped by his family there would be nothing of that sort.
A Housing Act has been passed, and we have the promise, or hope at all events, that we shall get houses for workmen better than the houses that they have at the present moment, with reasonable security. I think these conditions are probably far better for the men who come out of the Army than are the small holdings which are proposed, for the small holdings are a perpetual grind from dawn to night, and there is a considerable element of risk about them. I do not think that this ought to be an experiment, but that the men who are put on to the land should know something about it. To put men on the land who know nothing about it means that they will starve. Future tenants, therefore, will require to have a certain amount of training. I think that we might well spend a certain sum in training them before entering into very large schemes. The men should have an opportunity of learning what the work is like, so that the preliminary training can act as a sieve. Those who cannot stand it will find out beforehand, and will not go on the land and become a burden upon it and to themselves.
Apart from the question of small holdings, your Lordships must remember that there is also the question of the general public. During the war we were living on a very narrow margin of food in this country. I am not talking of small holdings and deer forests in the Highlands, but of small holdings in the Lothians. If you are to cut up some of your best land in the Lothians into small holdings—and the small holder has to live on some of the best land—you will certainly diminish the food supply of this country, and also put up the price of food to individuals in the towns. The question of allotments is a very different matter. Allotments have my hearty sympathy, because I think the old soldier is far more suited to working on an allotment than he is on a small holding, and
912
also it does not take up the whole of his time. He is able to take up some other work, and yet his allotment is sufficient to give him a great many not only of the necessaries of life but also to give him what I might call a stake in the country, and an interest in it, which he would not otherwise have. Certainly it would not tie him in the same way that a small holding does.
While supporting the Bill generally, I would like to go briefly into one or two of the chief defects, as I regard them. I am not going to make the charge that this Bill—an emergency Bill—is being used to alter the Small Landholders Act, which alteration could not be made had the Government tried to bring in Amendments to that Act in the ordinary way, though there is a suspicion of that. What is being done reminds me of what took place the other day in connection with a club that wished to get a cup for competition. They could not raise sufficient money in the club to purchase that cup until someone had the bright idea that they might call it a war memorial to the members who died during the war. The money was immediately forthcoming, and they got their cup, and members were able to compete for it. It is very much the same thing here. You are able to tack on the word "soldiers" to the first Part of the Bill, thinking that it will be rushed through in consequence, because everybody will dislike and resent doing anything that might not be to the advantage of soldiers, and you then add on the second Part of the Bill something which is an alteration to an Act, and which is hardly germane to the purpose in view. I do not think that that is a fair way of bringing in an Amendment to an Act. Nearly every one of the Amendments that are brought in are Amendments that were attempted to be introduced into the Small Landholders Act, and which were beaten in the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will remember that we worked together and defeated those very Amendments, which are now brought into this Bill. And that was done in another place, which was certainly not at all friendly to the one and only landlord on the Committee.
The first thing we find is that the Board of Agriculture is constituted the sole judge of its own schemes. That was a point we fought before, and even that very

913
strong Committee in another place had to admit the justice of our contention. It is surely not fair, if two people are in disagreement, that one of those two should be the sole arbiter. That is really what happens. It is quite true that there is an appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, but after all the Secretary for Scotland is the head of the very Department which is one of the parties to the action, and Chairman of the Board. Surely he should not be the man, in common equity and justice—though. I do not suspect his wish to be fair—to be the judge in the matter. But apart from that aspect of the matter, I think it is a very great mistake, and puts the Secretary for Scotland into a very invidious position. He is not always popular as it is. He has a great many things to do—a great many difficult things to do—and he cannot possibly have time to go into all these questions, and I think it is putting the chief Minister of State for Scotland into a most invidious position to put upon him the settlement of questions for the decision of which there are plenty of judges and courts, and plenty of other kinds of arbiters in Scotland.
Then there is the question of compensation. It is probably folly to own land, but so far it is not a crime, and if the Government want to acquire land, surely they ought to pay the full market value for it. That is in equity recognized everywhere, except perhaps in some parts of this country. If, for instance, the Government in the interests of the Army wishes to buy a large stock of clothing, and has to seize it, it pays the full value for it, and sometimes pays far too much. Why, then, because a commodity is land should the Government pay sometimes half the value of that land, and do everything it can to reduce its price for the Government's own purchase? I do not call that equity and fairness.
A short time ago the Government passed the Housing Bill to which one or two modifications were made in this House. We asked for one or two modifications in order to make it more suitable for Scotland. We were immediately met with the official reply that you could not possibly alter that Bill to make it suitable for Scotland because it was in the English Bill, and it was only right that a great. Bill concerning the two countries should have the same basis. On the other hand we now come here and ask for certain provisions in our
914
Bill—all questions of principle which exist in the English Bill—and we are told that that is no argument. Perhaps the noble Lord on the Woolsack, when he replies, will inform us why we should not have the same basis of compensation in Scotland as we do in England. I am sure there is a very good reason for it, but so far we have not been able to ascertain it.
A good deal has been said with regard to the loss on selling land. Some noble Lords perhaps did not hear the very cogent way in which it was put by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch. In the English Bill compensation is allowed for the loss of capital and letting value. But in the Scottish Bill you are altering the whole system that we have had up to now, and we are only allowed the letting value and not the capital value for compensation. In the case given by the noble Duke an estate was cut up into thirty small holdings, and the rent dropped by about £1,000. That was all right; you got compensation for that. The sitting tenant had offered £25,000 for the estate. It was not accepted, and then the owner, not wishing any longer to hold an estate of thirty small holdings over which he had no control, and on which there was no sport left, sold his estate, and there was immediately a drop to £12,500. Thus by the direct action of putting small holdings upon the estate there was a loss of about £12,500. Why is the owner not to be compensated for that? Because it costs too much. If it costs too much that is not the proper place to put small holders, unless the Government are prepared to make up the loss. There are certain new features in this Bill. When there is betterment that is deducted from what is due to the landlord, but if there is "worsement" we do not get any compensation. The whole thing is—"Heads I win, tails you lose." The Land Court in these cases of compensation is made the sole judge of any single case. It is not only the judge—it is the jury, the assessor and the beneficiary. Surely that is not fair.
The Bill also cuts out a great deal of compensation from a sporting point of view. It does not nearly so much affect individuals like myself with large properties and deer forests which are perfectly unassailable for climatic and other reasons. But where there is a small deer forest you can understand that there may be some small portion of it that would keep a small holder. But that small piece

915
of ground is probably the grazing area for the whole of the deer forest concerned, and therefore it is better business for the district and for the whole country that it should be under deer. It is possible you could put a small holding there, but to do that you would probably have to dispossess three or four people of their houses. Under this Bill you say that compensation is to be paid as if the rights of the landlord were put to the full possible use. If you put in the word "reasonable" use one might have understood it. It is perfectly possible for an odd sheep, or a few sheep, to stray into the forest, and that would be part of the "possible" use. We think this is far too sketchy a clause to be included, in view of the fact that it may mean the entire loss of compensation, because if you were to use it to its full use and allow three or four sheep right to the top of the hill it would mean that you would not merely have malicious chasing of sheep for the various purposes of the tenants but you would have great disturbance, with the result that there would be no deer there and no compensation for sporting value. That is perfectly possible.
I want to remind noble Lords also of the question of the rates. In my own parish a year or two ago I found the value of the "general subjects" and railways was something like £12,000, and the value of the "sporting subjects" £13,000. Therefore the sporting subjects paid considerably more than half the rates in the district. If you do away with valuable sporting subjects it means that you will raise the rates for every other individual in the parish, excepting the small holders who do not pay—for the grocer, the boot-maker, and every single individual who has a house. And the rates are so high now in Scotland that you will find it will be an extremely heavy burden on the people, and that rents will drop in a great many of these places. I take a place where sheep have been put into a deer forest during the war. The rental formerly was £450, and after sheep were put in by the Board of Agriculture the rental was £30. The result is that these rates have to be paid by the community in general. It is a question to consider whether, if there is a drop in the rates, that drop should not be made good by the Government, because this has become an intolerable burden in some of the Highland parishes.
The only other clause to which I want to allude is one on which I may possibly
916
have more practical sympathy (if I may say so) from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack —I mean Clause 14, which I think is a mistake. That clause states that it be permissible to make small holdings within the borough boundary of any borough in the North of Scotland. It so happens that I took charge of an Amendment to the Small Landowners Bill in 1911 against this very point, and carried it, at the request of some of the boroughs in the North of Scotland. If you propose to put small holdings in the middle of these boroughs, you must remember that the boundaries of those boroughs are not very wide, that they contain small villas, and that the inhabitants are anxious to keep the amenities of their boroughs undisturbed because they depend almost entirely for their livelihood on summer visitors. Some people think that a small holding contains only vegetables, and beds of violets, and so on. Speaking from my own knowledge, the reverse is usually the case; you will have on them cattle, poultry, bees, and a midden. These are not pleasant things to have next to you. The inhabitants have no objection to, in fact they are in favour of, small holdings in the immediate vicinity of the boroughs.
When we come to the Committee stage I shall move the excision of this clause, and it is up to the Government to agree or not. I wanted to bring the point forward—it is perfectly altruistic—and I think we should have further information on the subject. I believe that this was put in at a time when the usual watch-dogs in Committee in the other place were absent. I trust that the questions I have raised will be taken into consideration when the Bill goes into Committee.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I start by giving your Lordships a definite assurance that I do not desire to prolong this discussion, but I am in this difficulty—that while I agree with almost everything that has been said from the Benches behind me, I shall be liable to misunderstanding if I allowed the discussion to close without saying that what has been said applies to all parts of Scotland and to give it such support as I can. Lord Lovat and the Duke of Atholl did not in the smallest degree over-state the difficulties which will be brought on those country districts if careful discrimination is not used in making schemes which interfere

917
on a large scale with the deer forests and sporting interests there. That is one of the reasons why I object to the taking away of the right of appeal in the case of schemes which are promoted by the Board of Agriculture. At present there is a right of appeal; and I want to point out to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in case he has not had his attention directed to it, that the Board of Agriculture as a Board has no interest at all in the matter of rating. It does not matter to them how high the rates go up; therefore I am strongly of opinion that the Board of Agriculture ought to have the control over them of a Tribunal of Appeal in connection with their schemes. If they are reasonable I do not believe that the Court of Appeal would ever be brought into operation, but the mere fact of the existence of an appeal will tend to make them more reasonable than thee otherwise would be. I also strongly object to the, Land Court being supreme in judging matters of compensation. I am not in the least surprised that they want to get rid of the Court of Appeal, because I think in the majority of cases in which an appeal has been taken from their decision it has been defeated; therefore it is extremely natural that they would want to get rid of the Court of Appeal.
The only other point upon which I want to speak is the question of the compensation for settling small holders upon the land. I myself dislike the idea of their being put there as tenants. I think it is an altogether false relation, as between landlord and tenant, that the landlord (whatever his sins and errors may be) should have put upon him tenants in the selection of whom he has no voice. The certain result will be friction and difficulty. In ordinary circumstances the tenant has certain mutual obligations to his landlord, and in the majority of cases they work together. If you put down a number of people selected by an outside authority, who has no relation to the landlord at all, you are in my opinion certain to have a greater amount of friction than you would have in any other circumstances. If the finances of the country are such that you cannot produce money to purchase the land, why not give the land owner the annual rent on a fair arbitration, what it is worth one year with the other—what we call in Scotland a feu—for a long period of years? That wound be very much better than what is proposed in this Bill.
918
Let me give your Lordships an illustration. Supposing there is a farm of 400 acres for which 25 s. an acre is paid, or a gross rent of £500. If the Tribunals in question enter upon that farm and take the whole 400 acres and put upon them ten small holders, if the gross rent of those ten small holders comes to the £500, there is no compensation, and no case for compensation. If the rent is in any way less than £500—say, for example, it is £450 for the ten small holdings —for that loss of annual value, even under this Bill, the landlord is to be compensated, and rightly so. But supposing you put the ten small holders on and they pay nominally £500 a year—the same as the present rent£you cannot deny that the capital value of that holding is depreciated. Take it how you like, you will find no one who will defend the position that the capital value is the same; because no one will give you the same number of years' purchase for a farm on which there are ten small holders that he will give you for a large and thriving holding occupied by a prosperous tenant who pays his rent in one lot of £500. What is the reason? Can the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack defend the position that there is to be compensation in the one case and no compensation in the other? It seems to me absolutely absurd, and personally I hope that this provision will be put out of the Bill.
Then there is another point. I have had the argument put to me that it does not matter what the selling value of the thing is if the owner does not want to sell. There are cases where the owner does not want to sell but where he is obliged to mortgage. The mortgagee who goes into the market to find security for what he wants to lend, will not lend on an estate split up in the way I have described as much as he will lend on an estate consisting of large farms. Therefore, put it how you like, you are doing harm to the capital value of what you are taking; and I do not think it is fair that the individual should be prejudiced for what is a State service. I cannot for the life of me understand what the justification on the part of the Government is for treating the Scottish land owner worse than they are treating the English laud owner. I hope that this point will receive the careful attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I shall listen with great attention to whatever ingenuity he can find to make a reply. I am not going to

919
prolong the discussion; but, as I have said, unless I had said so much it might have been thought that I was sitting here and not approving, whereas on all the points taken by my Scottish friends I want to say that I am in hearty agreement.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the Lowlands, can the Government say whether any benefit—economic or productive, or social—has arisen from the small holdings created under the 1911 Act? The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, referred to the case of Ballencrieff. I have not visited the spot myself, but I know a good deal about it. The land that has been broken up there constituted one of the, best farms in the East Lothians, and its condition now compared with what it was before is such that it produces about one-half of what it produced as a large farm. I have had a farm broken up into two small holdings, the farm buildings cut in two, and fresh buildings put up, the walls of which began to crack within twelve months. To-day, that farm is not occupied by a greater number of people than would have been the case under a single tenant.
What has been the benefit to the country by breaking up a farm of that description? I pity the small holders, supposing there is any great fall in prices. They benefited from high prices during the war, but, in the normal conditions of agriculture which obtained before the war, I believe they would be ruined men. At the present time, one of the most favoured farms in East Lothian is going to be broken up—Thorntonloch—into forty small holdings, I believe. What is to be the cost of establishing these holdings on a farm which is in the centre of the best producing area perhaps in the United Kingdom, if not in the world? Where is the benefit? Can the Government say that the country has Prospered or benefited by the creation of these small holdings?
If there is any particular locality where it would be desirable to establish these people it would be competent for the Government, without the elaborate machinery under the existing Act and proposed under the present Bill, to go to the open market and buy any amount of land. They would be perfectly free to act as a landlord and under the condition which Lord Balfour of Burleigh described, that would be far better than forcing
920
tenants on a landlord, when it is so essential in the whole conduct of agriculture that all parties should be concerned to get together the best results. Therefore, I hope it may be possible for any member of the Government who is going to reply to say what has been the result of the establishment of these small holdings under the 1911 Act.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, it is my intention to-night only to deal with the general principle of this Bill. The details, I think, have already been dealt with by noble Lords who have spoken, and they will come up again in the Committee stage. This Bill is of very much greater importance than is generally realised. For a hundred years the Highlands have, from time to time, seen a series of land agitations. They have died down, only to rise again and to cause fresh unrest and trouble. Let us hope that this Bill, the fruit of a compromise with all parties, may be a way of laying that ghost of unrest which has haunted the Highland glens for so long. Is it an adequate Bill to fulfil the pledges that were made exactly a year ago by the Prime Minister and Mr. Bonar Law to the ex-service men, and to fulfil those pledges in fairness to all other parties and classes? On its face value, it seems to fulfil everything that is needed, but only by experience can it be found whether it will do so, or whether another measure will be required later to settle permanently the great land questions that have distracted Scotland for so long. At any rate, it is agreed, I think, that the present Bill should suffice at least to fulfil these pledges to the ex-service men.
Let us consider for a moment the position that will arise if radical changes are made in this Bill in your Lordships' House. The Bill will go to another place and very probably will be returned in the form in which it was sent to us. A serious constitutional crisis might then arise, and I remember that it is only a short time ago—a few years before the war—that in Scotland, at any rate in the Highlands of Scotland, the House of Lords was looked upon with anything but favour. In fact, my recollection is that it was considered to be the author of all tyrannical evil. The cranks and agitators very cleverly twisted the various acts of the House of Lords to represent everything as being against the people's interests. We do not wish for a similar state of affairs at this moment, when we should all be united

921
against the many evils of Bolshevism and such like troubles that surround us. It is important that we should all pull together and act in fairness to all parties. I think, if I may say so, that Lord Lovat, in his excellent speech, made a very true remark—that the small landlords, who depend year by year on their rentals and sporting rentals, have every right to expect fair and honest compensation, equal to that which they would receive if no settlement scheme were to take place on their land.
What is the cry from the ex-Service men themselves in Scotland? At present they say that none of the pledges have been fulfilled; that they are still waiting for something more to be done; and that what has been done is comparatively trifling in its extent. That is quite true, and it is only by getting this Bill through, with reasonable speed and by allowing only reasonable amendments to take place, that this crying need will be met. Great discrimination is necessary to avoid mistakes that may be made. For instance, the wrong men may be selected and bad schemes may be adopted. Inefficient officials and ill-advised plans will cost the country much money and be a waste of time. The Board of Agriculture officials, who have such large powers under this Bill, should be chosen with the greatest care. They must be men of real practical knowledge. The Secretary for Scotland, who has a great responsibility under the Bill, must weigh well the consequences of everything he undertakes, and he must review in all its different phases every scheme that comes to him for consent. I think in the circumstances, and taking into consideration the conflicting interests, no better Bill could be evolved than the present one.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I have no direct connection with Scotland which would justify me in speaking on this question, but I have had a long experience of that country for many weeks every autumn for a number of years, and have learned a good deal about the sporting aspect of the case. I wish to express my entire agreement with the statement of the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, when he feared that the administration of this Bill might not be in sufficiently practical hands. That is the one danger in these days we have to contend with in regard to all agricultural questions. There is a want of practical official knowledge in
922
the Department of the Board of Agriculture for England, though I cannot say from my own knowledge what the position is with regard to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
I am entirely in sympathy with the views expressed by my noble friends in this debate. I believe them to be absolutely right. In no case are they more accurate than in what they have said about rates. I am perfectly certain that unless this Bill is administered with great care in this particular respect its passage will be the worst day for the rates and the ratepayers in Scotland that Scotland has experienced for a long time.
With regard to small holdings and allotments, if I do say a word on that subject I am sure the House will believe that I am perfectly genuine in my interest in small holdings. It fell to my lot in the House of Commons, many years ago, to be the author of the first compulsory Bill for allotments, and it was also my duty to introduce and carry the first Bill in the House of Commons providing for the addition of small holdings. Therefore, my views on that point may be already well known. But Scotland differs to a great degree, especially in the north where the deer forests exist, from the position in England in one respect which no one up to the present has mentioned. I will give any own experience.
For many years I had a forest in the middle of Sutherlandshire, in the very centre of that county, joined on one side by the deer forest of the Duke of Sutherland and on the other by the deer forest which now belongs to the Duke of Westminster. What did I learn from my sojourn there autumn after autumn for many years? I learned that it was very unwise to attempt to make a great outlay in that part of the world upon small holdings, and for this reason. You always have to contend with the weather and the seasons, and they are absolutely uncertain. In three years in succession the weather was so bad that the crops were never garnered at all, practically speaking they were wasted, and all the exertions and work given to them worthless. This is a consideration which does not appear to have entered the mind of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, although they certainly ought to have known it.
Just another word on the question of deer forests. People who are not versed

923
in the subject themselves do not seem to be aware how much food they produce for the people living in these sparse country districts. During the war the owners of deer forests killed many stags solely for the purpose of feeding the population who lived around them. I am sorry I have not the figures with me. I asked for some figures from Caithness which were given to me, but I have forgotten or lost them—it was three years ago. But the number of stags killed during the war was enormously great for the purpose of providing food for the people, and it is a matter which ought to be borne in mind in any legislation on the subject that the number of deer is now much smaller than it was at that time. I do not wish to delay the House but, having listened with the greatest interest to the debate and knowing a good deal of the subject, I thought it might be of interest to your Lordships to hear this side of the case from some one who has been thoroughly well versed in it for the last thirty or forty years.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I am loth to continue the discussion on this Bill because it is a subject with which I am not very well acquainted, although, of course, I am interested in it. In listening to this debate—I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor is going to give us a reply—I could not recall to mind any other Bill which assesses compensation for land on the same principles. On almost every occasion in which land is taken for public purposes it is only human nature for the person whose land is being acquired to try and make out that the land is valuable and would let for a great amount of money. Under this Bill the position will be entirely altered, and any proprietor whose land is taken for small holdings must go and plead his case by saying that his land is most outrageously over-rated, try to make out that be has rack-rented his tenants and that he ought to have made a large reduction in the rent.
If I understand this Bill, the land owner is to receive compensation for any loss of rent but not for any loss of capital value. It amounts to this. If a proprietor is receiving £500 from a large farmer whose land it is intended to convert into small holdings he goes before the Land Court and says he has been dealing harshly with the farmer, that the £500 is a most absurd rent, and that as a matter of fact he ought to have asked the farmer £400 a year as
924
the rent. If he is fortunate enough (as I understand the Bill) to convince the Land Court that this £500 is an excessive amount and that £400 is the proper rent, they will take his farm at £400 and compensate him for the £100 which he loses. If he says that £500 is really the true and fair rent the authority—the Land Court—will take the farm and not pay a single halfpenny as compensation. This is really the gist of the whole Bill. We know perfectly well that this farm land, for which a rent of £500, which was quite fair, was paid, will be cut up into small holdings, and we know also that at the end of seven years several small holders will not be making as big a success as they ought to be making, and that they will apply for a reduction of rent. We feel equally certain that the Land Court will say "Here is a disabled soldier, or an unfortunate small holder. It is true it is fair land, but still we are of opinion that he has not got the best bits of the farm which was cut up, and we will therefore reduce the rent by 25 or 30 per cent." The whole of the resulting loss of selling value will fall on the land owner. It seems to me that this Bill reverses the old order of things which has hitherto prevailed in arbitration cases, as regards the taking of land compulsorily, and that every man whose land is being taken will have to go into Court and try to prove that he is rack renting his tenants. I cannot believe that it will be a satisfactory solution of the question.
Part I of the Bill is, of course, a fair and proper way of dealing with the question, and Lord Lovat gave us some good figures to illustrate what very little difference it would make if Part II were left out altogether. In Part I everything is fair and above board, but it is not fair and just to put these small holders as tenants of the landlord and give no compensation at all, and then at the end of seven years for these small holders to be able to apply to the Land Courts and get their rents reduced. As we all know, if there is a change in agriculture and some of these small holders begin losing their money, the first thing will be a very large reduction in rent, and I personally consider that the loss should fall upon the State and the general tax-payer, and that certain landowners in Scotland should not be selected to have this experiment made on them by the State, and then be called upon to bear what loss may accrue from the

925
creation of these small holdings. It appears to me, if you go into the question to the very bottom, that you had better put an annual levy upon all the land owners in Scotland in order to compensate those who may suffer under this Bill in future years, because undoubtedly certain land owners will have to pay the cost of creating these small holdings and other land owners who have not got small holders on their estates will escape. Equally the whole of the ratepayers and tax-payers will escape, which is a very different thing from what happens under the English Bill, where, as we know, if small holdings are not a success the loss falls upon the ratepayers of the county or else the State has to come in and provide compensation. As I have said, Part II of this Bill appears to me to be a complete reversal of the old order of things, and it hits certain people most unfairly in order to provide these small holdings.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but I think it has been proved that this is a subject of great importance, because it has occupied the attention of the House for a considerable time, and we have listened to the speeches of various noble Lords who are well acquainted with all the aspects of the question, including two ex-Cabinet Ministers. So far, although the debate has covered a period of over two hours, we have not had any reply from His Majesty's Government.
The subject, as I have said, is one of considerable importance, and is viewed as, such by His Majesty's Government—at least we presume so from the fact of the Bill having been presented—and all the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have expressed the desire, which I know is in the heart of every one of your Lordships, that we shall do everything we possibly can to help the settlement of soldiers upon the land of this country. I am quite certain that all of your Lordships who have served in any of His Majesty's Forces during the years of the war must have been impressed, in a way which is quite indelible, with the great value to the country of a love of the country to which we belong—that love which is so well-expressed in the peasantry of France. If we can by any possible means inculcate that same love of country in our own people, we shall be doing something to further the real betterment of this country in the future.
926
To-night we have had before us this Bill for the settlement of the people on the land of Scotland, and we have tried to consider it from the point of view of those who welcome it, and while supporting it we have only endeavoured to criticise it in a way that is reasonable. So far, however, we have not received from His Majesty's Government any indication of how far they are prepared to meet those Criticisms which we consider reasonable. It is only in order to point out that omission that I have risen to-night, and I hope that before the debate closes we shall receive some indication of His Majesty's Government's wishes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thought it would probably occur to the noble Lord who has just spoken that it was usual for a Minister who introduced a Bill to reserve his remarks in reply until all other speakers who wished to take part in the debate had spoken. That is the usual course, and it is one which seems to me also to be convenient.
This observation falls to be made at once, that I have listened most attentively to all the speeches that have been made, and not one, as was to he expected, challenged in any way, even remotely, the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not believe there is a single member of your Lordships' House who would desire to raise his voice against the proposal for the Second Reading. It follows that all the points that have been made are points which will no doubt be made the subject-matter of specific proposals on the Committee stage, and upon which detailed discussion will naturally take place when that stage arrives.
I do not in the least exclude myself from making a few general observations upon some of the points that have been taken, but of course I guard myself against any expectation that I should commit myself with any particularity to any one of the single points raised. The whole object of a Second Reading debate is that the Government may be afforded an opportunity of explaining the general effect, a they understand it, of their measure, and that they may receive the advantage of hearing what is the general opinion, the expression of which is appropriate to that stage, that is entertained by members of the House. Certainly I cannot complain that I have not been afforded in full measure the advantage of learning what impression

927
certain provisions of this Bill have made upon your Lordships. Those who have spoken have represented, as they always do represent, clearly, admirably, and ably, the great land owners of Scotland. I know of no body of men who can give expression more forcibly and more plainly to the views which they hold, and certainly they have given such expression to them to-night. I would only say by way of caveat at this stage that when Amendments are put down they will be carefully considered, while the interval between this stage and the Committee stage will be used by myself for the purpose of discussing with the authorities the various points which have been raised.
While that is true, it should, I think, be also remembered that this Bill was discussed in another place by a Committee which consisted very largely of Scotsmen, belonging to most classes in the community, and that it was afterwards considered and discussed on the Report stage with considerable care in the House of Commons by the whole body of Members, and it must not therefore be supposed that Scottish opinion has not hitherto been brought to bear upon the terms of this Bill. That does not in any way preclude the necessity of giving most exact care to the points which have been urged in the debate to-night with the object of deciding whether on any one of those points the fairness of the present course has been successfully attacked, and whether a further course can be substituted. Your Lordships may rely upon it that that course will be pursued, and that when Amendments are put down I will see if it is possible to discover whether any further purpose can be served by discussion.
Some specific questions were asked. I may in the first place deal with the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, who said that it was enormously important that the Commissioners should be men of experience. It is, of course, an elementary principle that the Commissioners to be appointed should not only be able and experienced, but that they should be experienced in dealing with these very localities. It is to be reasonably expected that only such men will be appointed. The Duke of Buccleuch, if I understood him, asked whether the whole of the £2,500,000 would be utilised within the two years contemplated by the Bill. The answer
928
to that is, it is the case that the fund can be used after the lapse of two years for equipment in the case of schemes which have been approved within two years, but which have not in fact been completed within that period, and it is thought that that provision will safeguard every case which needs protection.
One noble Lord asked whether the £2,500,000 was available for both Part I and Part II, and the answer is that it is so available. Lord Lovat developed a much wider attack upon Part II, and one with which I do not propose to deal to-night, because it would take me far too long. He attacked it upon the ground that the methods adopted in Part I were much preferable to those contained in Part II, and that the whole fabric of the Bill could easily be so, adjusted as to render Part II unnecessary.
LORD LOVAT: I only asked the noble and learned Lord why we should have Part I founded on equity and Part II founded on injustice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the noble Lord intervened to say does not appear to me to make what I said inaccurate. I said that the noble Lord had put forward a position that he would like to see Part II excluded from the Bill. I do not pretend to recollect verbally what the noble Lord said, but I think that I have done complete justice in substance to what he said. I do not feel called upon to quote the whole of the noble Lord's speech so long as I do not do him an injustice. I understood him to put forward the argument that Part II ought to be left out of the Bill because a preferable method was employed in Part I. I will deal with what I understood him to say. As I stated, the whole argument would be extremely lengthy, but I recognise that it is one which will have to be faced, and which the noble Lord is fully entitled to put. I merely said to him that he could put down a simple Amendment in the terms of his criticism—
LORD LOVAT: I must decline to have words put into my mouth which I never said. I thought that I made myself perfectly clear, that I was anxious that Part II should form part of the Bill. I saw a very great advantage in having the method there set out. My exact words, as far as I can remember them, were that

929
I saw great advantage in having Part II included, especially having regard to the avoidance of taking a dispute from one Court to the other and so hanging up procedure, which has occurred under the 1911 system. I did say, however, in regard to compensation, that the proposal was not founded upon equity, and that I objected to it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agrees with that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am extremely sorry that I misunderstood the noble Lard. I understand now that there are some portions of Part II which in his judgement are not founded in equity. I can only assure the noble Lord that if he will indicate by Amendment precisely those points, and set out how they can be put right, any suggestions coming from him will receive my most careful attention and that of the Government. I misunderstood the full extent of the noble Lord's disagreement with that part of the Bill.
The Duke of Atholl equally made an attack upon the method of determining compensation which is adopted under this Bill, and that attack was afterwards repeated, with that great weight which he brings to bear on all Scottish questions, and indeed on all questions, by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I know well, and those who framed this Bill realise, that the question of compensation is one of difficulty and of perplexity. They realise also that the method adopted is one which is open to attack, and was certain to be so attacked. I was asked why the method of compensation adopted in this Bill differs from the method which has been adopted in the English Bill. Whether the explanation is a complete one or not, it springs, of course, from the difference of system which in the past, not only in these Bills but any other Bills, has been adopted in taking land in the two countries. In England, where there is compulsory leasing, the land is leased by a local authority, and the rent is fixed by arbitration. That system, whether good or bad, has always been adopted. In Scotland, under the 1911 Act, tenants are compulsorily imposed on the land owner and rents are fixed by the Land Court. That that system is a good one I have never claimed. Indeed, I remember the occasion referred to by my noble friend, the Duke of Atholl, in which he and I were engaged elsewhere in attempting to resist
930
many of the provisions of the Act of 1911. And many have taken the view that the methods adopted in the Act of 1911 are open to the gravest possible criticism.
The question whether it is possible in terms of this Bill to adopt a method which gives greater satisfaction to those who are affected, without at the same time inflicting an undue burden upon the community is another subject which will be, and ought to be, considered in Committee, and in respect to which the Government will certainly be prepared to give due weight to all considerations that may be urged. I need, I think, only add in reference to the criticism made by the Duke of Atholl upon Clause 14 of the Bill that this clause was most strongly pressed upon the Government in the House of Commons. I think it formed no part of the Bill as originally drafted, and the clause was inserted on the Report stage without a Division—and I think (though I speak only from memory) at the wish of Scottish members.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh also spoke on the subject of the appeal. I agree with him that prima facie in all these cases it is reassuring to know that there is an appeal. The Bill as at present drafted has adopted such safeguard as is afforded by the fact that the Secretary for Scotland must assent, if recourse is had to him. The Secretary for Scotland has, of course, every interest in questions of rating, and it is the view of those who presented this Bill that the right is preserved and that there is sufficient safeguard—but that, again, is not a point of absolute principle, and it may be discussed hereafter.
A question was asked by Lord Lamington as to whether the small holdings in a particular district in the Lowlands of Scotland had proved on the whole to be successful. I am not able without reference to documents to give him any exact figures, nor can I compare the actual productivity of the small holdings in the Lowlands with the productivity of the other lands which have not been split up. But I am informed by inquiries I have made since he spoke from those who represent the Department that in many cases in the Lowlands these small holdings have been extremely productive. Of course, the argument in their favour is not based exclusively upon relative productivity, although that is a very important consideration. It must also be based on

931
the social conditions which have been urged in regard to the whole system of small holdings. But in regard to that point, as far as there are figures available, I will see that the noble Lord has them in the Committee stage. I have attempted to deal with such points as have been raised, and, whether we are able to accept Amendments which are proposed or not, your Lordships, at least, need not be apprehensive that they will not engage our careful and sympathetic attention.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before your Lordships enter upon the consideration of the next Order I wish to put a Question to the noble Earl the Chancellor of the Duchy as to the position in which your Lordships find yourselves in respect to business. The next two Orders, both of which have Amendments on the Paper in respect of them, stand in front of the Government of India Bill. I think most of your Lordships have a feeling that the Government of India Bill has been treated with very scant respect in this House. When we reflect upon its enormous importance and the very important speech which, no doubt, the Under-Secretary for India is about to deliver, and the other speeches from other noble Lords on this subject, we must come to the conclusion that the time allowed us is very small.
I should like to ask the noble Earl what arrangement he proposes to make with respect to the subsequent course of the India Bill—whether he is going to take it at all to-night, in any case, whether he will take it as the first Order to-morrow, and whether the subsequent stages of the Bill will be treated with greater respect than the Second Reading stage. I refer to the Committee stage—a sinister rumour has reached me that it was proposed to take it after dinner in the middle of next week. I earnestly hope that is not true. I would remind the Government of the vast importance of this Bill, and I hope the Government will take that view of it also. I have no desire to suggest that the Under-Secretary should not deliver his speech tonight. I hope there will be proper time
932
for it, but we shall have great difficulty anyhow in getting through the Second Reading debate in the position in which business has now been placed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I can assure the noble Marquess that the last thing the Government desire is to show disrespect to the great Dependency of India, or to your Lordships either. It did not occur to me that it was disrespectful to the House or to India to begin the Second Reading of this Bill to-night. This Bill, substantially in the form in which it is before your Lordships, was in the hands of the public many months ago. It has since been to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, which has made certain Amendments in the Bill, and I think the amended Bill has been in the hands of the public for three or four weeks. Certainly it did not occur to me that it was disrespectful to anybody to proceed with the Second Reading at the earliest possible moment.
As regards the two Bills preceding the Government of India Bill on the Order Paper, I understand from Lord Muir Mackenzie that he has reserved his observations for a later stage, and my impression is that these two Bills would not occupy more than a very few minutes. In that case I suggest that Lord Sinha should present the Bill on Second Reading—he will make an important and a considered speech—and that the further stage of the Second Reading should be proceeded with tomorrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the first Order?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Well, there is a Bill which was on the Paper last night, the Ferries (Acquisition by Local Authorities) Bill, in the name of Lord Galway. Subject to that, I think the India Bill will be the first Order. I gave notice yesterday to your Lordships that I was going to propose that the House should meet at three o'clock to-morrow in order to give as much time as possible for the later stages of the Second Reading of the India Bill. As regards its Committee stage, it is, perhaps, rather premature to deal with that before the Second Reading debate has been begun; but Lord Curzon's idea was

933
that this should be taken on Tuesday next, if necessary after dinner.
I really must demur to the view that for the House of Lords to sit after dinner deserves the epithet of sinister, and in view of the fact that we have some important measures to come before us—notably that to which your Lordships devoted some attention a night or two ago, a Bill dealing with electricity, and also the Housing Bill—I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to sit after dinner next week, on three nights if necessary, in order to get through this business. Your Lordships can sit on Monday and Friday as well; but I must say that it seems to me that it is generally for the convenience of business that Bills should be taken after dinner as well as before dinner; otherwise I must say that the programme is rather larger than the House can be expected to encompass in the short period we have before dinner.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, although there is indeed no question before the House, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word as it so happens that I think I am the only Peer in the House at this moment who has been for many years in charge of its business, and therefore I am quite able to sympathise with the difficulties in which His Majesty's Government may find themselves. It is quite true, and it has very often happened, that at these late periods of the session we are not always well treated by another place and a great congestion of business occurs here. But I cannot, while admitting all that, acquit His Majesty's Government of lacking, as I think, in proper respect to what is after all by far the most important measure that they could have to deal with during the whole period that they remain a Government, for however long that may last. From the Imperial point of view this measure is, as we all know, infinitely more important than any other with which His Majesty's Government can have to deal; and in those circumstances I cannot help thinking that it would have been possible to arrange that this most important measure should have been made the first Order on some day of the week.
The Bill which has just been considered is of great local importance, but I do not think that even my noble friends on those benches who are personally interested will be prepared to say that it compares
934
for a moment with the Bill which is shortly going to be introduced. Nor can I feel that the reply which the noble Earl has given regarding the proceedings in Committee can be considered as adequate. Very likely it may be necessary for your Lordships to sit after dinner next week. No one will make any complaint of that. But we all know what the sort of attendance after dinner in all parts of the House is, and the extremely important details of this measure will not, as I fear, receive the consideration which they ought to receive in Committee if this particular subject is relegated to the hours approaching midnight. I may remind the noble Earl—who seemed to think that it was a mere matter of course that this measure should be taken at seven o'clock—that a large number of visitors to the House, Indians and those interested in India, have come down to hear the debate, and have been sitting here in expectation of its beginning. In those circumstances I cannot help joining the noble Marquess in saying that I think it is a great misfortune that this most important measure has been treated in this way.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If Lord Crewe, as Leader of the Opposition, asks that this Bill shall be postponed until tomorrow I will, of course, acquiesce. My noble friend, however, is prepared to make his speech to-night.
Noble LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I can answer that question at once. I consider it to be entirely a matter for my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for India. It is purely a question for him whether he would prefer to make his speech to-night. We are all looking forward with the keenest interest to that speech, and, if my noble friend is good enough to make it, I am sure that his doing so would please all your Lordships.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then I suggest that your Lordships continue with these two small Bills now, that Lord Sinha should then move the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill, and that the debate upon it should be taken after Lord Galway's Bill as second Order will be to-morrow.

TRADE MARKS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Registration of trade marks in Part B.
2.—(1) Where any mark has for not less than two years been bona fide used in the United Kingdom upon or in connection with any goods (whether for sale in the United Kingdom or exportation abroad), for the purpose of indicating that they are the goods of the proprietor of the mark by virtue of manufacture, selection, certification, dealing with or offering for sale, the person claiming to be the proprietor of the mark may apply in writing to the registrar in the prescribed manner to have the mark entered as his registered trade mark in Part B. of the register in respect of such goods.
(2) The registrar shall consider every such application for registration of a trade mark in Part B. of the register, and if it appears to him after such search, if any, as the registrar may deem necessary that the application is inconsistent with the provisions of section eleven or section nineteen of the principal Act, or if he is not satisfied that the mark has been so used as aforesaid, or is incapable of distinguishing the goods of the applicant, he may refuse the application or may accept it, subject to conditions, amendments or modifications as to the goods or classes of goods in respect of which the mark is to be registered, or to such limitations, if any, as to mode or place of user or otherwise as he may think right to impose, and in any other case he shall accept the application.
LORD MOULTON LORD MOULTON moved, in Clause 2, subsection (2), after "or is," to omit the word "incapable" and to substitute the word "capable." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is to correct a curious mistake which has arisen in the re-printing of the Bill as amended in Committee. The word "incapable" has been inserted instead of the word "capable." The Amendment which I had down originally remedied the defect by inserting four or five other words, but I think the object would be best attained by substituting the word "capable" for the word "incapable." I desire to move my Amendment accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, omit ("incapable") and insert ("capable").—(Lord Moulton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that will meet the difficulty.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved to delete from the Second Schedule the following words: 'In subsection (11) of Section 64, after the
936
word 'refused' the words 'lapsed, expired, withdrawn, abandoned, cancelled' shall be omitted."
The noble Lord said: When I moved this Amendment the other night in Committee the Government promised to consider the matter. Since that time I think they have had ample proof that the Manchester people desire the Amendment of which I have given notice. It was suggested to me that it was unnecessary because the lapsed, expired, and other marks now being used would in future be able to be registered under Part B of the Bill. That was not the case. They wanted the continuance of the search for Part A purposes. I can explain the matter further if the noble Viscount desires, but if he is able to meet me I shall be glad to save the time of the House.
Amendment moved—
Second Schedule, page 9, leave out lines 18 to 20.—(Lord Emmott.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The attitude of the Government is that they are not really convinced of the necessity for the retention of these words; but, as I understand that the matter is pressed strongly by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the Government do not wish to offer any opposition if my noble friend presses the Amendment.
LORD EMMOTT: I do press it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved in Clause 1, subsection (3) (b), to leave out "the Patent Office" and to insert "his address for service given on the register." The noble Viscount said: The necessity for this Amendment is that the Office cannot undertake to forward all these letters, and the suggestion is that as the patentee must register his address at the Office it would be quite sufficient for the purposes of service.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 3, line 29, leave out ("the Patent Office") and insert ("his address for service given on the register").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD MOULTON: I admit that this is an improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in Clause 1, subsection (9), to leave out "allowed by the Comptroller" and insert "prescribed." The noble Viscount said: This is mere drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 5, line 34, leave out ("allowed by the comptroller") and insert ("prescribed").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in Clause 2, subsection (1) (d), to leave out "the Patent Office" and insert "his address for service given on the register." The noble Viscount said: This is consequential on the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 8, line 11, leave out ("the Patent Office") and insert ("his address for service given on the register").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in Clause 4 (bb), after "opposed," to insert "was deposited pursuant to an application for a patent which is or". The noble Viscount said: This is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 9, line 40, after ("opposed") insert ("was deposited pursuant to an application for a patent which is or").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I have handed in an Amendment, which there was not time to have printed, dealing with the difficult question of the moratorium. As has been explained, there is a real case which ought to be met, if it can be met satisfactorily, with regard to those patentees who have really suffered injury owing to the war. That case is being met in other countries—in France, Belgium, and, I believe, in Germany. I do think some better effort ought to be made to meet it than is made in the Bill as it stands. The only relief these patentees have is under Clause 7 of the Bill as it now stands. The Government plan set out there would mean, in the case of an uncontested application, that it would cost the patentee £100 and, i
938
the case of a contested application, a minimum of from £750 to £1,000.
I have given private notice of my Amendment, which I think is a practical one—much more practical than that which was on the Paper before. I understand that the Government, although they feel disinclined to accept it, have another proposal that does not go all the way I desire to go, but I am told that it will quicken, cheapen, and greatly simplify the procedure and will, in particular, substitute as a reason for prolongation a much less exacting test than is now proposed. In these circumstances, if my noble friend can assure me that he will move the Amendment which has been shown to me privately instead of mine, I will not trouble the House with mine.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I am ready to move this Amendment, which is to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 7, and to add a new subsection. I may say shortly that the effect of the new subsection is to proceed by originating summons instead of by petition and so enormously to decrease the expenses, especially for the patentee. The Court in considering its decision may have regard solely to the loss or damage so suffered by the patentee and not, as in the principal Act, to cases of exceptional merit only. This, I think, will give great relief to patentees who wish in this matter to extend their patent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: For what length of time does this permit the extension to run?
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is at the discretion of the Court. It is governed by the principal Act.
Amendments moved—
Clause 7, page 11, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
Clause 7, page 11, line 32, at end insert as a new subsection:
"At the end of the same section the following subsection shall be added: Where by reason of hostilities between His Majesty and any foreign State the patentee as such has suffered loss or damage (including loss of opportunity of dealing in or developing his invention owing to his having been engaged in work of national importance connected with such hostilities), an application under this section may be made by originating summons instead of by petition and the Court in considering its decision may have regard solely to the loss or damage so suffered by the patentee. Provided that this subsection shall not apply if the patentee is a subject of such foreign State as aforesaid or is a company the business whereof is managed or

939
controlled by such subjects or is carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit or on behalf of such subjects notwithstanding that the company may be registered within His Majesty's Dominions."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to insert, after subsection (3) of Clause 8, the following new subsection—"(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the Crown or of any person deriving title directly or indirectly from the Crown to sell or use any articles forfeited under the law relating to the customs or excise." The noble Viscount said: The object is to give the Crown the same right to sell all goods seized by the Customs and Excise Departments under the proper authority, even if such goods are the subject of patent right.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 12, line 42, after subsection (3) insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I had intended to call your Lordships' serious attention to Clauses 19 and 20 of this Bill and to Clause 12 of the Trade Marks Bill, but it is quite evident that everything ought to be done to get on with the business of this evening in relation to the Government of India Bill. Therefore I shall try to get an opportunity to make my remarks on the Third Reading.
LORD MOULTON LORD MOULTON moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause—
". For section seventy-one of the principal Act the following section shall be substituted:—
"71.—(1) Where a person becomes entitled by assignment, transmission, or other operation of law to a patent or to the copyright in a registered design, he shall make application to the Comptroller to register his title, and the Comptroller shall, on receipt of such application, and on proof of title to his satisfaction, register him as the proprietor of such patent or design and shall cause an entry to be made in the prescribed manner on the register of the assignment, transmission, or other instrument affecting the title.
"(2) Where any person becomes entitled as mortgagee, licensee, or otherwise to any interest in a patent or design, he shall make application to the Comptroller to register his title, and the Comptroller shall, on receipt of such application, and on proof of title to his satisfaction, cause notice of the interest to be entered in the prescribed manner in the Register of Patents or Designs as the case may be with particulars of the instrument, if any, creating such interest.
"(3) The person registered as the proprietor of a patent or design shall, subject to the provisions of the Act and to any rights appearing from the
940
register to be vested in any other person have power absolutely to assign, grant licences as to or otherwise deal with the patent or design, and to give effectual receipts for any consideration for any such assignment, licence or dealing.
"Provided that any equities in respect of the patent or design may be enforced in like manner as in respect of any other personal property.
"(4) Except in applications made under section seventy-two of this Act, a document or instrument in respect of which no entry has been made in the register in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) aforesaid, shall not be admitted in evidence in any court in proof of the title to a patent or copyright in a design or to any interest therein unless the court otherwise directs."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment in pursuance of an arrangement which was made in the Committee stage of the Bill that a clause of this kind should be brought up on Report. In my opinion, it fully carries out that which we had in view.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Moulton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I agree to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, the position I have held for the last few months in your Lordships' House is one of which I have been naturally and gratefully but I hope not unbecomingly proud, though I have felt oppressed with a deep sense of personal insufficiency. My Lords, these feelings reach their culminating point to-day when it involves the high privilege of asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. If any arts of eloquence or persuasion, were necessary for the purpose of inducing your Lordships' House to accept the general principles underlying this Bill, I would despair of the task before me, but I feel convinced that the great experiment which this Bill will inaugurate is likely to prove successful and beneficial, not only to India, but to the Empire at large. It is because I am convinced that this Bill is wisely framed to place the feet of India on a level road leading to that goal to which she has long aspired, the

941
goal of self-government within the Empire, and to a real partnership in that great Empire which is bound together by unswerving allegiance and enthusiastic homage to our august Sovereign, in whose person is embodied all that Empire means and connotes, I repeat that it is with feelings of humble and grateful pride that I rise to make this Motion.
This Bill is the immediate outcome of the memorable declaration of policy made by His Majesty's Government on August 20, 1917. The whole of that declaration is embodied in the Preamble of the Bill; it has been read to your Lordships several times already, and I will not weary your patience by reading it again. It is the first step forward that Parliament is asked to take in fulfilment of that pledge, and I confidently hope that your Lordships will agree that in taking this step you will be taking a generous and perhaps a bold step, and yet one which is neither rash nor hasty, nor unnecessary or ill-considered.
My Lords, let me invite your attention for a few moments to the immense amount of care and critical examination from every possible standpoint which have gone to the elaboration of this measure. The matter was first broached when Mr. Austen Chamberlain was still. Secretary of State for India, and Lord Hardinge, after full consultation with the heads of the various Local Governments, put forward certain proposals for post-war reforms. Soon after Lord Chelmsford assumed office, in 1916, the need for a public declaration of policy as to the future of India was recognised by the Secretary of State and His Majesty's Government. The Government of India invited Mr. Chamberlain to visit India and confer with them as to the practical steps to be taken in pursuance of this policy. The policy was declared in August, 1917, and Mr. Montagu, to whom on his acceptance of office the Government of India had transferred their invitation, went to India in the autumn of that year. Before he left he had already been furnished with the results of prolonged and thorough investigation by his advisers of the India Office as to the possible lines of advance.
The Secretary of State and the Viceroy spent the cold weather of 1917–18 in a detailed inquiry in India, in the course of which they visited all the larger centres in the provinces and had the benefit of the fullest consultation with the heads of
942
Local Governments and the members of the Government of India and of non-official opinion of all shades. The result of this inquiry was the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, published in July, 1918, and this was further supplemented by the minute and careful investigations carried on throughout India by the two Committees presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Southborough. These investigations resulted in two further Reports—the Franchise Report and the Functions Report. And may I pause here for one moment to pay a humble tribute to Lord Southborough and the members of his Committee for the valuable work done by them, without which it would have been impossible to proceed with, and indeed to frame, this Bill.
These three Reports, the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, the Franchise Report, and the Functions Report, have been subjected to exhaustive examination by the Government of India, the results of which you have before you in three of their published despatches. You have also two other published despatches of the Government of India dealing with various special aspects of the problem. Yet another Committee, presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, closely examined the question of the changes to be made in the system of home administration of Indian affairs, and you have the Report of that Committee before you. Finally the whole matter has been investigated and all the available material re-examined by a Select Committee of both Houses, who, after many weeks of hearing of all the evidence available in this country, both official and non-official, Indian and British, and after patient scrutiny of all the documentary evidence, have given you their mature conclusions in the shape of this amended Bill and of their Report upon it.
This last Report is, I venture to think, of almost equal importance as the Bill itself, and will be looked upon in India quite as much as the Bill as the charter of our progressive liberties. And here again I must ask your Lordships' leave to be allowed to voice the general appreciation of the uniform courtesy the patient industry, and the ripe experience which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, as President of that Committee, brought to bear upon its investigations. Surely, my Lords, no one in view of all these facts can contend with any show of reason that the Bill which you are

943
now asked to read a second time has been insufficiently explored. This Bill is the natural and inevitable sequel to the long chapter of previous legislation for the better government of India. And for that purpose I will confine myself briefly to the Statutes of 1861, 1892, and 1909.
From 1837 to 1861 the Governor-General in Council was the sole administrative as well as the legislative authority for British India. The Indian Councils Act of 1861 for the first time associated with the Governor-General's Executive Council and the Executive Councils of the two Presidency Governors a small number of additional members, half of them being non-officials, for the purpose of making laws. But these Legislative Councils were no more than advisory committees for that purpose only, and had none of the other attributes of legislatures. Similar provisions were subsequently made for the province of Bengal and the North-West Provinces. A further step was taken by the Act of 1892 which increased the numbers of the Legislative Council slightly, but what is more, enabled rules to be made regulating the course of nomination of non-official members in a manner which contained the first faint beginnings of the representative principle. Further it gave liberty to ask questions and to discuss, but only to discuss, and not to vote or to move resolutions upon the financial statement.
Then came Lord Morley's Act of 1909, which still further enlarged the Legislative Councils both of the Governor-General and of the provinces. But it did more. It introduced for the first time the principle of election, though not yet direct election, as the means of constituting a portion of the non-official members. Further it gave the Councils power to move resolutions upon matters of general public interest, and also upon the Budget and to ask supplementary questions. The resolutions, however, were to be only advisory in character, which the Executive might adopt or reject at its discretion. We see, therefore, that for a period of nearly sixty years there has been a steady increase in the number of members for the Legislative Councils, the introduction of the principle of representation by election, and a progressive increase of the functions assigned to these Legislatures, steadily tending to make these Councils more and more parliamentary in nature, character, and influence.
944
The Bill before your Lordships' House intends to make these Councils even more parliamentary in character by a further increase in numbers with the object of making them as completely representative of the whole population as is possible and by increasing their functions to the largest possible extent that existing circumstances will allow. Since Lord Morley's reforms were inaugurated ten years have passed—ten fruitful years of experience and rapid development—within which fall the four crowded years of the great struggle in which India has, like other parts of the Empire whose existence was at stake, borne her share. Of the part played by India in the war I do not propose to speak to-day. Her record is known to your Lordships and I will venture only to say that no words of mine are needed to give lustre to that record. Moreover, I should be creating an absolutely false impression if any remarks of mine gave colour to the impression that India desires or demands this measure as a reward for her war services. In my view this Bill must stand upon its own merits—upon the question whether or not the great experiment which it seeks to initiate is an experiment on right and proper lines.
There is no doubt that as a result of the war there has been a great advance in the status of India. She has been privileged through her own representatives to take an equal part with the British Dominions Overseas in the Imperial War Conference, and also in the Peace Conference in Paris, and she has been admitted as an original member of the League of Nations. These experiences have further quickened her sense of national unity and development, a sense which has been steadily fostered for many years by common allegiance to the same beloved Sovereign, by being amenable to one code of laws, by being taxed by one authority, by being influenced for weal or woe by one system of administration, and by being urged by like impulse to secure like rights and to be relieved of like burdens. My Lords, it is no longer possible to doubt this rapidly growing sense of nationality, any more than it is possible for India to stand aside unchanged from the turmoil of development and growth and reconstruction which has been shaking the world for the last five years.
My Lords, you have been deluged with a mass of Blue-books and Reports on this subject, and I do not deny that in its details the subject is one of great complexity,

945
but I would submit to your Lordships that the real issue is a simple one. It is this. Do you intend to keep India in leading strings, or do you believe the time has come when Indians themselves should be given some control of policy and should be in a position to make a start at least on the path of self-government?
The present system of Government in India is in essentials identical with that which obtained sixty years ago, and indeed earlier. It is a purely official government, centred in the India Office, able and entitled to impose its will in every detail on the people, the administration of whose affairs has been entrusted to it by Parliament. I am deeply conscious of the debt which we owe to the Government of India, to the Local Governments, and to the untiring and devoted efforts of the great services which they employ, and which have been directed with an energy and singleness of purpose, probably unequalled in history, to the welfare and advancement of the people committed to their charge, and with a success in securing that advancement which certainly no premature attempt at self-government could possibly have achieved.
But, my Lords, during these sixty years you have had Legislatures set up in the provinces, and, including the Central Government, now no fewer than ten in number, gradually increasing in size, gradually acquiring more power to criticise the action and policy of the Executive, and gradually becoming more and more representative of public opinion. But their functions are confined, broadly speaking, to criticism. I do not deny that the influence which they have exercised during the last ten years has been great, nor do I assert that official Governments have pursued systematically, or even frequently, a policy of flouting the wishes of the non-official members. They have done nothing of the kind. I believe that, so far as has been consistent with the discharge of their responsibilities to Parliament, the Government in India and the Secretary of State in this country have been studiously careful to pay increasing deference to the wishes of the representatives of the people in the Councils. But, my Lords, what these Councils do not possess, and what the representatives of the people ask for, is some guarantee that the Executive will conform to their wishes when they represent the real desire of the majority; in other
946
words, they want to advance from the stage of influence to that of control, while steadfastly maintaining their loyalty to the King-Emperor as an integral portion of the British Empire.
In so far as these demands postulate complete self-government for India at once, or even a material weakening of the connection which ensures for India the responsibility of the British Parliament for the maintenance of peace and order and for its immunity from external aggression, I, for one, emphatically repudiate them; and I am convinced that in so doing I am voicing the sentiments of the vast majority of my countrymen. India is not yet fully equipped for complete self-government, and I will not be so rash as to attempt to predict when she will be. But of this I am certain, that so long as the present system continues she never will be fit for self-government. It is only with experience of actual responsibility that the fitness to exercise it grows. I am also certain that India is fit and ready today to embark, and to embark with every hope of success, on the experiment which this Bill proposes, and that this Bill is the only logical and necessary means for carrying out the pledge given by the announcement of August 20, 1917, as the Joint Committee has reported to your Lordships.
This Bill will not and is not intended to set up a final and permanent constitution for India. It provides for a period of transition. How long that period will last, as I have already said, I make no attempt to forecast, but while it lasts we have to provide a bridge whereby India may pass from an autocratic and bureaucratic form of Government, which guides her destinies ab extra, to a form of Government whereby she will control her own destinies. We have to give the people in India at once some measure of control over the policy which dictates their laws and imposes their taxes, and this we have to do by a system which will enable a sure judgment to be passed on the use or misuse to which that control is put, and an orderly and justifiable advance to be made.
Let me try and explain very briefly the means proposed in this Bill, with these objects in view. We start by dividing revenues and demarcating the spheres of government as between the Central Government and the provinces. We assign to the Central Government unquestioned authority

947
over certain administrative heads, such as the defence of the country, its railways, tariffs, and other activities which cannot be localised; for these it legislates, for these it provides funds, for these it supplies and controls (either directly or through the intervention of provincial governments) its executive agency. Certain other administrative heads are handed over to the Provincial Governments, which assume within their own areas full and complete responsibility for financing and administering them. There are limitations of course—there must be limitations—on the authority of Provincial Governments in so far as they remain agents of Parliament, but I need not now confuse the broad outlines with these.
Of these matters which thus become, in the language of the Bill, "Provincial subjects," a further division is made, and while for one portion of them the official side of the Government retains responsibility, the other portion is handed over to the administration of the Governor acting with Ministers chosen from the elected members of the Legislature. Over the matter compressed within this latter portion of the field the Legislature will be given a very real control; legislation for them will be governed by the wishes of the elected majorities, and it will vote the supplies for them. For the administration of these subjects the Ministers will be directly responsible to the Legislature, and though they are liable to be overruled by the Governor if he considers that his endorsement of the policy proposed is inconsistent with the discharge of his responsibilities for the administration of the "reserved" subjects or for the peace and tranquility of his province, they can only remain in office if they are prepared to support and defend in the Legislature any action relative to the subjects in their charge, with the full knowledge that such support or defence, if the Legislature calls their acts in question, may lead to an adverse vote and possibly to resignation or dismissal.
So much for the immediate effects of the Bill as planned. But as I have said, the Bill attempts—and I submit successfully attempts—to provide for progress. It legislates for a transition from bureaucratic to self-government. And the progress is to be effected by the simple means of gradually enlarging the field made over to the administration of Ministers by the
948
gradual transfer of more and more subjects to their administration until at length the time arrives when there are no subjects remaining "reserved." I have said more than once that I make no attempt to predict the date when that consummation will be reached. Obviously it cannot arrive until you have throughout India a widely diffused and trained electorate capable of formulating clear and wise conceptions of policy and of selecting representatives who will be capable of guiding and voicing the view of the population at large. But here, again, it is by actual experience and by no other method that such training can be given.
If it is necessary, in order to train administrators, to give the Legislatures real work to do and real responsibilities to shoulder, it is no less necessary, in order to train the electorates and to teach the value and the proper use of a vote, to give the representatives selected as the result of that vote the opportunity of controlling the course of the administration in a way which will be clear in its results, be they good or bad, to the electors. I say "be they good or bad" advisedly, for it is human experience that success is achieved by means of failures, and that mistakes, if I not irretrievable, are the best of lessons, and it would be idle to suppose that Indian administrators will spring into being full fledged and infallible. If this were to be expected there would be no justification for this half-way house with all its complications of structure. We expect mistakes, but we claim that we have provided in this Bill every reasonable safeguard and every device possible to minimise the chance of their occurrence or the seriousness of their results when they do occur. In the first place, we reserve in the charge of an agency still responsible to Parliament those services or heads of administration upon which the safety and peace of the country depend, and we provide means by which that agency, despite a large non-official majority in the Legislatures, shall be enabled unfailingly to secure the legislation and the supply which it regards as essential to the discharge of its responsibility. In the second place, we ensure, by the association of the new Ministers with an official element in the Executive, that the experience and knowledge acquired by long traditions and practice of a great and successful Service shall be at the disposal of the Ministers when they formulate their own policy. And, lastly, we ensure by the

949
relations which are to subsist between Ministers on the one hand and the Executive Council on the other, that the latter will have in their deliberations the advantage of friendly counsel and a knowledge of the wishes and susceptibilities of the people.
This is the plan which has been given the somewhat terrifying name of dyarchy. For myself I should have preferred to call it a system of specific devolution. Your Lordships will not have failed to observe that the Joint Committee, after many weeks of patient examination of the matter from every point of view, has reported that the plan proposed by the Bill interprets with scrupulous accuracy the policy announced on August 20, 1917, and that it is the best means of carrying out that policy. By the scheme of the Bill they meant in that connection primarily its basic principle of division of functions and consequent demarcation of the source of authority which is to lie behind the provincial executives. But it would be foolish to attempt to disguise from myself or from your Lordships' House the fact that this principle is regarded with misgivings by many persons who are in full accord with the general policy which the Bill seeks to carry out. The objections to this principle are obvious. But is there really any practicable alternative?
Various alternative schemes have been put forward with greater or less authority. The first in point of time was the scheme of the Congress and the Moslem League which was published before the conception of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. More than one alternative was suggested by the official reports of the various Local Governments on that Report; another scheme was formulated by five heads of provinces after the Local Governments had discussed the proposals officially; and, finally, the Joint Committee had yet another alternative scheme laid before them by representatives of the Indo-British Association. But apart from variations of detail, all these alternative schemes are in essence the same. They purport to provide an united or unified Executive, and to proceed on the basis (as one authority has put it) of giving some responsibility to the Legislatures for all matters of government rather than full responsibility for some They postulate a Council or executive body consisting in part of officials and in part of members of the Legislatures,
950
and all holding office for a fixed period. They reject the device of dividing functions and subjects, and they propose that the members of this Government should preserve joint responsibility for all the actions and decisions of the Government in the ordinary and usual manner of Cabinet government. They postulate that the non-official members of the Government will be selected as representing the views of the majority of the Council, and will in practice "necessarily be influenced by the opinions of the Legislative Council" (those words I quote from the Memorandum of the five heads of provinces). This fact they urge will secure that the Government as a whole in its decisions on all matters will to some extent be responsible to the Legislatures, whose wishes will necessarily strongly influence if not shape those decisions. Lastly, progress towards fuller and more real responsible government is to be achieved on the one hand by gradually increasing the number of members of the executive taken from the elected members of the Councils, and by gradually therefore handing over to such members a larger and larger range of portfolios, and on the other hand by a gradual increase in the deference paid by the executive to the wishes of the Legislatures. I believe that is a fair description of the essential features of all the various alternative schemes which have been put forward.
The problem can be simply stated—it is to give a measure of control to representative Assemblies in India over the policy and actions of the Government, and to give it in such a way that the control can be gradually increased as and when those to whom it is entrusted exhibit their fitness for an increase, but in such a way that each increase comes by an ordered and controllable process, and not per saltum, so that throughout the process may be one of evolution, and neither in its first stage nor at any subsequent stage one of revolution.
That is the problem. Now, are you going to solve it by giving to Parliamentary institutions in India full control—or practically full control—over a certain defined field, or by giving at once some control over the whole field. I am confident that reflection will show that the latter alternative is not only not a good method of achieving the object in view, but that it is not a practicable alternative, and, if it were introduced, it could have only one of two

951
results—either a complete failure to establish any real responsibility to Parliamentary institutions or Councils in India, or to a paralysis of Government which would lead, and lead rapidly and inevitably, to complete control by Legislatures in India and a complete ouster of the authority of this Parliament.
For what is the underlying hypothesis in all these schemes for a unified Government? It is nothing more nor less than a divided allegiance to Parliament on the one hand and the Provincial Legislature on the other, and a division of allegiance which affects or may affect every single issue which comes before the Government. The official members of the Government will be responsible to Parliament, under whose authority and in whose name they hold their office; the non-official members of the Government will, as members of a United Government, be similarly in theory responsible to Parliament. But they will, remember, be "necessarily influenced by the opinions of the Legislative Council" from whose ranks they are elected. If the official members of the Executive Government, in deference to orders received from Whitehall or Simla, or in fulfilment of what they conceive to be their responsibility to Whitehall and Simla for the good administration of the Province, adopt a policy of which the majority of the Legislative Council (whether rightly or wrongly) disapprove, what is to be the attitude of their non-official colleagues? Assuming that their view coincides with the majority of the Legislature, are they to sink their difference and support their official colleagues? If they do, what has become of the element of responsibility to the Legislature? Or are they to oppose their colleagues and withhold their support? If so, where is the unity of the Government? If on the other hand, the official members of the Government adopt a course which they honestly believe to be inconsistent with the discharge of their responsibility to Parliament in deference to their non-official colleagues and the majority of the Legislature, they would no doubt pro tando be establishing a system of Government by popular control and rendering the Executive amenable to the popular will, but would Parliament for a moment tolerate such government by abdication, and would it not rightly call to account a Secretary of State who by acquiescence in such a course might endanger the peace and good government of the country?
952
Again, even were such a unified system workable at the outset, is the road to progress in the grant of responsibility which it opens a satisfactory road? As I have stated, its supporters urge that development lies in the line of increasing the number of non-official Councillors, with a consequent increase in the number and scope of the portfolios committed to them, of increasing acquiescence in the wishes of the Legislature and a rarer resort to the veto. With the two latter of these suggestions I have just dealt. As regards the two former processes, since a unified Executive must as such be answerable for its actions to Parliament and subject in the last resort in all matters of administration to Parliament's control, I fail to see how any increase in the number of non-official members of such an Executive or any enlargement of the sphere of their administrative activities can alter the character or lessen the reality of that control. This particular point has been dealt with much more clearly and more cogently than I have been able to do by the Government of India in their Dispatch of March 5 of this year, and I would only refer to Paragraphs 18 to 24 in that Dispatch, which is published as Command Paper 123. For these considerations I submit that your Lordships will accept without hesitation the opinion of the Joint Committee on this the fundamental point of the whole Bill.
Before coming to the provisions of the Bill itself, I venture to draw atttention to two particular points as regards the form of the Bill. In the first place, your Lordships will have seen that the main provisions for constitutional changes are set out in the body of the Bill itself, and by means of a Schedule—the Second Schedule to the Act—these changes are to find their proper place in the main Act (the Act of 1915–16), so that automatically consolidation will follow. That is the plan of the Bill, and it has commended itself to the Joint Committee, and I trust will commend itself to your Lordships also. The second point in connection with the frame of the Bill is this. The Bill itself outlines the main features of the constitutional changes. It leaves these changes to be worked out in detail in the form of rules. Some objection has been taken to this latter feature, but here again I would refer to the White Paper which gives in full the reasons for this form of legislation in this particular case.

953
Firstly, it is in accordance with all previous precedents. The matter was debated on the last occasion when Lord Morley's Act came before your Lordships' House, and, as I read the debates, it was generally accepted that that was the proper way of framing the Bill, leaving the details of the constitutional changes to be worked out by the authorities in India, subject, however, to the control of Parliament. Secondly, it secures reasonable dimensions for the Bill, and makes elasticity possible. Thirdly, it is the only method possible for the introduction of new constitutional forms expressly devised for the conditions of a transitional stage. Fourthly, it enables different provisions to be made for different provinces; and, fifthly (and this is the feature to which I desire to draw special attention), the control of Parliament is fully secured for the exercise of the rule-making power by Clauses 33 and 44 of the Bill to which I crave your Lordships' particular attention.
Clause 33 deals with the Rules to be made by the Secretary of State himself for the purpose of relaxing his powers of superintendence, direction and control. That clause enacts that Rules with regard to subjects other than transferred subjects shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and therefore shall not come into operation until they have been approved by both Houses of Parliament. All other Rules shall be subjected to the negative process of being laid on the Table of the House, Parliament of course to be at liberty to petition His Majesty to annul the Rules, on which the Rules may be annulled. Clause 44 deals with by far the large majority of Rules which are to be made under this Act, namely, Rules by the Governor-General in Council. These Rules again, are divided into two categories—first, Rules which are only to be subjected to the negative process of being laid before Parliament after they come into operation, but being liable to be set aside or annulled by petition to His Majesty in Council by Parliament. It is also provided that the Secretary of State may direct that any Rules to which the section applies shall be laid in draft, and that they shall not come into operation, before Parliament had approved them by positive resolution; and the Secretary of State in exercising that discretion will undoubtedly be advised by the Standing Committee of both Houses that
954
the Joint Committee recommends, or by the Joint Committee itself if Parliament chooses to re-appoint it, for the purpose of going through these Rules. I submit, therefore, that the criticism that it is either dangerous or inexpedient to leave so much to be done by Rules is neither just nor fair.
Having dealt with the fundamental principle involved in the Bill, I will not detain your Lordships long with the other features as contained in the separate clauses, especially as the Report of the Joint Committee has dealt with them clause by clause and given the reasons not only for the clauses themselves but also for such changes as they have introduced. The Bill, following the general plan of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, starts with Provincial Governments, since it is in that sphere chiefly that the scheme is to be developed. Clause 3 sets up in the eight major provinces of India a Governor in Council—a form of Government which has long been in force in the three Presidencies. But the new Local Governments are not merely to be Governors in Council—they will consist of the Governor in Council (whose functions and constitution will remain unchanged) and of the Governor acting with Ministers, appointed from the elected members of the Legislative Council and holding office during the Governor's pleasure. To the Governor in Council will be entrusted the responsibility for reserved subjects, and the Governor and Ministers will be responsible for the transferred subjects. All matters which in a Council Government would normally come before the Council—that is, everything which is not of purely departmental or minor importance—will as a general rule come for discussion before the Governor, his Councillors, and his Ministers sitting in conclave. But the decision on reserved subjects and the responsibility for that decision will rest with the Governor in Council, while the decision and the responsibility for the decision on all transferred matters will rest with Ministers, subject to the Governor's intervention and control if he feels it incumbent upon him to reject their advice. This is the Provincial Executive.
The Legislative Councils in all their eight Provinces are to be considerably increased in size and will acquire for the first time a substantial (70 per cent.) elected majority. The Governor will not be a member of the Legislature; each body

955
will have a non-official President and Deputy President, to be elected by itself subject to the Governor's approval; but for the first four years the office of President is to be filled by a nominee of the Governor. Each Council will normally have a life of three years, though the Governor may at any time dissolve the Legislative Council. The powers of Provincial Legislatures will as regards legislation be much as they are at present, but in view of the fact that the scheme contemplates an almost complete abrogation of the existing executive orders which require every Bill (save those of purely formal or minor importance) to be submitted to the Government of India and the Secretary of State for previous approval before introduction—a system which has naturally not conduced to initiative and independence in provincial legislation—the necessity arises for somewhat expanding the scope of the existing statutory provisions which require the previous sanction of the Governor-General to certain classes of provincial Bills, so as to ensure that the Provincial Legislatures shall not infringe on the sphere which is reserved for the Central Government.
Outside matters of legislation, the powers of the Councils are to be enlarged—or perhaps it would be more correct to say that the Bill reverses the position which these bodies have hitherto held. Hitherto Legislative Councils in India have been presumed by the law to have no functions except those which the law has specifically allowed them. As I pointed out a short time ago, Legislative Councils in India were at the time of their creation strictly confined in their duties and powers to the business of discussing and passing legislative measures. Little by little the scope of their activities has been increased by the grant of further specified powers. Under this Bill they will be assumed to possess all the normal attributes and powers of a legislative body except those which are definitely withheld, or the use of which is restricted.
The most important change which results from this position is that for the first time the provincial budget will be voted by the Legislative Council—they will now actually vote and sanction the appropriations proposed by the Executive. All they can do at present is to vote about the budget; that is to say, they can move and vote upon resolutions recommending changes in the Government's financial proposals in the year; but the Government has usually
956
been in a position with its nominated majority to defeat any such resolution if it wished to do so, and in any case was in no way bound to accept it if carried; and hitherto the annual appropriations of expenditure have required no other sanction than the fiat of the Executive Government. That will now be changed, and the Legislatures will have a real voice in the disposal of provincial finances. It would be impossible, of course, to give them at the present stage a final and decisive voice over the whole field. A portion of the Government will not be responsible to or removable by the Legislature, and that portion of the Government must be in a position to secure the legislation and supplies it needs for the discharge of its responsibilities. It has not the natural means of an assured majority in the House, and it must therefore be given an artificial means. Thus in "reserved" finance, the Governor is empowered to neglect an adverse vote on a budget head if he certifies that the proposed expenditure is essential to the discharge of his responsibility for the subject, while in times of crisis, when perhaps a recalcitrant Legislature may decline to vote any supplies, he is empowered to authorise such expenditure as is required for the maintenance of safety and tranquillity or to avoid administrative starvation.
There is a further safeguard against irresponsible action by the Legislature in the matter of supply—that certain heads of expenditure are not to require an annual vote—in much the same way as the Consolidated Fund in this country. For example, contributions payable by the Local Government to the Governor-General in Council; interest and sinking fund charges on loans; expenditure of which the amount is prescribed by or under any law; salaries and pensions of persons appointed by or with the approval of His Majesty or by the Secretary of State in Council; and salaries of Judges of the High Court of the Province, and of the Advocate-General.
In legislation the position of the official Government is safeguarded by the provisions of Clause 13 and Clause 11 (5) of the Bill, which give the Governor power to secure the passage or rejection of Bills in certain circumstances. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with detail, but I invite particular attention to these provisions and to the remarks in the Joint

957
Committee's Report in explanation of them. They take the place of the original plan suggested in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report of Grand Committees of the Council, and I am confident that your Lordships will agree that the change made by the Joint Committee is a great improvement, and that nothing will be lost and much gained by their more straightforward plan.
The changes made by the Bill in the Government of India are much less extensive. The Indian Legislature is considerably enlarged and is now to consist of two Chambers—an Upper Chamber or Council of State of sixty members and an Assembly of 140 members, the latter with a substantial elected majority. The statutory limit on the number of the Governor-General's Executive Council is a minimum of five and a maximum of six (or six and seven if the Commander-in-Chief is included). The Bill does away with the Extraordinary Member, and assumes, as will doubtless be the case, that the Commander-in-Chief will always continue to be appointed a member of the Council. Each member of the Executive Council will be a nominated member of one or other Chamber of the Legislature, but not of both, though they will be entitled to speak in both Chambers. Like the Provincial Legislatures, the Indian Legislature is to have power for the first time to vote on certain portions of the Budget. That is to say, there will be the same provisions for a Consolidated Fund upon which they will not be able to vote; and, further, the Governor-General will always be entitled, if he thinks necessary, to reject every vote on every item of the Budget of the Legislature.
It may be urged that this change is inconsistent with the policy which has taken no step towards introducing at this stage the principle of responsible government in the Central Government in the sense of making the Central Executive legally dependent upon or subject to the control of the Legislature. I am confident your Lordships will agree that whatever technical inconsistency there may be, the change is sound and necessary. What is the position? In the first place, there can be no question of taking away any power which the Central Legislature at present enjoys. One of the powers which it has enjoyed for the last ten years is power to propose and vote resolutions suggesting
958
changes in the Budget statement, and this power it must retain. Hitherto the Government has been able by means of its official majority to defeat any such resolution (though even if it had failed to defeat it, the resolution would have no binding effect). But in future the Government will not command a majority in the Legislature.
Now, my Lords, which is the sounder constitutional position—the position which augurs best for a sound judgment by the proposed Statutory Commission which is to inquire into progress ten years hence and for amicable relations meanwhile, that the Indian Legislature should be able year after year, with no sense of responsibility flowing from a knowledge of practical consequences of its vote, to vote by an overwhelming majority resolution after resolution recommending specific alterations in the Budget, which the Government is forced to ignore; or that the Legislature should be legally responsible for passing the Estimates and legally accountable for the results of any modifications they may vote? I admit that the practical difference between the two positions is not great, for if you will look at the clause—it is Clause 25—you will see that the Government is necessarily given the fullest powers to reject adverse votes, since its responsibility is not to the Indian Legislature but to this Parliament for the proper administration of its charge. The change is really one of form, but I do not seek to disguise its importance on that ground. It is an important change, but one which I am convinced is the logical and necessary result of constituting a representative Central Legislature.
I have been a member of the Governor-General's Legislative Council, it is true in an official capacity, but none the less closely associated with all the non-official members. I can assure your Lordships that the cleavage which has, unfortunately, shown itself so often of late between the non-official and the official members of that body is largely due to the non-officials' sense of aloofness from the real difficulties and decisions of the Government which the present position has engendered. They feel—they can hardly help feeling—that they are outside the machine and are not a real part of its working. I am confident that all that is required to obliterate that cleavage is an admission, with whatever safeguards and checks that may be found

959
necessary, that the Legislature and all its members are an essential and working part of the machinery of Government, that the action or inaction of every member influences the working of the whole.
Allow me to draw your Lordships' attention, so far as the Government of India is concerned, to one more clause, and that is Clause 26, because there also a new feature is introduced in place of the old device of the official bloc, for the purposes of enabling the Governor-General to obtain the legislation which he considers necessary for his purpose. The Governor-General is able to pass any law which he thinks necessary for the safety and tranquillity of India, provided that the ordinance will require the sanction of His Majesty before it becomes law. Of course, the power of this ordinance, in cases of emergencies, already exists, and it remains as it is, so that for emergency purposes the Governor-General will be able to pass such laws as he thinks necessary, provided that they will be liable, as they are now, to be vetoed by His Majesty in Council.
With regard to the provisions of the Bill relating to the Secretary of State, I need say little. They make no constitutional changes, but are designed to modernise and make more elastic the statutory provisions—many of which are relics of the days of the Court of Directors—relating to the working of the India Council. Power is taken to adopt the recommendation of Lord Crewe's Committee to appoint a High Commissioner for India, and no time will be lost in working out with the Government of India the details of this purpose if it receive the sanction of Parliament.
There is one further matter with regard to the Council—namely, that the number has been reduced. The minimum was ten and the maximum fourteen. These are now reduced to eight as a minimum and twelve as a maximum. There are to be at least three Indian members of the Council. The salaries are to be £1,200 a year, with £600 extra for the Indian members, and the Committee remark that this salary was calculated on a prewar basis, so that the Secretary is not precluded from granting to these members of the Council what other permanent officials are getting here—namely, a war bonus.
Part IV of the Bill relates to the Civil Services in India, and its provisions are intended generally, while enabling a new
960
classification of these Services to be made, to safeguard the pay and position and rights to pension of existing members of those Services, and to pave as smooth a road as possible for future members. The Services, my Lords, need no tribute from me. Their work is plain for the world to see, and it is their work in the main, and its great results developing through the years, that have made India fit for this great experiment. But the passage of this Bill does not close the chapter of their ungrudging toil. India still needs, and will long need, men of the type which Great Britain has so long given her, and I refuse to believe that she will not continue to receive from the sons of Great Britain the same loyal and devoted service as she has received, to her lasting benefit, in the past. I also cordially echo the hope and conviction, expressed in the Report of the Joint Select Committee, that these Civil Services will accept the changing conditions and the inevitable alterations in their own position, and devote themselves in all loyalty to making a success, so far as in them lies, of the new Constitution.
Finally, the Bill gives power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to report to Parliament on past progress, with a view to enabling Parliament to judge what further advances can be made. The Bill provides for one such Commission after ten years' trial. This does not imply the belief that in ten years the process of training will be complete. It is perhaps unusual to legislate for an event ten years ahead; it would be clearly inappropriate to legislate for a longer period. But periodical inquiries are of the essence of the scheme, and the Bill would obviously be incomplete without some provision of this kind.
So far as Part VI of the Bill is concerned, there is only one clause to which I need draw your Lordships' attention—namely, Clause 42, which modifies Section 124 of the principal Act with regard to persons engaged in any trade or business becoming members of the Executive Council or Ministers, provided they do not, during their term of office, take part in the direction or management of that trade or business. The changing conditions of the country absolutely require that there should be some such provision made, because, if it is not, the Government will lose the benefit of the services of people who are best calculated as commercial

961
or mercantile people to take part in the actual work of Government.
I fear that I have made a large draft upon the patience of your Lordships' House. But even if there are those amongst your Lordships whose position in this House would lead them to view my presentment of this matter critically and with caution as coming from a representative of His Majesty's Government, I am confident that the position which it is also my privilege to hold, of a representative of my countrymen, will have ensured me an indulgent and sympathetic hearing. Above all, I am confident that there is no member of this House who will be deterred by individual opinions or by my personal shortcomings from approaching the examination of this Bill in that traditional spirit of British fairness and impartiality. and with that earnest desire for the advancement of India's welfare, which has done so much for the betterment of India in the past.
There may be those amongst your Lordships who think that the passage of this Bill will not advance India's welfare, who think that the system of government which has, with little essential change and with so many beneficial results, endured through the changes of the nineteenth century, should be continued, unchanged in essentials, through the twentieth century, and that the time has not arrived to sever the leading strings. Believe my, my Lords, that is a view which, if you wish to secure a sense of gratitude and contentment amongst the populations of India, can no longer be maintained. The whole course of your administration of India, the whole of its fruitful results, culminating in the recognition which you have accorded during the past five years to India as a real partner in the Empire, have produced expectations (and I say justified expectations) that you will now agree to treat her as having outgrown her political infancy. I do not claim, and reasonable Indians do not claim, that her people as a whole have to day reached, politically, man's estate. If I claimed this, I could not consistently support this Bill. But I do claim on behalf of my countrymen that they have reached the age of adolescence. The stage of growth is notoriously a difficult age. It is surely human experience that the guardian best serves his ward's interests, and best conserves a relationship of mutual trust and affection, who so orders his
962
control at this period that the aspirations for freedom and self-expression which inevitably accompany healthy adolescence should receive his wise and reasonable indulgence, and that active control should be exercised only to prevent irretrievable errors and to correct undesirable developments.
I believe that this Bill will enable the British Parliament to adopt that attitude towards India, and I have sufficient faith in the character of my countrymen, and in the essential wisdom and justice of the Mother of Parliaments, to believe that the results of this measure will be to inaugurate a relationship between them which will enable India in due time to reach the full stature of a prosperous, loyal, and grateful partner in the privileges and duties which belong to the great world-family of the British Empire.
Lastly, I ask your Lordships' leave to address a few words to those of my fellow-countrymen who may still be inclined to dispute the substantial nature of the advance proposed. Of course, I do not agree with them; but even if there was any substance in their doubts and suspicions, let me tell them in the words of the great Book, if I may do so without irreverence, that what is being given to India is like the grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field, which now is the least of all seeds, but when it was grown it was the greatest amongst the herbs and became a tree so that the birds of the air came and lodged in the branches thereof.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sinha.)
LORD CARMICHAEL: On behalf of Lord Harris, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, debate adjourned until to-morrow.

IRISH RAILWAYS (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, this small Bill has been introduced for the sole purpose of giving statutory effect to certain provisions of the agreement made between

963
the Government and the railway companies of Ireland. This agreement was made in 1917 when the Irish railways were taken over by the Government and the operations which require statutory confirmation are set out in the Schedule of the Bill. The agreement follows the line of that made between the Government and British railway companies and provides that for the purpose of accounts which are prepared by railway companies in Ireland in connection with any guarantee of interest, dividend, or working expenses, the net receipts for 1913 shall be deemed to be the net receipts for the corresponding half-years during the period of Government control.
In Ireland, as in England, this year was considered a favourable one to take as the datum year for the Irish railway companies because the net receipts of that year exceeded by £200,000 the average of the preceding years. But when this agreement was drafted it was not realised that some cases differed from those which are referred to in paragraph (10) of the Schedule from which I have just quoted. It was not realised that in some cases the line, in respect of which the guarantee is given, is worked by another company on the basis of the payment by the working company to the owning company of a percentage not of the net receipts but of the gross receipts from the guaranteed line. In these cases the position is different, because the factor of working expenses does not come in and it is possible that in some cases the gross receipts from the guaranteed line may have increased during the period of control, in which case, the payment by the guaranteeing authority would be proportionately reduced. The passenger fares have been increased by 50 per cent. and there may have been some increases in agricultural traffic, but against this must be set the reduction in the number of trains.
A specific case has been brought to my notice by Lord Killanin—the Loughrea and Attymon Railway which is guaranteed by the Galway County Council. Another case has also been brought to my notice by Lord Oranmore and Browne on behalf of the County Council of Mayo. The case of the County Council of Galway may be taken as a precedent for all the other cases. In that case the Loughrea & Attymon Railway, guaranteed by the Galway County
964
Council, is worked by the Midland & Great Western Railway Company of Ireland under an agreement which provides for payment by the working company of 45 per cent. of the gross receipts to the owning company. The latter is in turn guaranteed by the Galway County Council a 5 per cent. dividend upon a capital of approximately £50,000. The amount payable therefore under the guarantee depends upon the difference between the amount representing 5 per cent. of the gross receipts of the line and the sum necessary to pay 5 per cent. on the £50,000. In this case the local authorities fear that their ratepayers may be prejudiced by the passage of this Bill. They feel that their ratepayers may be compelled to pay in future upon the basis of the net receipts instead of on the basis of the gross receipts as provided under the guarantee, and I think the fear is amply justified, because in the past year they have actually paid on that basis; and in the case of the Galway County Council that authority at the present moment is taking action to recover from the Government sums which they consider have been overpaid.
I hope that Lord Killanin will agree that I have stated accurately the fear of the County Council which he represents. I am able to give an assurance to the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, that just as the agreement set forth in the Schedule of the Bill did not contemplate a case of that kind, so the passage of this Bill will in no way affect the position of such a local authority. On behalf of the Government an invitation was extended, while this Bill was under consideration in another place, to those local authorities to confer as soon as possible with the Minister of Transport, with a view to arriving at an agreement, mutually satisfactory, which would not only govern the relation between the Government and the railway companies in the future, but also be retrospective in its effect. The Government gave a further undertaking that in view of an agreement being reached they would be prepared to bear the expense of the action taken by the Galway County Council up to this point.
I would ask my noble friend to use his influence with the county council of which he is a member—and other noble Lords who may be interested in this subject on behalf of other local authorities—to persuade those authorities to reply to that

965
invitation and to confer with the Minister of Transport at an early date, with a view to arriving at a decision, and that the litigation now pending should be suspended until such agreement can be reached. I would only say in conclusion to the noble Lord that if there is a failure to reach an agreement on this point the local authorities will be in no way prejudiced by the passage of this Bill. So far as past action is concerned they would have the remedy which the Galway County Council are now taking, and with regard to the future the Government will be compelled to keep accounts in such a way as to show the gross receipts of the railway. Therefore they will be in no way prejudiced by the passage of the Bill, and other local authorities will be considerably benefited. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will allow the Bill to proceed.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I should like to express my obligation to my noble friend who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill, for the careful attention which ho has given to the representations which I made to him in reference to this Bill as soon as I knew that he would have the conduct of it in this House. I am much interested in the matter, because it was thought that this Bill might affect adversely and wrongly the interests of county councils and bodies of rate-payers in Ireland, and I happen to have the honour of being a member of one that would be affected. For that reason I have followed carefully the progress of this Bill in another place, and it seemed to me that there was considerable misunderstanding about the whole matter. Even the official authorities seemed in considerable doubt about the scope and effect of this Bill, judging from communications which I had with them. Certainly the local authorities in Ireland were in a considerable state of fear as to how this Bill would affect them.
These doubts and fears arise from the fact that when the terms of agreement were come to by which the Irish railways were taken over by the Government in December, 1916, a certain particular class of railways in Ireland was entirely overlooked or forgotten. They were a small class of railways, but they have their statutory rights. When therefore the Government proceeded to carry out the
966
I terms of the agreement it was found that this agreement was inapplicable to many of these cases, and the county councils, rightly in my opinion, in many cases objected to the demand made upon them, and hence a considerable amount of friction, difficulty and litigation has arisen in the matter. Now I am thoroughly satisfied, so far as I can understand the matter, with the statement of the noble Earl this afternoon, because I gather that he says that the terms of this Bill would not apply to or affect in any way the Baronial Railways, where the guarantee is based on the gross receipts. I am thoroughly satisfied with that statement, and I thank him and the Minister of Transport for the manner in which they have treated my representations in the matter. He asked me to use my influence with the Galway County Council to induce them to come to an understanding in reference to pending litigation. I will certainly do all I can, and I ask him on his part, now that he is thoroughly familiar with all the facts of the case, to do all he can in order to bring this matter to a speedy and fair settlement.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Amendment of section 13 of 4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 57.
2.Notwithstanding the increase in the rate of unemployment benefit effected by this Act the expression "unemployment benefit under the principal Act" in subsection (1) of section thirteen of the National Insurance (Part II. Unemployment) Act, 1914 (which limits the power to make or continue arrangements with associations under section one hundred and five of the National Insurance Act, 1911), shall, during the period ending on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, be construed as meaning unemployment benefit at the rate payable before the commencement of this Act.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I have two small Amendments to Clause 2. The first is, after "expression," to insert "which is at least one-third greater than the provision represented by". The other is at page 2, after "meaning" ["construed as meaning"], to insert "which exceeds the provision represented by unemployment benefit at the rate payable after the commencement of this Act by an amount which is not less than one-third of the

967
provision represented by." I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 17, after ("expression") insert ("which is at least one-third greater than the provision represented by")
Clause 2, page 2, page 2, line 1, after ("meaning") insert ("which exceeds the provision represented by unemployment benefit at the rate payable after the commencement of this Act by an amount which is not less than one-third of the provision represented by").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It amends the law with regard to Customs in the Isle of Man, and it passed through the other House without objection.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived.

THE CABLE CENSOR'S STAFF.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the important results obtained, the strenuous nature of their duties throughout the whole of the twenty-four hours and of the abnormal number of officers whose services were lost to the Department through sickness and death mainly due to the exacting condition of their employment, it is proposed to recognise by a step of promotion in military rank the services of those military officers on retired pay who were detailed before the commencement of hostilities for duty on the Cable Censor's staff and who served in that capacity during the period of the War, including other officers who voluntarily served in that Department for various periods.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, in reply to this Question I desire to say that it is not proposed to grant a step of promotion in military rank on ceasing to be employed to any officers who served during the war except as laid down in Army Order 376 of 1918. It is not considered that a step in rank above that held during
968
the war is a suitable form of recognition for services rendered, as it would tend to make rank meaningless, and would depreciate the value of rank granted as a result of selection to command in the field. It is also to be borne in mind that any exceptions made to the Rule published in A.O. 376 of 1918 will at once necessitate the reconsideration of countless claims and recommendations for higher rank which have been refused by the Army Council as not coming within the prescribed conditions which are now widely known and accepted by the Army at large. Finally, it is considered that the recognition of valuable services rendered during the war should preferably take the form of awards rather than the grant of rank.
In forwarding recommendations for awards to the officers on the Cable Censor staff the fact that they were not eligible for higher rank on ceasing to be employed was known and borne in mind. The following awards and honours were granted to military officers who served on the staff of the Cable Censorship in the United Kingdom during the war:—1 K.B.E., 1 C.B., 1 C.M.G., 4 C.B.E's., 5 O.B.E's., 1 M.B.E., 3 Brevets (of Lieutenant-Colonel), about 30 mentions in Secretary of State's list. Some five hundred officers served on the staff in the United Kingdom from first to last. In addition, three officers who served in Allied countries abroad as representatives of the Cable Censorship received C.B.E's. I have read out a list of nineteen honours which would form, as the noble Lord sees, a percentage actually higher than the percentage of honours given to those who served in the field. Therefore I do not think that the Censor's Department really can complain that they have been badly treated in this matter of the award of honours.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for the answer that he has given.

FRENCH CHILDREN AND MILK SUPPLY.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask whether, in view of the fact that the children of France have been left out of the Archbishop's world-wide appeal for the "Save the Children's Fund" and that these children are suffering terribly from the want of milk, His Majesty's Government will insist on the Germans

969
fulfilling their obligations and returning to France without further delay the cows they took from her.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the obligations referred to are contained in Part VIII, Section 1, Annex 4, Paragraph 6 of the Treaty of' Peace with Germany, under which the German Government undertakes to deliver 90,000 milch cows to the French Government in equal monthly instalments during the three months following the coming into force of the Treaty. The responsibility for securing the execution of this and similar provisions of the Treaty is an inter-Allied responsibility, and does not fall upon His Majesty's Government alone. The Reparation Commission is the body charged under the Treaty with the carrying out of the provisions which I have mentioned. Although that body does not come into existence until the date when the Treaty of Peace becomes operative, the particular question to which the noble Lord refers is already being carefully examined by an inter-Allied Committee, which is organising the work of the Reparation Commission. His Majesty's Government fee the warmest sympathy with the sufferings of the French children; but, in the circumstances which I have described, the problem of looking after their interests and of remedying
970
the hardships caused by the shortage of milk in France is one that naturally devolves upon the French Government rather than on our own.

MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I ask leave to introduce a Bill to make amendments with respect to the constitution and endowments of the foundation of the Military Knights of Windsor. Its short title is Military Knights of Windsor Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
[From Minutes of December 10.]

SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock until to-morrow three o'clock.