Sitting of 19 February 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Birmingham Corporation Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Blyth Harbour Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill,
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Bristol Corporation Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Chepstow Water Bill,
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Dublin Port and Docks Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Fylde Water Board Bill,
Gosport and Alverstoke Urban District Council Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North Western Railway Companies Bill,
To be read a second time upon Wednesday, 5th March.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Manchester Corporation Bill,
To be read a second time upon Monday next.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill,
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill,
Milford Docks Bill,
Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Northampton Gas Bill,
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
St. George's Church, Oxford, Bill,
Sheffield Corporation Bill,
Stocksbridge Gas Bill,
Stretford Urban District Council Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Swansea Harbour Bill, Tees Conservancy Bill, Tyne Improvement Bill, Waterford Harbour Bill, Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (FEMALE LABOUR).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain the Government policy with regard to the dismissal of female labour in the Royal dockyards; and will he further say whether any preference will be shown to the widows and orphans of men who have been employed in the dock yards or whose husbands and fathers, after serving in the Royal Navy, have lost their lives in the War?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Monday to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham West, a copy of which I am sending him. As regards the last part of the question, my hon. Friend is, of course, aware of the preference we have always given in the matter of employment to those to whom he refers. He does not need my assurance that the same sympathetic attitude has been, and will be, taken up as regards discharge.

  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will be in a position to announce a date for the division of naval prize money?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question on Thursday last, a copy of which I am sending him.
  Sir B. FALLE: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to grant a preliminary sum now instead of waiting for a final distribution?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman puts to me a question which has been many times considered. It is very difficult, and I should not like to give a final answer even now. Perhaps he will put a question down.

  SHOREHAM HARBOUR.
  Major Earl WINTERTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Admiralty to retain permanent use and occupation of Shoreham Harbour; and if he is aware that the development of the harbour for commercial purposes is urgently required, and that it is difficult to aim at such development until the intention of the Admiralty is known?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the remaining part of the question, the area of the foreshore in occupation by the Admiralty will be surrendered as early as possible, but any delay in doing this should not affect the development of the harbour for commercial purposes.
  Earl WINTERTON: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "as soon as possible"—will, it be a matter of three or four months?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not say definitely. I will make inquiries and let the Noble Lord know the result.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    ROYAL DOCKYARD EMPLOYES.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that cases are occurring where men employed in His Majesty's dockyards previous to being called up for military service are not being taken back after demobilisation; and whether, in view of the appeals made by the Government to private employers to take back into their service men employed by them before the War, he will consider the advisability of bringing His Majesty's dockyards into line with this policy and issue Regulations to that effect?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I had better read the Admiralty Order on the matter. Men who have been released from their employment in His Majesty's dockyards or other naval establishments for military service,
    910
    and who have been allowed civil pay whilst on such service, are in all cases to be permitted to rejoin the dockyards or other naval establishments in their former civil capacities, without medical examination, partially incapacitated during their military duties. Such of these workmen as may have been wounded or been otherwise partially incapacitated, during their military service are to be employed to the best advantage, having regard to their qualifications and physical condition. Where considered necessary, medical examination should take place after they rejoin for the purpose of determining what work they are capable of doing, and in any cases in which it may be impossible to find employment of a kind of which men are capable, full particulars should be reported to the Admiralty with superannuation forms.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the House to understand that men who have volunteered under Lord Derby's Act, and went out to the War with the permission of their superiors, are not to be taken back into the yards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. "Men who have been released from their employment are in all cases permitted" If the hon. Gentleman will read the answer and put another question, I shall be glad to answer.

    TIME-EXPIRED SAILORS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when a sailor, who in October, 1914, completed twenty-two years' continuous service in successive periods of engagements for twelve and ten years, is entitled to be released?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend's question raises the case of a man retained under the terms of the Royal Proclamation of 3rd August, 1914. Such a man is entitled to release five years after the date of the expiration of his engagement—in this case, in October, 1919. I do not say that his services will necessarily be retained until then. That is a question for the naval authorities to decide, having regard to the requirements of the Naval Service.
    Sir J. HOPE: Will they be released before those sailors who enlisted only for the War, seeing that their overtime exceed the total service of those who enlisted only for the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put a question down, and I will answer in detail as to the system of demobilisation now being pursued.
    Sir J. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that point?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.

    PIVOTAL MEN (ROYAL NAVY).
    Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that commanding officers in some cases have refused to release pivotal men on the technical ground that their pivotal papers have been received in the parent ship and no official notification having been for warded to them they have no proof that the men have been claimed as pivotal; and whether he will issue instructions that where the papers relate to men under a separate though subordinate command a notification that they have been received shall be sent by the commanding officer concerned?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am assured that no cases such as those referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question have been brought to the notice of the Admiralty. As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that my hon. Friend's suggestion is not considered necessary, as the normal inter-communication between parent ship and tender should suffice in regard to men serving in the latter but borne on the books of the former.

    NAVAL WRITERS.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Admiralty are refusing to demobilise naval writers who joined for hostilities only on the ground that they are required for the clerical work in connection with demobilisation; whether the bulk of the clerical work is of so simple a character that a boy of eighteen is expected to perform it after a few hours' instruction on joining the Navy; whether work of this kind has been performed satisfactorily by ratings of the Women's Royal Naval Service; whether, in the present state of the labour market, further clerical assistance could, if necessary, be obtained through the Labour Exchanges, sufficient, with the naval writers who have joined for a term of years, to carry on the work; and whether, through the paying-off of
    912
    ships and the closing of store establishments, a large number of naval writers can now be demobilised immediately?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A few naval writers entered for hostilities only have already been demobilised. The work on which writers are engaged, however, is not of the simple character suggested by my hon. Friend. As regards the ratings of the Women's Royal Naval Service, certain clerical work has been, and is being, satisfactorily performed by them, both in connection with demobilisation and in connection with the general work of the Royal Navy. The suggestion that we should get clerical assistance through the Labour Exchanges is not, I am advised, very useful. Persons engaged would have, for some time, to be instructed by the men whom they would replace, and this would result in delaying demobilisation. As regards the last part of the question, we hope that the rate of demobilisation of writers will increase as demobilisation itself progresses.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Is the fact of a man being a writer in the Navy a complete bar to his demobilisation or can he still be released on compassionate grounds?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We do our best under the circumstances, but the writer really is the pivotal man of demobilisation, and therefore is of the utmost value to us at this moment.

    SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICE MEN (DOMINIONS).
    Major EDWARD WOODasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to provide the necessary financial assistance to enable advantage to be taken of the offers made by the Dominion and State Governments overseas for the settlement of ex-Service men from the United Kingdom who desire to settle in the Dominions; and (2) whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to consider the suggestion that ex-Service men desiring to settle in the Dominions overseas might be granted their discharge in the country to which they wish to go?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES(Colonel Amery): The reply to the first and third of my hon. Friend's questions is that His Majesty's Government have under their consideration the whole question of the grant of State aid to ex-Service men

    913
    desirous of settling in other parts of the British Empire, and hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement upon the subject.
    Major WOOD: In regard to question 22, would the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of taking into account what I believe is a good precedent of time-expired men serving in India taking their discharge in Australia?
    Colonel AMERY: Certainly.
    Major WOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have received an offer from the Government of Queensland to provide land for the settlement of 9,000 ex-Service men and their dependants in their territory, subject to the grant of financal assistance in the shape of a loan of £470,000 for the building of a short line of railway and £500 per head for each settler; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to take advantage of this and any similar offer?
    Colonel AMERY: As regards the second question, no official offer of the kind referred to has been received from the Government of Queensland. His Majesty's Government will naturally give most careful and sympathetic consideration to any proposals for the settlement of ex-Service men put forward by any of the Oversea Governments.

    CADETS AND OFFICERS (EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked whether cadets or officers at Woolwich or in the Regular Army can obtain their discharge in order to complete their education in the same way as cadets or officers in the temporary Army; and, if not, what steps are being taken to enable them to complete their educational studies?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Patronage Secretary to the Treasury): Although prior to admission to the Royal Military Academy or Royal Military College, gentlemen cadets must declare that it is their bonâ fide intention to make the Army their profession in life, they are in practice allowed to withdraw at any time. Officers of the Regular Army may resign their commissions provided they join the Reserve of Officers.

    DOCTORS AND NURSES.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider speeding up the demobilisation of doctors and nurses in view of the fact that the civil hospitals are seriously understaffed and also that the civil population is suffering seriously and unnecessarily owing to the Army retaining so many members of these professions?
    Captain GUEST: Every effort is being made to release as many doctors and nurses from the Army as can be spared, but so long as the hospitals both at home and abroad have to care for such large numbers of sick and wounded, it will be necessary to retain a large number of medical officers and nurses.
    Mr. LYLE: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the health of the people of this country depends on the action which the War Office are taking?
    Captain GUEST: Yes. The War Office thoroughly appreciate the position.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
    Major WOODasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state what provision, if any, is made for the release of individual soldiers, except on purely compassionate grounds, from the Army of Occupation before that Army is demobilised?
    Captain GUEST: The provisions governing the eventual release of soldiers from the Armies of Occupation, when these are formed, have not yet been finally decided upon. They will be promulgated in due course.
    Major WOOD: If these regulations are still under consideration will he consider the advisability of introducing some form of elasticity in order to provide for hard cases on business grounds?
    Captain GUEST: I will represent the matter to the Secretary of State.

    APPRENTICES.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether any provision has been made yet for the assistance of apprentices who have lost several years of training owing to the fact that they have been serving in His Majesty's forces?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I would suggest that the question be

    915
    referred to the answer given to the Member for Birkenhead East, of which I enclose a copy.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of extending the date of 1st February, 1919, before which all applications for demobilition of apprentices must be received in order to meet cases where the applications have been delayed through no fault of the applicants?
    Mr. PARKER: The Government, after careful consideration, decided that it was necessary to make a clean-cut in order that there might be a definite and ascertained body of men available to constitute the Armies of Occupation. Any extension of the date of application for pivotal men would defeat this policy. My right hon. Friend regrets, therefore, that he is not able to entertain this suggestion.
    Sir J. HOPE: Does that mean that apprentices whose employers, owing to not understanding the various regulations and forms, have been delayed in sending in applications will suffer and be detained for the Army of Occupation, and can no concession be made to these apprentices?
    Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I can only repeat the answer I have already given, that my hon. Friend cannot see his way to entertain the suggestion of the hon. Member
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Will he ask the hon. Member to reconsider this matter?
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the hon. Member aware that there are some very hard cases arising in connection with this clean-cut data, and will he reconsider the matter?
    Mr. PARKER: I am aware that there are hard cases, and I am sure my hon. Friend knows about them.

  INDIA.

    OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that officers of the Indian Army, who had served their time for pension, detained in India during the War and unemployed owing to sickness or other causes, have only been allowed to draw their pay of
    916
    rank instead of the pension they were entitled to and have thus been mulcted of some 50 rupees per mensem, their retirement will now be gazetted with retrospective effect from the date their pension became due?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): As I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend, I am unable to give retrospective effect to the decision to reopen retirements for officers for the Indian Army, under certain conditions, from 1st October, 1918. The Government of India are aware of the decision, and if there, are any officers in India affected by it, I presume they are receiving, or will receive, the benefit of it from 1st October, 1918. But I have asked the Government of India for definite information on this point.

    RICE (FREIGHT RATE).
    Mr. BENNETTasked the Secretary of State for India if the freight rate of rice from Rangoon to Bombay is still 55 rupees per ton, as against 30 rupees last year and 8 to 9 rupees before the War; and, if it is, whether he will endeavour, in view of the famine conditions prevailing over wide areas in India, to bring about a substantial reduction in the rate?
    Mr. MONTAGU: In view of the high price of food grains now prevailing in India, I have represented to the Shipping Controller the necessity for cheapening the cost of transport of rice from Burma to India and pressed for a substantial reduction of the present rate. I have to-day heard that the rates have been reduced to the extent of an average of 43 per cent. on those prevailing in November and December last. The rate from Rangoon to Bombay has now been fixed at Rs. 30 per ton, subject to a rebate of 10 per cent.

    PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the considered opinions of provincial Governments in India on the proposed Indian constitutional reforms have yet been received; and on what date will they be published?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have at present seen only advance copies of the opinions of provincial Governments as to the proposals for constitutional reforms, but I expect before long to receive them officially from the Government of India, to-

    917
    gether with that Government's considered views on the whole subject. Of course, they will be presented to Parliament. I cannot at present specify a date.

    POLICE (FAY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the recommendations of all the local Governments regarding the increase of pay to the Indian police have now been received; and whether, considering how much the internal welfare and security of India depends on a well-paid, loyal, and contented police, he will, take steps to sanction the immediate increase of pay to all grades, both British and Indian, that has been so long overdue?
    Mr. MONTAGU:As regards the Imperial Police Service, I have approved proposals of the Government of India for an increased scale of pay based on the recommendations of the local Governments. I hope to announce it shortly when one or two points of detail have been cleared up. As regards the lower ranks of the police, the general scales of pay have in recent years been considerably improved in nearly all provinces.
    Colonel YATE: If I put down another question next week, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a reply?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, I think so.

  ORKNEY AND SHETLAND (RESTRICTIONS).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that very severe restrictions have necessarily during the War been placed on the residents of Orkney and Shetland, he will make a very earnest effort to relax them without further detail?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: An immediate report has been called for in connection with my hon. Friend's question. I assure him that we will do all we can.

  ENGINEER-COMMANDERS (PAY).
  Dr. M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that engineer-commanders, retired just before the War were re-called as engineer-captains, and received the pay of engineer-
  918
  captains together with a bonus of 25 per cent., while engineer-commanders due to retire just after War broke out were not allowed to retire, and that, in consequence, the pay of the officer who retired and that of the one not allowed to retire are now respectively £912 and £638 per annum, and that, in some cases, the total difference in pay received by such officers since August, 1914, exceeds £1,000; and whether some steps will be taken to mitigate this treatment of those officers who were not allowed to retire?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The statements in the earlier part of the question correctly set forth the facts. Whilst it is true that an engineer-captain could receive, with bonus, £912 a year, and whilst an engineer-commander might not receive more than £638 a year, it is not possible, without analysing individual cases, to say whether the difference of pay since August, 1914, has in any case exceeded my hon. Friend's estimate. In any case, the question of the officers on whose behalf my hon. Friend appeals, is before the Board.

  OFFICERS' SERVANTS (ALLOWANCES).
  Dr. M'DONALDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that servants' allowances has been granted to officers serving on shore with the exception of engineer-overseers, and that this allowance has been granted to a few of these officers; and will this allowance now be granted to the rest of these engineer-overseers, seing that they are only serving on shore for the time and are liable at any time to have their appointments terminated?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on this matter which I gave on 13th November last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, a copy of which I am sending him.

  LADY SUSAN TOWNLEY.
  The following question stood in the name of Mr. BOTTOMLEY:
  18. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the wife of Sir Walter Townley, the British Minister at the Hague, was a member of the committee which received the ex-

  919
  Kaiser on his arrival in Holland; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
  Captain CRAIG: Before the hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask Mr. Speaker whether it is according to the usage of this House that an hon. Member should use the Notice Paper for the purpose of levying a very grave charge against a lady, and especially against the wife of a distinguished public servant such as the one mentioned in this question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It depends very much upon the facts. Ladies now must expect to have their conduct criticised just as much as the conduct of men. The fact that they are in public positions does not exempt them at all. I do not know in the least what the facts are in this case.
  Captain CRAIG: On the point of Order. I submit that if, instead of a lady being concerned, it was a gentleman who was concerned, it would be equally wrong to bring a gross charge like this against an individual.
  HON. MEMBERS: Why?
  Captain CRAIG: Because there is not the slightest foundation for the charge.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We shall see that when we get the answer.
  Captain CRAIG: In any case, surely this House is not the tribunal to try cases of this sort. If the charge be true, surely there are other authorities whose duty it would be to bring a charge against the individual.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If this comes under the cognisance of the Foreign Office, it is for the Foreign Office to make a reply.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): No committee, official or otherwise, was appointed to receive the ex-Kaiser on his arrival in Holland, and Lady Susan Townley was not, therefore, a member of any such committee.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask, arising out of that reply, if the hon. Gentleman is aware that the country, or, if not the country, at least 7,000 officers and non-commissioned officers who were interned in Holland are under a deep debt of gratitude to Sir Walter and Lady Townley for
  920
  the way in which they looked after the interests of prisoners of war in that country?
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether Lady Susan Townley was one of a party of ladies and others who received the ex-Kaiser? Is he aware that this fact has been very widely published in the Press, and is it a fact that Sir Walter has in consequence tendered his resignation?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is not a fact that Lady Susan Townley was a member of any committee—
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I did not say so. Was she one of a party which received the ex-Kaiser?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The facts of the case are that Lady Susan Townley happened to be motoring in the neighbourhood—
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Why did not you say so?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH:—and happened to be one of the spectators who witnessed his arrival. She was not in any sense a member of any reception committee.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has Sir Walter tendered his resignation?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not understand that to be a fact.

  CEYLON (SELF-GOVERNMENT).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any scheme is in preparation for extending more self-government to Ceylon on the lines of the reforms proposed in India?
  Colonel AMERY: The question of the constitution of Ceylon is engaging the attention of the Governor, who will submit to the Secretary of State in due course his recommendations in the matter.

  SALONIKA AND EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES.
  Lieutenant-Colonel BUCKLEYasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to expedite the grant-

  921
  ing of leave to members of the Salonika and Egyptian Expeditionary Forces, in view of the fact, that in many cases members of those forces have had no home leave for as much as three or four years?
  Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers given on Monday and Thursday last to questions on this subject. To these replies I would add that since the Armistice over 700 officers and nearly 9,000 other ranks at Salonika have been granted leave to the United Kingdom in addition to those coming home for demobilisation, etc.
  Lieutenant-Colonel BUCKLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave dissatisfaction in those areas?
  Captain Sir B. STANIERasked whether the War Council will consider if the case of the ¼th King's Shropshire Light Infantry could hive some recognition for the work they did in putting down the two rebellions at Rangoon and Singapore, as this was outside the order of 22nd November, 1918, granting the Mons star which other units received during the same period of the War?
  Captain GUEST: The rebellions at Rangoon and Singapore were local disturbances, and, in these circumstances, I am afraid I cannot adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
  Sir B. STANIER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the general headquarters in India have acknowledged the excellent work done by the battalion, and that no officer on leave has received any recognition?
  Sir C. HENRY: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the India Office that these men may receive Indian Service Medals?
  Captain GUEST: I will convey that suggestion.
  Mr. HURDasked what steps are now possible to carry out the promise given by the late Lord Kitchener, through Major-General Donald, on 24th September, 1914, when he was asking the Wessex Division to go to the East, namely, that by going to India they would not be the losers, that they would share all the honours of the War, and might regard it as a guarantee that the Wessex Division would be brought back home before the end of the War so that the men might
  922
  resume their employment or get fresh employment before the great rush took place from the Colours when the War was over?
  Mr. HURDasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, with few exceptions, neither officers nor men of the ¼th Somerset Light Infantry, who were sent to Mesopotamia in February, 1916, have had any home leave since October, 1914, whereas men with shorter service on the Western front have had frequent leaves, and many have now been demobilised; and what steps, consistent with the public interest, he can now take to alleviate the sense of hardship which this inequality of treatment has created among the men and in the Somerset community?
  Captain GUEST: My right hon. Friend proposes to make a full statement on this subject at an early date.
  Mr. HURD: Could we have some indication as to when that will be, as there is a very great deal of dissatisfaction?
  Captain GUEST: I hope next week.
  Major MORRISON-BELLasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that the 4th Battalion Devonshire Regiment have been abroad since the beginning of the War, and in view of the fact that they have had no home leave, he can state when they are likely to be brought home?
  Mr. GREERasked the Secretary of State for War whether there are any Somerset troops who have not had military leave from Eastern theatres of war since the commencement of hostilities; and, if so, whether he will arrange for immediate facilities to be afforded such troops for home leave?
  Captain GUEST: It is no doubt the case that circumstances have unavoidably prevented leave to the United Kingdom being granted to some men in the far Eastern theatres of War since the commencement of hostilities. All possible measures will be taken to grant leave on a generous scale to such men as, are to be retained in the armies of occupation. The provision of reliefs and limitations of transport must, however, be taken into account in this connection. As I stated on Monday and Thursday last, all men who enlisted before the 1st January, 1916, are being demobilised as rapidly as possible in

  923
  accordance with the new scheme (subject only to certain exceptions which are set out in the scheme). Troops in distant theatres of War have equal chances of demobilisation with troops in more proximate theatres or with troops at home, subject to the limitations imposed by shipping and the length of the journey home.
  Captain FOXCROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether the 2/4th Somersets who volunteered and sailed for India in December, 1914, and were mobilised, with first line transport, accompanied by war preparation by land and sea, and garrisoned Port Blair, Andaman Island, under war conditions, are eligible for the 1915 ribbon?
  Captain GUEST: No Sir. The "1914–1915"Star is not awarded to anyone other than those who served on the establishment of a unit in a theatre of war as defined in Appendix A of Army Order 20 of 1919. The Andaman Islands are not a "theatre of war."
  Captain FOXCROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether Territorial battalions who went to India in 1914 and have many of them been in bad stations, and been away from England ever since, although not in an actual theatre of war, will receive any special recognition for these overseas services?
  Captain GUEST: A comprehensive statement embodying the conditions of award of all medals to be sanctioned in recognition of services during the present War will shortly be published. The services of the units referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend have not been overlooked.

  MILITARY DISCIPLINE.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked what disciplinary action has been taken in connection with the occurrences at Victoria Station on Friday and Saturday last?
  Captain GUEST: Inquiry shows that certain men have been remanded for trial by court-martial, and under some circumstances I feel sure that the hon. and gallant Member will agree that the case must be regarded as sub judice. I shall, of course, be happy to inform the hon. and gallant Member of the sentence of the Court after they have been promulgated.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: What action has been taken in regard to the officers who made the muddle at Victoria Station?
  Captain GUEST: I shall require notice of that question.

  WARRANT AND NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (SERVICE).
  Colonel ROUNDELLasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that the present Regulation by which warrant officers and non-commissioned officers may extend their service for twelve months if they are willing to revert to their substantive from their acting rank is having the effect of causing many of the best of these men to leave the Army for civil employment; and whether he will consider allowing such men, if recommended by their commanding officer, to extend their service without forfeiting the acting rank held by them for at least twelve months previously?
  Captain GUEST: Instructions have already been issued giving effect to the proposal contained in the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

  DRAGOON GUARDS (EX-PRIVATE HARLAND).
  Major Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary for War if he is aware that ex-Private George Harland, No. 3313, 7th Dragoon Guards, resident in Worthing, who joined the Army in November, 1886, and served in South Africa, contracting there chronic asthma, from which he is now suffering, is receiving a pension of 1s. per day; and, if so, what steps will be taken to pay him a pension commensurate with the sacrifice of health that he has made?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir James Craig): Private George Harland was discharged to the Reserve on 17th November, 1902, on termination of his engagement, and not as an invalid. Six years later he applied for a pension on the ground that he was unable to work through ill-health, and was found by a Medical Board to be suffering from bronchitis, to which, in the opinion of the Board, exposure on active service might have contributed. He was awarded a pension of 1s. a day, the full amount

  925
  allowed in the circumstances under the Royal Pay Warrant. The increase of pension provided by the recent Warrants for the soldiers of former wars can only be granted for disability due "directly or wholly to service," and in the opinion of the Medical Branch of the Ministry this condition cannot, in the case of Private Harland, be regarded as fulfilled. As, however, there may be some doubt in this case my right hon. Friend has directed that the claimant shall be offered the opportunity of appealing before a Medical Board for re-examination.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the result of the Board be communicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
  Sir J. CRAIG: The Noble Lord will understand that if the appeal has been tried the man will be able to tell the Noble Lord what has happened.
  Earl WINTERTON: Can the hon. Gentleman not extend the same courtesy to me?
  Sir J. CRAIG: Certainly, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that there are many cases.

  ROYAL SUSSEX REGIMENT.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that C. J. Churcher, formerly No. 290175, 5th Battalion Royal Sussex Regiment, who rejoined the Army in September, 1914, alter distinguished active service in India in 1884–8, was an acting-sergeant from 5th September, 1914, to October, 1917, but received no pay and allowances from 15th February, 1915, onwards, though compelled by his rank to use the sergeants' mess; if anything can be done in his and similar cases; and if the views of hon. Members of this House who have, during the War, had practical experience of the hardships imposed by the system of acting ranks may be communicated to him privately?
  Captain GUEST: I am making inquiry, and will communicate with my Noble and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

  ARMY TRUSTEES (FUNDS).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the amount of money now entrusted to the Army
  926
  Trustees from central, command, regimental, or charitable funds; whether it is proposed to use those funds for the purposes of establishing a Service League; whether the men from whom such funds have been, and are being, accumulated have been consulted in any way as to the use to which such money is to be put; and whether the Government approve of the Army Council controlling the use of such money without any reference to the House of Commons?
  Captain GUEST: The amount at present in the hands of the Army Trustee is approximately £6,500 held on various conditions of trust and other funds are in process of being transferred. With the full approval of the Army generally as represented by the Central Funds Representative Committee, which consists of all ranks, and on the advice of a special conference constituted of serving and ex-service officers, men and women of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, a League is in process of formation for the purpose of controlling and co-ordinating the use and distribution of Service funds for the benefit of those for whom they are held and their dependants. The Army Council have in the past always controlled such funds, without reference to this House.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman say the amount of money that is about to be transferred? Is it a fact that it is several millions, and that it is proposed to devote it to this purpose without reference to the House?
  Captain GUEST: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will obtain an answer.
  Mr. HOGGE: In view of the question which I have put down, may I ask the amount that is to be transferred?
  Captain GUEST: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will ascertain what are the other funds which are in process of being transferred.

  DUNFERMLINE SCHOOLS (MILITARY OCCUPATION)
  Mr. WALLACEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give instructions for the evacuation by the military of Dunfermline schools in view of the

  927
  fact that there is now sufficient hut accommodation for soldiers in the neighbourhood?
  Captain GUEST: I am making inquiry, and will communicate with my hon. Friend at an early date.

  WALTHAM ABBEY (CORDITE PRODUCTION).
  Brigadier-General COLVINasked whether the cost of producing cordite at the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey, compares favourably with its manufacture at other factories; and whether it is proposed to continue its production at Waltham Abbey or to close the factory?
  Mr. HOPE: The cost of producing cordite at the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey, is considerably higher than the cost of producing a similar article at the more modern Government factories. The question of the future of this factory is receiving careful consideration.
  General COLVIN: Can we get figures showing the cost of production at the different factories?
  Mr. HOPE: I will make inquiries on the point, and communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

  HOUSING.

    VACANT HOUSES (LONDON).
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, although there is a scarcity of housing accommodation for the middle and professional classes in the Metropolitan area, a number of large houses, especially in the West End of London, are standing empty, which could be converted into flats; and will immediate steps be taken to deal with the restriction on leases, and give priority as to the necessary materials to effect their conversion into flats?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): The question as it stands appears to concern several Departments. My right hon. Friend is aware that there is a shortage in the Metropolitan area of houses of the type referred to. The proposals mentioned by the hon. and gallant
    928
    Member are under consideration in connection with the Housing Bill which is being prepared.

    APPROVAL OF SCHEMES.
    Major PRESCOTTasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a deputation from the council of the Society of Architects recently waited on the Office of Works, when the statement was made by the First Commissioner that the Office of Works was better qualified than any other Government Department to examine and advise on housing schemes submitted by local authorities; and whether he is prepared to take steps to ensure that all housing schemes will be submitted to the Local Government Board and come under the jurisdiction of the Director-General of Housing, so as to avoid unnecessary expense and the overlapping and duplication of future housing activities?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am informed by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that he received the deputation referred to, but that he has no recollection of making such a statement as that suggested in the first part of the question; as regards the second part, the Government have decided that responsibility for dealing with all housing schemes shall rest with the Local Government Board. A circular explaining the terms and conditions on which financial assistance would be granted to the Local Government Board has been issued to local authorities.

    SUPPLIES OF MATERIAL.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions what steps have been taken in the direction of ordering supplies of materials, such as doors, windows, locks, bricks, etc., in connection with the housing scheme; by whom have the orders been given; who are carrying out the orders; and whether joinery work is being prepared by unskilled labour in establishments under Government control?
    The DEPUTY MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): Orders have been placed for 350,000,000 bricks with makers in all parts of England and Scotland, and orders up to a total of 2,000,000,000 will be placed as soon as possible. One order has been placed for joinery with the Pegasus Aircraft Company, Limited, Tooting, and one for locks with Messrs. J. Gibbons and Company, of Wolver Hampton. The order

    929
    for bricks were placed by the Department of Building Material Supplies, and for the other materials by the Explosives Department of the Ministry of Munitions before the first-named Department was formed. No joinery work is being prepared by unskilled labour in establishments under Government control.
    Colonel THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman state the price paid per thousand bricks, and how it compares with the price paid before the War?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Prices vary from one district to another, but I shall be glad to obtain the information.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that some of the persons, who evaded military service by taking advantage of the conscientious objection clause in the Military Service Acts and were ordered to do work of national importance have been set free; and will he consider the advisability of issuing such regulations as will prevent any further release of these men taking place until the last man serving in the Navy or the Army, under the Military Service Acts, has been demobilised?
    Captain GUEST: As work under the Pelham Committee has now ceased and as the men concerned were exempted from military service conditionally on their doing work of national importance, my hon. Friend will realise that there is no alternative but that the situation should be as disclosed in the question. I would also remind him that the machinery for calling up men under the Military Service Acts is at present in suspension.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean us to infer that the five sons of Dunn the hatter have been released?
    Captain GUEST: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that that matter rests primarily with the Home Office, and perhaps he will consult with them.

  INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (PROPAGANDA).
  Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLasked the Prime Minister whether the Govern-
  930
  ment will consider instituting a systematic distribution of propaganda to inform the country as to the present state of national finance and economic condition of industry and commerce?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is receiving the consideration of the Government.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that funds are not wasted on this propaganda?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We will try to see that there is no waste. Expense is not always wasted.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have the speakers who are going about the country a vested interest in being employed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly not. They must be judged by their capacity.
  Mr. WATERSON: Are we to understand that a blank cheque is given to a Committee of this description, and will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that it is not given?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no question of a blank cheque. Certainly what ever expenditure is incurred will be carefully examined.

  TRANSPORT COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILSON-FOXasked what steps have been or are being taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Reports of the Select Committee on Transport which sat during the last Session of Parliament?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee referred to were taken into consideration by the Government when drafting the Bill for the establishment of a Ministry of Ways and Communications.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Mr. LYNNasked the Prime Minister whether, he is aware of the services that the citizens of Belfast have rendered in supplying men, ships, and munitions of War; and whether he will state the reasons which have induced the Government to exclude Belfast from the benefits of the Ministry of Health?
  Major ASTOR: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend understands that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is proposing to confer to-morrow with the hon. Members interested in regard to the application of this Bill to Ireland.
  Mr. McGUFFIN: What information has been given to the Members who are concerned?
  Major ASTOR: That question should be addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  Mr. McGUFFIN: If this is for tomorrow, we should have got notice of it.

  RUSSIA (PROPAGANDA).
  Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether a letter written by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent from Russia, and recently published in the "Daily Express," has been brought to his notice; and whether he will consider the advisability of reprinting the letter in pamphlet form and distributing it broadcast in industrial districts, particularly in those districts where unrest is prevalent?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have seen the letter referred to, which I am glad to say is being widely circulated.
  Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Is it intended to institute propaganda, and, if so, would it not be well to give publicity to this letter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already answered a question which is exactly the same as that of my hon. Friend.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will you provide insurance premium for Members who are engaging in that propaganda?

  ARMISTICE TERMS.
  Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether all the guns, aeroplanes, tanks, and other paraphernalia of war, which, by the Armistice terms, were to be surrendered to the Allied Armies within a definite number of days, have been handed over to Marshal Foch?
  Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on
  932
  Monday last to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey, in which a full statement is made.

  ROAD BOARD.
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Prime Minister who is controlling the activities of the Road Board at the present time?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary of the Treasury): The business of the Road Board is still being conducted under the chairmanship of Sir George Gibb.

  PAPER SUPPLIES.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of in creased shipping facilities, the control of paper and paper-making materials can be removed so that what at present amounts to the artificial protection of the papermaking industry as against the consumer may be brought to an end?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The matter is under consideration, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement at an early date.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the President of the Board of Trade and inquire why paper can be purchased in Canada at from 2½d. to 3d. per lb., while paper merchants here charge newspapers 5d. per lb.?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend, but I think that fact is already known.

  EX-KAISER.
  Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if he can inform the House as to the arraignment of the Kaiser; and what steps are being taken to bring to justice the commandants of those camps where British prisoners of war were brutally treated and the known murderers of Edith Cavell and Captain Fryatt?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to previous statements, in which this subject has been very fully dealt with.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Has the Government a list of the chief criminals?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A list has been laid before the Government and is now in out possession.
  Colonel BURN: Knowing the very keen interest taken in this particular matter, can the right hon. Gentleman not give us some fuller information at an early date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really cannot promise that. My hon. Friend will remember that the Prime Minister dealt very fully with this subject in his speech, and of course our action must be taken in conjunction with our Allies.
  Mr. J. JONES (Silvertown): Can the right hon. Gentleman provide a list of Members who were personal friends of the Kaiser in 1914?
  Mr. SPEAKER: These personal allusions are very offensive, and I hope hon. Members will not indulge in them—retorts are so easy.

  CLUBS (RESTRICTIONS).
  Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister whether he will now take steps to remove all restrictions on clubs?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the answers which I have already given to questions on this subject.
  Major HILLS: May I ask when we may expect a decision?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I gave an answer two days ago that the subject is being gone into by a Cabinet Committee.
  Mr. CLYNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a resolution from associations of clubs or fro many individual clubs, and if he cannot remove those restrictions referred to in the question can he see his way immediately to remove a number of them?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received a great many communications, and what my hon. Friend suggests is exactly what is being done now by the Cabinet Committee.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation representing clubs?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be glad to do so if I thought any useful purpose would be served by doing so, but I think I understand their point of view.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Do I understand a decision will be given before a Bill for the prolongation of exceptional legislation is brought in?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

  RAILWAYS (FUTURE ADMINISTRATION).
  Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to set up an inquiry into the question of the future of the railways of this country; whether, in view of the labour denial of the accuracy of his statement of existing losses in running the railways, he will publish such evidence as there is in support of his statement whether his attention has been called to the demands for the return to pre-war fares, and, on the other hand, to the suggested drastic revision of goods rates in an upward tendency; and whether he can make any statement on these matters, and, in addition, indicate the length of time during which Government control of the railways is to continue?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend raises points which cannot conveniently be dealt with in a reply to a question, but can be dealt with in connection with the Bill setting up the Ministry of Ways and Communications. As regards the cost of running the railways, the Government are now considering in what form the relevant figures can best be made public.
  Mr. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be desirable in view of the possibility of railway trouble, to set up now, instead of waiting for a moment of strife, a Committee of Inquiry as to the future of the railways?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There will be no delay in dealing with that, but I do not think it is possible to come to a decision in time to affect the situation in the immediate future.
  Sir C. HENRY: May I ask whether, when the Secretary of State for War makes a statement as to the intention of the Government to nationalise the railways, he does so with the authority of the Government?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  PEACE CONFERENCE.

    UNITED KINGDOM PLENIPOTENTIARIES.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he will state the names of the Plenipotentiaries who are actually empowered, on behalf of the United Kingdom, to agree to the Peace terms to be imposed on the Central Powers at the Peace Conference at Paris?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister, the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow, and one representative from the Dominions, but the British and Allied Governments have the right of substituting another member at any particular meeting.
    Sir R. COOPER: Are any of those gentlemen Englishmen?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSHasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the desirability of legislation at an early date for the purpose of amending the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1911, so as to raise the yearly means of applicants from £21, the limit above which the full pension is not payable, to £42, and £31 10s., the limit beyond which no pension is payable, to £52?
  Mr. BALDWIN: These will be matters for the consideration of the Committee which I propose to appoint, as I stated on the 17th instant.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say if that Committee will be a Select Committee of the House of Commons?
  An HON. MEMBER: Is it fair that the ownership of cottages should be used against people applying for old age pensions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

  SOLICITORS (ADMISSION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Major HILLSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will give facilities for the passing of the Solicitors (Admission of Women) Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. and gallant Friend will repeat this question in two or three weeks it will be possible to see more clearly what time will be available in the House, and I shall hope to be able to give him an answer.
  Major HILLS: May I also indulge in hope during those two or three weeks?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must indulge in those hopes in the Lobby.

  ARMY OFFICERS (GRATUITIES).
  Major WOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused among officers of the Regular Army at the war gratuity to which they are entitled being fixed on a scale considerably below that granted to officers holding temporary commissions; and whether he can see his way to recommend any action on the matter?
  Captain GUEST: No, Sir; this scale was fully considered by the War Cabinet, and I do not propose to reopen the question.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the fact that the new gratuities have been largely founded on the South African War gratuities, given when the cost of livings was much lower?
  Captain GUEST: All that I think was taken into account.

  SEWAGE SLUDGE.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (1) if he will say at what price per ton the Corporation of Manchester is now selling its sewage sludge; and, in view of the decrease of the quantity of manure necessary for agricultural purposes, whether he has taken any steps to increase the supply of sewage sludge as a fertiliser from the London County Council or any other municipality; (2) whether, in view of the present rapid discharge of men from the Army and munition works, he will consider the desirability of giving immediate employment by causing the London County Council and other municipalities to develop schemes for the utilisation of

  937
  waste sewage, and to hasten the construction of the necessary works in connection therewith?
  Major ASTOR: I have been asked to reply to these questions. I am informed by the Town Council of Manchester that the present price of the dried sludge manure marketed by the Hirers Department of the Corporation is 53s. to 55s. a ton free on rail. The total weight of dried sewage manure sold during the year 1918 was 1,349 tons. This would not represent more than 8,000 tons of wet sludge out of the 264,000 tons produced. It is not within the power of my right hon. Friend to cause the authorities to which my gallant Friend refers to develop such schemes as he has in mind, but I have no doubt that they would do so, if convinced that the undertaking was a sound one. A small committee of experts upon which the Local Government Board is represented is at present looking into this question.
  Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the London County Council as to the advisability of looking into the question of using their sewage instead of letting it go to waste?
  Major ASTOR: I understand that the manurial value of this is not very great.

  SEEDS (ELECTRIFICATION).
  Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has taken any action to test the action of electrification of seeds; and, if so, where and what has been the result?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The Board have arranged for experiments to test the claims put forward by those interested in commercial processes for the electrification of seeds. The experiments are being conducted at several centres, but as they have not yet been completed it is not possible to state what results will be obtained.
  Sir B. STANIER: Can he say when it is likely that we shall get the report?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I can not give the exact date, but I will let my hon. Friend know as soon as possible.

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES AND HOUSING.
  Captain FITZROYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has received a Report on wages, hours, and conditions of labour in agriculture, including housing, from Mr. Drage, the director of investigations; whether that Report has been printed; and whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House before the Government Bill on housing is considered?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir. The reports of the investigators, together with a general summarising Report by Mr. Drage, have been received, and sent to press. They are expected to be in the hands of Members in about ten days. The Reports were laid before the House on the 11th instant.
  Captain R. TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he has received representations adverse to the differentiation between the minimum wage to be paid to agricultural workers engaged in extensive cultivation and those engaged on intensive cultivation; and whether the Department will give effect to these representations?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Objections have been received to the proposal to fix special minimum rates of wages for the market garden workers in Essex, and these will be duly considered by the Wages Board, with whom by Statute the final decision rests.

  LAND LEGISLATION.
  Captain TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Government land legislation already announced will be confined to the amending of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1906; and whether the full proposals, whatever their nature, will be submitted to Parliament this Session?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Bill of which notice has been given will not be confined to amendments of the

  939
  Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. I am not in a position to state what other proposals for land legislation will be submitted to Parliament this Session.

  RABIES (DEVON AND CORNWALL).
  Mr. CAREWasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the outbreak of rabies in Devon and Cornwall is now stamped out; whether there have been any fresh cases reported lately; if he will state the total number of cases to date; and whether he has any statement to make as to the way the muzzling order is being enforced?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: At present the outbreak of rabies in Devon and Cornwall cannot in any sense be said to be stamped out. The disease may show itself at any time within six months from its inception. The last case was confirmed on the 11th inst., and in addition there is still a number of suspected cases under investigation by the Board's Veterinary Department. The total number of cases confirmed by the veterinary officers of the Board to date is 118—Devon 94, Cornwall 24. The Board have reason to think that the responsible local authorities are carrying out their duty as efficiently as their staff permits. I am informed that to date eighteen civilians, two soldiers, and one sailor have been bitten and undergone the Pasteur treatment for hydrophobia.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, generally, rabies in these two counties is decreasing or increasing?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On the whole, it has been better recently, but it is by no means stamped out yet.

  DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a great shortage of domestic servants; that many girls who are at present in receipt of unemployed pay are refusing to return to domestic service; and what steps he proposes to take in regard to the matter?
  Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply on behalf of my hon. Friend,
  940
  who is ill. I am aware that there is a shortage of domestic servants, and that many girls who have been engaged on munitions or other war work are reluctant to return to domestic service. The chief reason appears to be that the terms and conditions offered are not regarded as sufficiently attractive. Applicants who refuse offers of suitable employment in domestic service are not entitled to remain in receipt of out-of-work donation, but I am satisfied that the real remedy lies in a substantial improvement in the general level of the terms and conditions of domestic service. There is no Statutory power to deal compulsorily with this matter, but the Department is considering what steps it may be possible to take to secure an improvement by voluntary action.
  Colonel W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a standard rate of wages now for good servants?
  Mr. PARKER: I was not aware that there is a standard rate for domestic servants.
  Colonel THORNE: Yes, there is.
  Mr. TERRELL: May I ask if domestic servants who have refused the standard rate of wages will have these allowances discontinued?
  Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I must ask hon. Members to put down these supplementary questions. I am not connected with the Department and cannot give intelligent answers.
  Mr. GRANTasked the Minister of Labour if he will give instructions to Labour Exchanges that women in receipt of unemployed allowances who are fitted for domestic service shall be notified that refusal to accept domestic service will cause such allowances to be instantly cancelled?
  Mr. PARKER: An applicant refusing an offer of suitable employment is not entitled to continue in receipt of out-of-work donation, and this rule applies to offers of domestic service in the same way as to other employments. The Employment Exchanges already have instructions to this effect. Any question as to whether the offer is suitable in any particular case is decided by a Court of Referees.
  Mr. WATERSON: Will the hon. Gentleman do something to see that a standard

  941
  minimum wage is fixed for this class of labour, and that employers are forced to pay it?
  Mr. PARKER: I shall be pleased to refer what the hon. Gentleman has said to the Department. I am personally of the same opinion myself.
  Sir C. WARNER: Could not there be fixed conditions of service as well as the wage—it is the more important of the two?

  UNEMPLOYMENT RETURNS.
  Mr. K. JONESasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the official estimate of the number of persons unemployed: whether the numbers include both sexes and all those drawing unemployment pay; and whether he can also state the chief industries, if any, which cannot absorb the surplus labour, and the reasons why?
  Mr. PARKER: On the 7th February, the last date for which figures are available, the number of persons who had lodged their donation policies, at Employment Exchanges, because they were unemployed, was 734,090, of whom 254,648 were men, 24,538 boys, 428,114 women and 26,790 girls. During the week ended 7th February donation was paid to 695,998 persons. In trades insured against unemployment under the Acts of 1911 and 1916 the largest numbers of unemployed among men were in the engineering and iron founding (70,354), building (37,352), and shipbuilding trades (10,972), and among women in engineering and iron founding (103,443), and in ammunition and explosives (46,837). In trades not insured under the Acts of 1911 and 1916 it has not yet been possible to analyse by industries the figures for the week ending the 7th February. An analysis of the figures for the week ending the 31st January shows, that the largest numbers unemployed were among general labourers and factory workers in the case of men, and among general factory workers, domestic services, the cotton industry and dress in the case of women. As regards the last part of the question, the matter cannot be dealt with in reply to a question in the House, since the reasons for the failure to reabsorb these persons vary with each industry. A number of inquiries are being undertaken into the causes in the various industries.

  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
  Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Munitions whether the National Fuse Factory, Tipton, Staffordshire, has been sold; if so, who were the purchasers and what was the price paid; and whether he can state the cost to the State of the erection and equipment of the factory?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: The factory referred to has not yet been sold, but negotiations are proceeding with the firm on whose land the factory was built. This firm were under an obligation to purchase at the end of the War. The estimated cost of the buildings and equipment was £390,146. The actual figures are now under investigation.

  MUNITIONS.

    FACTORY ACCIDENT (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that Miss Selina Ward met with a serious accident at His Majesty's factory, Waddon, in June last, for which compensation was duly paid; that this worker applied for a declaration of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act last November, and that the Ministry refused to agree but promised that the case should be reviewed; and whether any action has yet been taken in this matter?
    Mr. HOPE: This worker was injured on the 8th June last by scalding her feet when carrying a bucket of water. From a recent medical report, it appears that the present effects of her injury are slight, and, in the opinion of the medical officer, unlikely to impair her earning capacity. Her average weekly earnings from the date of her return to work at the factory in October up to her discharge, in January exceeded her pre-injury average. No further weekly compensation would appear to be payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act at present, and, in view of Miss Ward's post-injury earnings and the medical evidence, it is not considered that her case calls for declaration of liability.

    WELL HALL ESTATE HUTMENTS (RENT).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the complaints of the tenants of the hutments on the Well Hall estate, Eltham, as to the excessive amount of

    943
    their rent and the unsatisfactory condition of the hutments; whether such hutments complied with the provisions of the building by-laws of the London County Council; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to this Question is necessarily lengthy, and in the circumstances I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to publish the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer supplied to the Question:
    My attention was recently called to the complaints of the tenants of the bungalows on the Well Hall Estate, and as a result I caused a special examination to be made. The facts are as follows:
    The rents charged are 9s. 6d. for a bungalow of four rooms and a scullery, and 10s. where a bath is provided. These rents represent an economic return on less than 70 per cent. of the cost. From these rents a reduction of 2s. 6d. per week was allowed for a period of three months from the week beginning 31st December last, to meet the cost of extra coal, owing to complaints that some of the bungalows were cold and damp.
    The bungalows were built in 1915–1916 to meet a war emergency for the accommodation of employés at the Arsenal. They were not actually licensed by the London County Council, but the sewers were inspected and approved by the district authority, and they comply generally with the requirements of the London Building Act as regards public health in such matters as height of rooms, size of windows, air spaces, drainage, and sanitation.
    The examination by officials of the Department showed that in some cases there was ground for the complaint that the hutments were damp, and that some of the roads were in bad condition. Steps were at once taken, and work is now in progress to remedy the dampness and to put the roads in sufficient repair to carry the necessary traffic.
    A body described as the Government Hutments Protection League held a meeting and passed a resolution declaring that unless the rents were reduced by 5s. a week as from 23rd December last, they would advise the tenants to refuse to pay the rents. Representations were made to
    944
    the Government to this effect. In reply I stated that the defects to which attention had been called were being remedied and the roads repaired in those places where they had been found to be seriously deficient. I added that until these repairs were completed, and provided that the existing rents were punctually paid, I would agree to the 2s. 6d. rebate being continued, and that I would discuss the situation with the committee before it was withdrawn.
    The complaints made by the committee were much exaggerated, and I am glad to say that the advice they gave to the tenants not to pay rent has not been generally adopted. Further, I may add that there is a long waiting list of applicants who are anxious to become tenants of the bungalows as they fall vacant. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that everything possible has been done to meet reasonable complaints.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many hundreds of Government tenants on this particular estate have refused to pay their rent last week as a protest against the excessive rents charged by the Government and the unsatisfactory condition of the hutments, and is he prepared to receive a deputation or call a conference in order to adjust these differences?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the answer I will circulate shows I am aware of all those circumstances.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation on the matter?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall be glad to discuss that with my hon. Friend.

    SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
    Captain TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions whether opportunity will be given the farmers to purchase, under the most favourable conditions, lorries, tractors, and machinery and implements generally, not now needed by the authorities but which are useful for farming operations?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Stores of the kind referred to are being sold after full advertisement in the local press. Farmers have, therefore, every opportunity of knowing what goods are to be

    945
    disposed of. No preference can be given to any class of individuals in regard to price.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: May I ask whether these things are being sold direct to the farmers, or the parish authorities, or whether intermediate contractors have been set up by the Government?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Government has not set up intermediate contractors. In most cases they are sold direct.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Will the hon. Gentleman say what has become of the motor cars given by private individuals—will they be able to get them back on application, seeing the scarcity of motor cars in this country?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Unless they belong to the Government they will not be sold.
    Colonel LOWTHER: I mean motor cars that have been given for use as ambulances, and, now that the War is over, are no longer required?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I should like to know the circumstances in this case. Certainly we do not want to keep property belonging to other people.
    Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to advise that when lorries are to be sold they will not be put up in lots of fifty and upwards, but will be put up singly, so that individuals will have an opportunity of bidding for them, instead of dealers being forced to bid for the whole, leaving the individual out?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the suggestion is a very good one, and at shall be brought to the notice of this controller of the section. As a matter of fact, I believe it is being done.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nine, lorries, which were supposed to be put up singly, were recently put up in one lot to suit the auctioneer, and before leaving the room the purchaser sold four for the price of the nine, and so got five for nothing?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am not aware of it, but I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the details.
    Sir F. HALL: I will.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he will give details of any sales of State property, whether of works, plant, or materials, which have been made by his Department since hostilities ceased, with dates, prices, and all important relevant particulars, including the names of the selling agents, whether officials of the Ministry or otherwise?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The duty of disposing of surplus Government property was placed upon the Ministry of Munitions by the War Cabinet on 15th November last, but the actual transfer of functions has only been completed during the past few days. A disposal organisation has now been set up, particulars of which were given in the Press on the 10th instant. In the circumstances I am not yet in a position to give precise answers to my hon. Friend's questions.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he can state that no further sales of any State property whatsoever in the control of the Ministry of Munitions will be made except by public auction; and if he will give full particulars of any sales which have so far been made, giving the conditions of the sales, names of purchasers, the price obtained, ete.?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Whilst the greater part of the surplus Government property will be sold by public auction, I think it would be undesirable to lay down a rule that no other form of sale may be adopted. For reason stated in answer to question No. 86, I am not yet in a position to give the detailed information asked for by my hon. Friend.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Will the huts be given to the Society for Disabled Soldiers and Sailors?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am sorry we cannot undertake to give away Government property under any circumstanced, or to anybody.
    Mr. DAVISONasked how many of the national factories the Government has decided to sell; what these factories cost to build and equip; whether it is proposed to put them up to public auction or to dispose of them privately; whether officials or ex-officials of the Ministry will be allowed to purchase them; and whether a reserve price will be set upon each of them bearing some relation to the cost of construction and equipment?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Up to the present, thirteen national factories have been advertised as available for disposal. The cost of the sites, buildings, and equipment of these factories is, approximately, £2,940,000. No factory will be disposed of, except after full advertisement, but the decision whether the sale shall be by public auction, tender, or private treaty must depend on the circumstances of each case. No national factory will be sold to any official or ex-official of the Ministry, except after the sale has been publicly advertised and when the price offered is the highest. Where the property is sold by public auction, a reserve price will be fixed, but the cost of construction and equipment does not necessarily have any relation to the present value.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: Is the hon. Gentleman advising every sale for cash only, or is he prepared to sell for other considerations?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am not aware of any case where there have been other considerations!

  RECONSTRUCTION WORKS (IRELAND).
  Sir ROBERT WOODS (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour, with reference to his reply to the question on the 17th instant of the hon. and learned Baronet, the Member for York, regarding reconstruction works in Ireland, if the grant by the Exchequer for this purpose is to be used in providing employment for demobilised soldiers and sailors only?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Samuels): No; the contemplated works will not be confined to employing demobilised soldiers and sailors only.

  M. CLEMENCEAU.

    ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION IN PARIS.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Private Notice)asked the Leader of the House whether there is any truth in the rumour that an attempt has been made to assassinate M. Clemenceau?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry to say that there is truth in that report, but the only information I have received has
    948
    come by telephone, and it is not possible for us to know to what extent our representatives there have ascertained the exact facts. But I think the House will be relieved to learn what we know on the subject. M. Clemenceau was attacked by two men. I understand that six shots were fired, of which one took effect in the shoulder. His action afterwards, to anyone who knows him, would appear to be a characteristic example of the strength of will over the infirmities of the body. M. Clemenceau walked to his own house, and declined to go to bed until the doctor arrived and ordered him there. He then expressed the opinion that he will be up in a day or two.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does not my right hon. Friend think it might be fitting in the circumstances to move a Resolution of sympathy and indignation in regard to this outrage on our Ally?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that. I would say right off that I think it ought to be done either by the Government or by the House. I am not quite sure, however, whether it is desirable to have a Resolution of the House.
    Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: In place of a Resolution, would it not be possible, in any case, for the right hon. Gentleman to convey an expression of the wishes of the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a good suggestion. In any case, I am sure the Government will have the full approval of the House of Commons in associating it with any expression of sympathy which we think it desirable to forward.
    Sir J. RANDLES: Would it not be appropriate that Mr. Speaker himself should make a communication respecting the wishes of the House of Commons on behalf of the House of Commons? I am sure it is the wish of the House specifically to associate itself with a Resolution of this kind.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Might I be allowed to consider that with Mr. Speaker? I think it is against all precedent.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: Quite apart from any formal representation that may be made, might I suggest that the House might, on your intimation, Mr. Speaker, very fittingly rise and mark its sympathy and admiration for this great Ally?

  MEMBER SWORN.
  The following Member took the Oath and signed the Roll:
  Right honourable Lord Robert Cecil, County of Hurts (Hitchin Division).

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

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ADAMSON: May I ask the Leader of the House what business will be taken To-morrow and on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: To-morrow, I presume, we shall still be discussing the Rules of Procedure. If they are finished, as I hope they will be, we shall, on Friday, take the Re-election of Ministers Bill, and the Aerial Navigation Bill.

  PROCEDURE RULES.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    47.—(Constitution of Standing Committees.)

    (1) Four Standing Committees shall be appointed for the consideration of all Bills committed to them; and the procedure in such Committees shall be the same as in a Select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise order; provided that strangers shall be admitted, except when the Committee shall order them to withdraw; and the said Committee shall not sit, whilst the House is sitting, except in pursuance of a resolution of the Committee, moved by the Member in charge of the Bill before the Committee, and decided without Amendment or Debate, and shall not sit after 4 p.m. without the order of the House; provided also, that any notice of Amendment to any Clause in a Bill which may be committed to a Standing Committee, given by any hon. Member in the House, shall stand referred to such Committee; provided also, that Twenty be the Quorum of such Standing Committees.

    (2) One of the Standing Committees shall be appointed for the consideration of all public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee, and shall consist of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies, together with not more than fifteen other Members to be nominated in respect of any Bill by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard in such nomination to the approximation of the balance of parties in the Committee to that in the Whole House, and shall have power from time to time to discharge, for non-attendance or at their own request, the Members so nominated by them and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.

    Amendment proposed: Leave out paragraph (1), and insert instead thereof the words,
    "Six Standing Committees shall be appointed for the consideration of Bills or other business referred to a Standing Committee, and the procedure in those Committees shall be the same as in a Select Committee unless the House otherwise order.
    984
    Standing Committees may sit during the Sitting, and notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, but they shall not sit on any day over which the House is adjourned.
    On a Division being called in the House, the Chairman of a Standing Committee shall suspend the proceedings in the Committee for such time as will, in his opinion, enable Members to vote in the Division.
    Any Notice of Amendment to a Bill which has been committed to a Standing Committee shall stand referred to the Standing Committee.
    The Quorum of a Standing Committee shall be Twenty.
    Strangers shall be admitted to the Standing Committee except when the Committee shall order them to withdraw."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Viscount WOLMER: I bog to propose, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the beginning to insert the words,
    "Business of the House,—That, in the present Session, the following provisions shall apply with respect to the Business of the House notwithstanding any Standing Order or Custom of the House."
    I understand from you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the proper moment for me to raise the point that is in my Amendment. My object is to make the proposal of the Government valid, I hope, with subsequent Amendments. That is, for this Session to make it a Sessional Order instead of a permanent Standing Order. I venture very strongly to hope that my hon. Friend will be able to see his way to accept this provision. I think I am saying what is true when I say that if he does so he will certainly make it a great deal easier for a great many Members of this House to be guided by the Government in the somewhat drastic proposals which they have put forward. The arguments for making these proposals temporary instead of permanent, at any rate at first, are very strong ones. In the first place, this is a new House of Commons. The Debate last evening showed that among those hon. Members who have sat in previous Parliaments there is a very grave difference of opinion as to the advisability of certain portions of the Government's proposal. Therefore, if any of these disputed points should come to a Division, as they probably will, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not like to carry to a Division against hon. Members who have sat in previous Parliaments on a point of procedure, supported mainly by the votes of hon. Members who cannot have any personal experience in regard to the working out of procedure.

    985
    Secondly, nobody can really say what is going to be the actual effect of these proposals. I am not an old Parliamentary hand, but I have been told by those who are that the effect of procedure alterations very frequently has been exactly the contrary to what was originally anticipated. Therefore, in such a drastic scheme as this, we are bound in any case to be very much in the dark, particularly as so many Members of the House are entirely new to procedure questions. These reasons are by them selves sufficient to substantiate the proposal that I am now making. I think, however, there is a much stronger one—that is, the very important point which has also pertinently been put forward in regard to the Re-election of Ministers Bill which is before the House, and in regard to any constitutional change that we may at the present time be considering. Our Constitution is in a quite unparalleled and unprecedented position. The Government have announced that they are going in this Parliament, they hope, to propose some scheme for the creation of a new Second Chamber, and so endeavour to define the relationship that is going to exist between the two Houses. I venture to urge that our questions of procedure cannot be considered apart from the question of what our relationship with the Second Chamber is going to be. I, for one, strongly hope that the Government will lose, no time in bringing forward, presumably in another place, their proposals in regard to the Second Chamber. I regard the present state of our Constitution as entirely anomalous and very dangerous indeed. So long as we have no Second Chamber, and so long as the Parliament Act—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord is not now entitled to discuss that matter.
    4.0 P.M.
    Viscount WOLMER: I will not discuss it any more, Mr. Speaker; I only say that in view of the circumstances which I have mentioned, I do not think it is possible, or right, for us to settle the procedure of this House permanently. So long as this state of flux continues our procedure arrangements must necessarily be provisional. I would say to the Government that until they have cleared up that question they will find a great many Members of the House of Commons who are unwilling to commit themselves to permanent alterations of our procedure. Safeguards
    986
    which we now possess we can ill afford to part with if there are going to be no safeguards in regard to another Chamber. Therefore I propose that the arrangements we are now making should only have effect for this Session, and at the beginning of next Session, when this House will have had experience of their working, and when hon. Members will have been able to see what really their direct effect is, and when the relations between us will have been more clearly defined, we shall then be in a position to make these proposals permanent, if necessary. If my right hon. Friend insists upon asking us to make permanent these alterations in our procedure now, it would be necessary for a great many hon. Members to insist upon safeguards which would not perhaps be necessary if these proposals were merely, of a temporary nature. For that reason I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to agree to these proposals being inserted as a Sessional Order and not as Standing Orders, and, if he does so, I think our proceedings on this question will be enormously expedited.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: I rise to support as strongly as I can the proposal made by my Noble Friend, and I hope the Leader of the House may see his way to accept his proposal. I am sure in every quarter of the House there is a most sincere desire to help the Government to get on with the vital business that lies before us. Listening to the Debate yesterday I am sure that is a very sincere desire, and the Government have no reason to complain of criticism in regard to these proposals. It is clear that these proposals are in many respects very revolutionary, and to a largo extent experimental, and it is certainly right that the new Members of this. House should not, even if they vote for these proposals, commit themselves to any finality of view in regard to them, and they should have another opportunity at the beginning of next Session to reconsider, if they so desire, the action they have taken on this occasion. Apart from new Members, I think the whole House should have an opportunity of reconsidering these proposals at the beginning of next Session in the light of the experience we may gain of their working during the present Session.
    We all agree that every alteration of Standing Orders must of necessity limit the privileges of Members, and at the same

    987
    time it must be conceded, I think, as a principle, that the great value that the country derives from an examination of Bills is that when they leave this House they should, as far as possible, represent the collective experience and intelligence of hon. Members of this House. We have to see to what extent that can be assured while at the same time endeavouring to expedite the manner in which Bills can proceed through the House. In a sense, not only will the House itself but also the Government be on trial, because it largely depends upon the attitude of the Government in working these Standing Orders whether really a serious attempt will be made on every possible occasion to ascertain the collective opinion of the House. If hon. Members are precluded from suggesting and discussing Amendments, then, to a certain extent, the Bills are likely to be the poorer from that lack of attention. We all know that Governments are very apt to be over-fond of their own children, but it is not only the Government we have to consider. New Members may not know that the Ministers on the Front Bench who make such a brave show at Question Time, and appear such very formidable persons, are not always really so formidable as they appear, and some of us who have watched the proceedings of this House in the past have wondered to what extent their conduct is influenced by the power behind the Throne. New Members have joined the family, and they are entitled to be let into the family secrets. I propose to let them know. What is the power behind the Throne? I propose to tell them who the power behind the Throne is, and in my judgment it is that very formidable body of experienced and highly trained Civil servants who constitute the bureaucracy which, to a large extent, influences the conduct of public affairs in this country. The House must remember that the permanent Civil Service works in secret, and they really wield an immense power.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This does not appear to me to have anything to do with the Motion now before the House.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: I will illustrate what I mean. On the Committee stage of Bills we are all aware that the members of the Government—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are not discussing that matter at all. What we are discuss-
    988
    ing is the question whether the proposed changes, if accepted by the House, are to be of a permanent or of a Sessional character.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: I am sorry if I was too long in developing my point, but I was trying to confine myself to that issue. If Ministers are not prepared to work in touch with the House, and are inclined to act on very strong suggestions from elsewhere, the House has less means of bringing pressure to bear upon them, and until the Government has been on trial and we know to what extent they will endeavour to raise the self-esteem of hon. Members of this House, I submit it would be dangerous to make any permanent alteration in the Standing Order, and these changes should be left as Sessional Orders only, so that at the beginning of each Session the Government may be judged by its conduct in the preceding Session, and the necessary extra facilities may be given to them or not upon their record. For that reason I suggest that it should be the view of the House that there should be merely a trial, and that these changes should run as Sessional Orders in future. It was said yesterday that these changes would facilitate the dispatch of business. We all want to facilitate the dispatch of business, or, rather, of good business, and we want to see Bills leave this House as perfect as possible, and until we see the effect of these Rules the general privileges of hon. Members ought not to be curtailed. All points of view should be presented, and if upstairs in Grand Committee there is a chance that points of view, which very often appear unimportant but really are important, are not in fact presented, then it may be better, if a Bill takes longer, to revert to the old practice. The success of these Rules must largely depend on the spirit in which they are administered. I was very much struck during the last two Sessions of Parliament at the very great advantage it was to the House, and, I think, to Ministers, that they should have frequent consultations with bodies of Members outside this House itself. It was a policy followed with very great benefit by the Minister for Education, and I hope that the Government will consider extending that practice with a view—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that that has anything to do with the question we are discussing. There will be nothing to

    989
    prevent the Government carrying out the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member, but it is quite irrelevant to the question now before the House.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: I was trying to show that it would not facilitate business if the new Rules worked to the detriment of hon. Members. It was with a view to helping the Government that I made that suggestion, but I will not press that point further, and I ask the Government to accede to the request of the Noble Lord, and also to consider at the same time how they can by their own action help hon. Members of this House collectively to express their opinion.
    Mr. J. M. MACDONALD: I rise to support the Amendment of the Noble Lord, but I give it my support upon somewhat more general grounds. In yesterday's I Debate the Leader of the House rested his case for these proposed changes on the argument that the circumstances of the time are not only unusual but unprecedented. I agree with that view. This, however, is not the whole of the matter which the House ought to consider. Is the Government quite sure that under the changed mode of procedure the work that ought to be done can actually be accomplished? I think he would be a bold man who would say that it could. I believe the thing is absolutely impossible. I may be wrong, but, on the assumption that I am right, what then? Are we to go blindly forward and take all the risks of failure? If we do, I, at any rate, express my own opinion that we should be woefully negligent in the performance of our duty, and we may find ourselves before the end of the Session face to face with a revolutionary movement in this country. It is true that the legislative requirements of the country are at the moment altogether exceptional, both in their importance and their complexity, but it is not true that the power of the House to deal with this work is raised for the first time by this exceptional condition of things. Ever since the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, certainly since the passage of the Reform Bill of 1867, this House has, Session after Session, had far more work to do than it could possibly undertake. In the course of these years, reforms of procedure have been repeatedly made with a view to expediting the transaction of business, but they have one and all failed to accomplish their purpose How, then,
    990
    can we have any assurance that the present reform is going to succeed where the others have failed?
    The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) yesterday raised a very interesting question as to why, while the moral reputation of the individual Members in the eighteenth century was not so good as the moral reputation of Members of Parliament in our time, the Parliament of the eighteenth century did exercise a moral authority over the people of the country as a whole which the Parliament of our time fails to exercise. He did not tell the House what was his own reply to that interesting question, but I have a quite brief reply. The Parliament of the eighteenth century, whatever else may be said of it, did succeed in doing the work that fell to it to do. The work at that time, I need hardly say, was of a very simple kind. It was practically confined to questions of administration. The Parliament of the eighteenth century hardly ever dealt with matters of legislation in the ordinary sense of the word. Certainly no great measure of social legislation dates from that century. I repeat: the Parliament of the eighteenth century held its authority and the respect of the country because it did do the work that fell to it to do. We have lost that respect because, we do not do the work that falls to us to do, and what we do is badly done, and we shall not recover that respect until we have adopted some method by which we can more certainly accomplish the task that is imposed upon us. In considering this question, I think we are a little apt to forget that no legislative body in the whole history of the world has ever had imposed upon it a task equal to the task that is imposed upon the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We legislate for the separate interests of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, we legislate for the interests common to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, we are the responsible authority for the legislation affecting all the Crown Colonies and the Protectorates, and we are the final responsible authority also for the administration of all those outlying portions of the Empire. No single body can possibly perform or adequately discharge such a task. If in our effort to cope with it we have no choice but to consider changes of procedure, we should, of course, be compelled to accept the situation and make the

    991
    best of it, but that is not the case. In yeserday's Debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) indicated that it was not a reform of procedure that was really required in order to enable us to overtake the task before us, but a scheme of devolution.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not now discussing the proposals as a whole. The only issue before the House is whether Standing Order No. 47 is to be a Standing Order of the House or whether, as amended, it is to be a Sessional Order.
    Mr. MACDONALD: I am quite ready to accept the proposals as a whole for this Session, but in case this scheme of procedure fails to enable us to accomplish our work we ought in the meantime to be considering some other proposals that will be effective. Of course, I am not going to refer in detail to the proposal that we should seek a solution of our difficulties by way of devolution, but I do want to indicate to the House that this ought to be a Sessional Order, with the understanding that in the meantime we shall proceed to consider a permanent solution of the difficulties such as would be afforded by the adoption of a scheme of devolution worked from this House. That is my whole purpose, and that is why I adopted this line of argument. Obviously, if these changes in procedure do not enable us to overtake the overwhelming mass of work that will fall upon the House this Session the situation at the end of the Session or before the end of the Session will be a very serious one. I contend, and I do not think that any old Member of the House will dispute the contention, that no amendment of procedure can ever enable this House to accomplish the work that falls to it, and, if that is accepted, then it is very difficult to dispute the view that while we are ready to accept the Government proposals for this Session we ought in the meantime to consider the alternative proposal with a view to bringing it into operation at the earliest possible moment. I will not go further than that. I have risen for the purpose of supporting the proposal that we should limit these changes in procedure to the present Session and to urge the Government and the House to consider what in my view is the only final and permanently
    992
    satisfactory remedy for the congestion of business from which the House has so long suffered, namely, the remedy of a devolution of powers and functions to subordinate legislatures of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I certainly have no reason to complain of the nature of the criticisms which these proposals have so far received. I have tried, as I think I have already shown, to do what I can to meet the wishes of the House, or to justify the course of action which we are pursuing. Yesterday we allowed a very long general discussion which dealt with many interesting points, and it is my hope—I think it is not an unreasonable hope—that hon. Members will keep that fact in mind when we come to consider particular proposals. We have listened to three speeches in support of this Amendment. There is a great deal on the face of it which makes it attractive, but I am sorry to say that the Government cannot accept it, and as well as I can I shall give my reason. I listened with interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. J. M. Macdonald). It was one of the most pleasing speeches to which I have listened in connection with the whole Debate. He said that the circumstances of the time made him ready to accept our proposals exactly as they stood, and his whole reason for supporting the Amendment was because he believed that any alteration in our procedure would not be sufficient to meet the evil, and he therefore wished to make this a Sessional Order, so that the House would be compelled at the beginning of next Session to consider the whole question of devolution.
    Mr. MACDONALD: No; the right hon. Gentleman has not quite followed me. I want the Government in the meantime seriously to consider what is the only permanently satisfactory solution, and to be prepared to put it into operation.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have really described my right hon. Friend's view quite correctly. His whole reason for not wishing this system to become permanent is that we may be compelled at the time it comes up again, if not sooner, to consider the larger question of devolution. I said this was attractive. It would be especially attractive to me

    993
    for the reason given by my Noble Friend, namely, that it would greatly facilitate the passage of these proposals. Any Minister in charge of a Bill or a proposal of this kind is always inclined to think too much of getting rid of the immediate difficulty, and I confess that I have been greatly attracted by the suggestion. These proposals, however, are not to be taken entirely by themselves. It is not the right way of dealing with a subject of this kind to have particular parts of our procedure coming up for revision while others do not. Let me point out that the particular Amendment we are now considering does not go very far. The Rule of the House at present is that unless someone moves a Resolution to the contrary every Bill goes automatically to a Standing Committee. We are asking that there should be six of these Standing Committees instead of four. That really is all that we ask for in this Amendment. It would be entirely against the interests of the House to have a Sessional Order raising the question of procedure in a mutilated form. The House knows very well that there is no subject on which it is more difficult to get a decision without a great deal of discussion than any question which affects the rights of Members of this House, and it seems to me, if these new proposals were put down as a Sessional Order, that there would be an attempt—it is quite possible that the pressure on the time of the House might be as great then as now, and it is also possible that party feeling might be much stronger—to use them to delay business. I do not think therefore that this is really a proposal that can be adopted, but I wish to say to my Noble Friend and these who support him that in this matter there is not a conflict of interest between the Government and the House of Commons. We are trying to get an arrangement which with the least disturbance will enable the necessary work to be done. That does not man that unless this Amendment is carried the subject will not be reconsidered. The House will always be able to consider its Rules of Procedure, and it I were in my present position—there may be alterations in the Government which may make my promises of no worth—I would strongly urge, if there were any desire to reconsider the subject, that the Government should give time for its reconsideration. We cannot make these proposals a Sessional Order, but if you take a par-
    994
    ticular one—for instance, the one regarded as the biggest departure—whenit comes up I am quite ready to consider whether it ought to be made a Sessional Order instead of a permanent alteration. I think I have given the House sufficient reasons to justify them in refusing this Amendment.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I had no desire or intention to claim the indulgence of the House at so early a stage in its proceedings, but I should like to ask the Leader of the House to consider this question from the point of view of the new Members. As I understand, the House is now composed of a membership of which nearly half is new, and the fact is that we do not understand what was the procedure in the last Parliament. We therefore cannot understand how the proposed alterations of the Government will affect the previous procedure, In other words, if I may say so, new Members are being asked to support the Government in proposals of the real meaning and purpose of which they are necessarily in ignorance. I do not like to find myself supporting this Amendment in opposition to the expressed wish of the Leader of the House. But I listened to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) yesterday and he made one remark which was in the nature of a shock to new Members. He described how in previous Parliaments—I am not sure whether he included such business as we have so far transacted—Members going through the Lobby would turn to each other and say, "What are we voting for, and in which Division Lobby are we to go?" The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) used the phrase yesterday that we were "selling our birthright for a mess of pottage." I do not know that the phraseis very illuminating for us, because we are not aware of what the birthright is or the mess of pottage, and when we fire asked to give an opinion on these proposals we find ourselves in the greatest difficulty. The Leader of the House would be showing his sympathy to the new Members if he would limit these proposals to a Sessional Order and not make them part of the permanent Rules of the House. I perfectly well appreciate the object on of the Leader of the House to having this matter come up again for discussion, but I would point out to him that this is a reasonable House. It has been elected to do business

    995
    under pressure such as, perhaps, no other House has had. If these proposals prove to be helpful from the point of view of getting through with the business, there will be a very short Debate next Session, and the Government will have a unanimous House behind it in making the proposals permanent Standing Orders. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has said, I do not wish to press my Amendment. I am very glad my hon. Friend (Mr. Lyle-Samuel) has addressed the House, because, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about affording us time—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord is not entitled to make a speech in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think we should be quite certain as to what it is the Leader of the House has promised. I am not quite certain. This is a very important matter, and there should be no misunderstanding about it. My Noble Friend (Viscount Wolmer) has said that, in view of the pledge and undertaking given by the Leader of the House that this matter will be discussed again next Session, he proposes to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. I am not at all sure that the Leader of the House did give that undertaking. As far as I could gather, the Leader of the House would not give a pledge, but said he would consider whether or not one of these Amendments should be discussed at the beginning of next Session. I think that is what he said.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said I was quite ready, so far as it was within my power, to give a pledge that if there was a general desire for a reconsideration of the whole subject next Session I would find time to have it discussed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That, of course, goes very much further. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to do that, I do not quite see why he does not accept the Amendment, which I understand would apply to the whole of the proposed Amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, there will be no difficulty about it next Session, and I think it would be very much better for him to do so.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider for a moment the question that has been gone into, because I think it is a most reasonable one. Just now the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the House could always consider the Rules of Procedure if it desired, but I do not know what method he proposes, because it can only be done now with the consent of the Government. In his speech yesterday he told us that he had brought forward his proposals to deal with an emergency and that the circumstances at the present moment were unprecedented. I cannot help thinking, in view of that statement, that he ought not to make these permanently the Rules of Procedure, but adopt them as a Sessional Order, and if he does so I can assure him that he will remove a very great deal of the opposition of many old Members of the House. I am quite sure the whole House would agree that the Rules have been drafted rather in a hurry and to meet an emergency. I asked yesterday whether these Rules had been submitted to the Foreign Secretary, because there is no man in this House who has a greater knowledge of Parliamentary procedure. There was no reply to that, and it would have considerable influence with me with regard to these proposals if I knew that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in accord with them. Just think for a moment what the proposals mean. They are going to affect the whole of the future of our Parliamentary life. We do not know whether in practice these Rules are going to work satisfactorily. I do most earnestly beg of the Government not to finally now put these proposals down, but as there is such strong feeling among older Members of the House on the subject, to make them Sessional Orders.
    Mr. RENWICK: I join in the appeal which has been made that these Rules should be only for the present Session. I have listened to the whole of the Debate yesterday and to-day, and I think there has not been a single argument put forward from the Front Bench, not even by the Leader of the House, in favour of these alterations except for the present Session. We are told that this is likely to be a strenuous Session, and that owing to the War and labour unrest we will probably have a large number of Bills to deal with, and that the present machinery is not sufficiently strong to do so. That I

    997
    hope is for the present Session only, and I trust that after this Session we are not going to have this lightning legislation, or oven the necessity for it. I think these Rules should only apply to this Session. We were told yesterday by the Chairman of Standing Committees that with four Standing Committees it was absolutely or almost impossible to get a quorum. If that was so with four, how will it be with six? The hon. Member who spoke just now (Mr. Lyle-Samuel) made a very powerful appeal on this subject and pointed out that he did not understand what the Rules were and that many new Members were in a similar position. I think it would be fair to them just to pass these Rules as Sessional Orders and give them the opportunity to review them at the beginning of another Session. There is another reason why I want them to be only Sessional Orders. I look forward to the time when the Leader of the House may be in a minority and under those circumstances there would be, I suppose, no more strenuous opponent of those proposals than the right hon. Gentleman himself. I remember very well the time when he chafed at the curtailment of the privileges of private Members. This is going to take away the last vestige of the privileges of private Members, whose opportunities would seem now to be to rely on asking questions. I do not think that is right. I would rather have more speeches and fewer questions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not turn a deaf ear to the appeals which have beer made to him and that he and the Government will take care that they do not pass any more stringent rules for the purpose of passing what I may call pannicky legislation. The less of such legislation we have the better. Therefore I appeal to him to consent to pass these Rules as Sessional Orders.
    Colonel GREIG: I should not have risen had it not been that I think it is only right as a comparatively old Member that those who support these proposals should state their views. It has been suggested on previous occasions, owing to the silence of those who were supporting the Government, that there was no feeling in support of their propositions. I think it is about time that that should cease. Those of us who sit here and have come back to the House have come back with the mandate to set business done and not to talk as to how it shall be done, or when or in what form, except in so far
    998
    as it is essential to get a proper working machine. I do hope that the Government will stick to the proposition they have made. It is a perfectly fair one. They have suggested that these Rules should become permanent Standing Orders. May I as an old Member say, possibly for the benefit of younger Members, that I am perfectly certain from the experience I have had during the lost eight years, and I am confirmed in this view by the opinions of old Members who sit around me, anything is better than what we had in the past. An hon. Member opposite said he wanted to return to the old system, because he objected to lightning legislation. There may come a time when we do not want to see legislation going through at the rate that is required at present, but we all know that we have got a great deal more than we can do at present, and even if we got through the work at double the speed at which we have done it in the past, we shall not have done all we want to do for the country. I again appeal to the Government to stick to the proposal they have made.
    Captain S. WILSON: We are asking them to alter it.
    Colonel GREIG: The proposition is that this shall be a Sessional Order only, which means there is bound to be at the beginning of next Session, or at the end of this one, a re-opening of the whole question.
    Captain WILSON: If it is worth while.
    Colonel GREIG: The proposal of the Government is a perfectly fair one. It is that if there is a general feeling in the House—and we all know that if there is a general feeling the Government get an intimation of it at once—the Leader of the House has said that the question can come up again. What fairer proposal could there be than that?
    Sir C. HENRY: If I interpreted the Leader of the House aright, he said that when some of the other proposals came on he would be prepared to consider whether they should be only of a Sessional character, and that if he refused this Amendment it did not imply that he would refuse other Amendments I think he mentioned the case of the guillotine. If that is his position, it will weigh with me in coming to a decision on this point. I believe that some of these alterations should be of a permanent character and

    999
    only come up for revision if the Souse desires it. On the other hand, there are proposals which ought to be of a Sessional character until they are tried and found possible. It would be to the advantage of the House if my right hon. Friend would make a further statement that on some of these Amendments he would be prepared to accept the suggestion contained in the Amendment now before the House.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I tried to make the position quite clear to the House. I say that as regards the most drastic of our proposals I would be quite ready to listen to debate and judge it on its merits. Might I now appeal to the House to come to a decision. Whether we are right or wrong, the issue is plain and simple, and I think it impossible for any new argument to be founded upon it.
    Mr. FRANCE: The refusal of the Government to accept what is a most reasonable suggestion seems to indicate a great lack of confidence on their part in their own proposals. Both old and new Members are convinced that some change is necessary, and the House generally wants to get on with business quite as much as the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment, however, asks that these proposals should be given a trial, that in changing the procedure of the House, which has operated for so long and which we admit requires changing, an experiment should be made and the trial should be made in this Session. If they are found to be good changes and the House were satisfied with them, there would be no question that the House would agree to them as part of the permanent procedure of the House. If the Government persist in refusing what is a most reasonable suggestion, it indicates they are not themselves so sure of the success of the changes as one would have them be.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before we come to a decision, there is one argument I would wish to put before the House. It is that if this Rule is made temporary the Government will administer these Standing Orders in an entirely different spirit from that in which they must administer them if they are made permanent. If these Rules are temporary, obviously the Government will not trample upon the rights of private Members during the first year, and the whole operation of these Standing Orders may be
    1000
    much more generous and liberal than it might otherwise tend to be, for instance, the way in which the Government pack or do not pack Standing Committees, the way in which they operate the Closure on the Report stage, and the way in which they operate the "Kangaroo." All these things can be worked in a liberal or a bureaucratic spirit. If we want the liberal spirit, it should be possible to have them revised at the end of the year rather than fixed upon us for all time, and rather than tying the hands of the House without the Government being brought to book. I am in favour of legislation being temporary. There would be a good opportunity to put an end to some legislation if it were only temporary. In this case, which deals solely with the Rules of Procedure of the House, the fact that half the House are new Members is a strong general argument in favour of making the Rules temporary instead of permanent.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing-Order," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the word "Six" ["Six Standing Committees shall be appointed"] and to insert instead thereof the word "Five." I have put it down for the purpose of asking a question. I understand that we are to have six Standing Committees in order that there shall be a separate Standing Committee set up for Wales. We already have a Scottish Grand Committee which deals with Bills which only apply to Scotland. There are no Bills applying to Wales alone.
    Sir EDGAR JONES: It is provided for in the Sessional Orders, and has been in them for years.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But the extra Standing Committee is for Welsh Bill alone.
    Sir E. JONES: We have got that already.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, I suppose that of these six Committees one is to be a Scottish Committee, one is to be a Welsh Committee, and one is to be a Finance Committee, leaving three Standing Committees to deal with Bills. If that

    1001
    is the arrangement, I should like to have a statement from the Government. I want to understand that there are not four but only three Committees dealing with Bills.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The position is exactly as the hon. Member has described.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then I do not move my Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words,
    "Standing Committees may sit during the Sitting, and notwithstanding any Adjournment of this House, hat they shall not sit on any day over which the House is adjourned."
    5.0 P.M.
    I attach very great importance to this Amendment because I believe the effect of these words on the House will be disastrous. We muse presume that these Committees, or the great majority of them, will be sitting practically every day, or, at any rate, every day on which the House site. Assuming there are forty Members present,—unless there is that number present it will tend to be a farce—if you multiply forty by six then you get 240Members who will not be able to be present in this House. The general attendance in this House, taking it over an average of years, is not more than 350. Of course, there is a larger number of Members for the present House, but against that you have the fact that a large number of Irish Members are not present. It you take the average attendance at 350, and if 240 Members are sitting on Grand Committees, that means you have about a hundred or 150 Members who can attend the House. There may be far-reaching legislation proposed. It ought not to be considered and the Second Reading passed of Bills dealing with very important subjects by such a very small number of Members as 150. Then we must remember that there is a large number of Members who occupy official positions, who are bound in any circumstances, whatever happens, to support the Government. If my contention is correct and there are 240 Members sitting upstairs, a very large number of them would desire to attend here to listen to what is going on and possibly to make a few remarks in order that they might judge from the speeches that are made how they should vote. What will happen? They will either have to leave the Committees upstairs—where important measures will be under consideration and where we are told it is very necessary that Members should be present,
    1002
    because they are going to discuss these matters in Standing Committees much more freely and efficiently than they do down here, for which reason they should remain upstairs—or else they must jeopardise the interests of their constituents by not being here to listen to what is going on. There is a paragraph in this proposal which says that the Chairman may adjourn a Committee in order that Members might come down here and vote when a Division is called. Consider how that is going to work. There will be 240 Members, or certainly well over 200, who on an ordinary day will be sitting upstairs. They will not have heard one single word of the discussion in the House and they might not have even read the Bill. They will certainly not have heard the Leader of the House or the Attorney-General—perhaps that will not be a bad thing, because those right hon. Gentlemen might persuade them to do wrong. They might not have heard a member of the Government introducing the Bill or those hon. Members who object to or approve of it, yet they will come down here, without having heard anything that has been going on, they will be met at the door by the Whips, who do not know what has been going on either, because the Whips are outside the door; they will ask, "What is this about?" and the Whip will say, "I do not know, but we are Ayes," or Noes, as the case may be. These Members who have been returned to this House to protect the interests of their constituents and to become an independent House, will go into the Lobby without knowing what was going on. In the old days there was somewhat of a safeguard in-so far that the Question was not put a second time until the doors were locked and all Members were in the House. That is an illustration of the folly of altering the Rules without carefully considering what you are doing. That Rule was altered because in 1906, when there was a very large number of Members on one side, the new Members found it rather uncomfortable to be in the Lobby and the doors were left open to enable them to go in and out. The result is that hon. Members do not know and are unable to ascertain what the Question is. In the old days, when the Speaker or Chairman did not put the Question until the doors were locked and all Members were here, and if they desired to know what they were voting about they could ascertain

    1003
    it. Under these new Rules not only will a Member be unable to ascertain what he is voting for, but he will not have heard the arguments either for or against a particular measure. I do not attach very much importance to that matter. If the Standing Committee continues to sit for eleven or twelve hours they will get through some pretty hard work, and attention will be concentrated upon matters of importance. I do not, I say, attach very much importance to the point I mention, because that is one of the evils and difficulties to which we have to submit in endeavouring to put a quart into a pint pot—which is the only reason, by the way, why these Rules are brought in. But I do very seriously object to that portion of these Rules allowing Members to come down and vote without having heard what is going on.
    Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order, Sir. May I ask whether, if the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend is negatived, which I hope it will not be, it would not then cut out the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Wood Green and Twickenham, and other Amendments which involves quite distinct points? I ask whether this Amendment can be put partially from the Chair, or whether we are to be allowed to have a general discussion on all the various points which arise in these two lines?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think, perhaps, there has been enough general discussion already. It is desirable to get to the Amendments. If the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to cut out lines five, six, and seven were carried, it is obvious that no Amendments on those lines could be taken.
    Viscount WOLMER: If it is negatived no Amendments can be taken on the paragraph?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No. Because the Motion put from the Chair will be that such lines stand part of the Question. The Question I have to put now is, "That the words 'Standing Committee' stand part of the Question."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If I may be allowed to say so, on behalf of the Government responsible for the proposals, I think there has been quite enough, general discussion, and that we should proceed to the Amend-
    1004
    ments. If the right hon. Baronet will pardon me for saying so, I think the form, in which he has moved his Amendment is very characteristic of him, for the object of my right hon. Friend would appear to be to prevent the Standing Committees doing any work at all. I know that is his view of these matters—that the object of our procedure should be to prevent legislation, and not to favour it. That, I am sure, is not the general point of view. His proposal will not only prevent Standing Committees sitting when the House is sitting, but would prevent them sitting in other events. In putting forward these proposals the Government have no other object one way or another except the general convenience of the House. That is our sole object. My view was that if we admit some of these Amendments which include the suggested arrangement of adjourning on particular days in the week that such arrangement will be found to break down. The success or failure of these new Rules must depend in the main on the spirit of common sense with which they are worked. The right hon. Baronet suggested that all these Committees might be sitting at one moment. That is not likely to happen. The observations as to Members coming down and voting on subjects they have never heard about must have been intended for new Members. It is indeed what very often happens. Members troop in from the Smoking Rooms and other places exactly as my right hon. Friend says. It is no greater crime, however, to come in from useful work upstairs from the Committee Rooms than to come from the Smoking Rooms, or other places in the House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I just point out that my right hon. Friend quite unintentionally, I am sure, misrepresents me? My Motion is to leave out certain words. If these words are left out, the Standing Committees would have exactly the same power as they have now, and therefore the rule that the Chairman may come down and ask leave from the House to sit after four would hold good. I think that is quite clear.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not been misrepresenting my right hon. Friend. I say that his is a proposal that would rule out the suggestion put as an alternative to our proposals. He says that his proposal would leave things as they are now—
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is right.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That bears out what I say—that he does not wish any facilities for further legislation than we possess to-day. I am, however, going to make a suggestion to the House which, I hope, will be acceptable. In an Amendment later on the Paper the hon. Member for Brecon (Mr. S. Robinson) suggests the addition of the words,
    "On such days as the House shall determine, after Questions, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, without Debate, the House may resolve itself into Standing Committees, which shall sit simultaneously."
    What I feel about these Rules is this: Let us see how we get on with the arrangements suggested by the Government. If we adopt that plan it is open to the Government, if they find they work well, to adopt a suggestion made yesterday by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), to move that on a particular day the House adjourn in order that the Standing Committees may sit. I hope this suggestion will be made. It seems to me a very reasonable one.
    Mr. HOGGE: I desire to respond to one of my right hon. Friend's suggestions not to debate points that do not matter, but the Amendment on these three lines raises one point which he may think of some importance. I believe it is a matter of some importance, and I have therefore put an Amendment down which I do not wish to move, but which provides that not more than two Standing Committees shall sit when the House is sitting. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has considered that point. If he has more than three Standing Committees in Session, where is he going to put them in the House of Commons? The Government have never taken the trouble to find out whether there are rooms sufficiently large in the House of Commons to accommodate these Standing Committees. The point I desire to make is whether the Government could not agree to some such restriction as I propose that not more than two Standing Committees shall sit at the same time while the House is sitting. That would meet a considerable amount of the arguments of the right hon. Baronet and would facilitate discussion in this House. I wonder whether that suggestion is of any use to the Government?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If I may speak a moment or two on this Amendment, it will save me moving the next. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider whether
    1006
    the effect of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brecon will be as suggested. I understand it will mean that after Questions on one or two particular days, Tuesdays or Wednesdays, it may be, a Minister will be able to move that the House do now adjourn and consist of Committees. Has the extraordinary inconvenience that that would mean to hon Members all over the country been considered? It would be impossible for hon Members to know whether the House was going to sit until after Questions had been disposed of.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That point would be met by notice being given the day before.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Even then consider how it would work! It may be that two Standing Committees are sitting involving 150 members. Between five and six hundred more possibly are brought up to attend the House from their various businesses and avocations. They might not be able until afterwards to know, because these intimations are not always received in time—on the night before it may be—as to whether or not the House was going to sit and whether their attendance would, or would not, be merely formal. It might mean only their attendance at what some people consider useless questions. I wish to suggest that the Government should not accept the proposal without thinking all this over. The House should sit in open Session as long as possible and is often, because it is the governing body of the country and the country likes to realise that their governing body is in Session. My right hon Friend cannot say to me as he said to the right hon. Baronet that I am against legislation, for we have agreed to have a large increase in the number of the Standing Committees, and if these Standing Committees—three, four, or five—sit from eleven-thirty to four day by day you will get through all the legislation you can possibly need in this House. I have had the honour of sitting on Standing Committees. My right hon. Friend, perhaps, has not sat on very many of them, for it is not very often the Leader of the House has time. But I can assure him that there are few, very few, Standing Committees who do not get through the Bill which is submitted to them in the course of a fortnight, or a month at the outside. And there are very few indeed of the ordinary Bills that are not disposed of within a week. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see, without trespassing upon the

    1007
    work of the House, that if he sets up three or four Standing Committees, as suggested, sitting from eleven-thirty to four, he will get through the whole of the work that he wants. I make a suggestion that he should make the experiment. We want to help him. We ask him, at all events, not to put forward this new plan by which Members of the House will only know on the night before whether the House of Commons will or will not have an effective sitting.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon He wart): The proposal that the Government is willing to accept is that a Minister of the Crown may propose that the House should adjourn in order to facilitate the work of the Standing Committees. The word is "may," and not "must." The argument of my hon. Friend assumes that there would be certain occasions on which that course "must" be taken.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Pardon me; that is exactly what I said was not the case. It is the uncertainty, not "may" or "must," that I am afraid of.
    Sir G. HEWART: The suggestion is that in a proper case that course might be taken: it does not follow that it would be.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, no! The course "might" be taken. That is the whole gist of it.
    Sir G. HEWART: If my hon. Friend will listen for a moment he will see what is involved. The proposal is purely permissive. It might well be that if the existing proposals work well the necessity would never arise that the House should adjourn in order to facilitate the sittings of the Standing Committees. If that Amendment were carried I am sure the House would realise that the course, which would then be rendered possible, would not be taken except after due intimation, and after notice, which is always given as long as possible before, so as to reduce to a minimum the inconvenience which might otherwise arise. There are really three points involved in this Amendment. One is that a Standing Committee should not sit at any time while the House is sitting; the second is that it should never sit after the House has adjourned; and the third is that it should not sit on any day over which the
    1008
    House is adjourned. The last of the three points not involved in the Government's proposal, nor do I think it is seriously contended that a Standing Committee should not sit on a day on which the House sits, though the House has adjourned. The real question is whether the Committee should sit during the period when the House is sitting. I do seriously suggest that all difficulty will be removed by the acceptance in substance of the later Amendment to which reference has already been made.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The suggestion is that there should be only a limited number of Standing Committees allowed to sit while the House itself is sitting. That would obviate one of the difficulties which is genuinely felt by many Members, that you might not have the proper conduct and proper interest in the proceedings of the House simultaneously with the proper conduct and the proper interest during the sittings of the Standing Committees. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend whether that is not a helpful suggestion, and also whether, if Standing Committees are to sit during the sitting of the House, it could not be announced in the way in which the business of the following week is announced in normal times on the Thursday, in order that Members might know in ample time what would be the business for the following week?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I rise as a very strong supporter of the general proposals that the Government are making. I think that the business of legislation is carried on far better in Standing Committees than in a Committee of the Whole House, and I think so because it gives far greater liberty of action to the private Member than a discussion in the whole House can possibly give. My experience of Standing Committees is that you really do obtain a decision upon arguments presented in Standing Committees; my experience of discussion in the House is that that practically never or hardly ever takes place. Holding that view, I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will see his way to go a little further, if he can, than he has gone. I quite recognise he has gone a very long way to meet the case put forward. I should like to see the thing systematised far more. What I am afraid about in the present proposals is that we shall have Bills referred to Standing Committees, and the Standing Committees will be sitting during the daytime, which I do not think is a good plan, because it

    1009
    means that professional Members of the House cannot attend them. Having been a professional Member of the House myself I have a high opinion of the value of professional Members. Quite apart from that, I think it is essential that we should have it brought home to the country and to the House that our business as a legislative body, so far as detail is concerned, has to be transacted in the Committees, and not in the House itself. I am sure that is right, and I am glad my right hon. Friend agrees with me. That being so, it seems to me that the House as a House ought not to sit in this Chamber when the legislative business for which the House is elected is being carried on in rooms outside this House. I hope very much that that will be the regular rule, so that the House should be entirely free for strictly legislative work, and not have a divided allegiance partly in this Chamber and partly elsewhere.
    I do not wish to detain the House on the present occasion, but I should like to ascertain from my right hon. Friend whether he contemplates under the system that he is prepared to support that the Grand Committees will not be sitting during the daytime as well, and if he contemplates a Motion of this kind that at the beginning of each week the ordinary practice of the Government should be to say, "During this week Committees will sit, on such-and-such a day, from four o'clock in the afternoon until the ordinary hour of the Adjournment of this House, and the House will not sit after Questions on those days." then I think the substantial desire of many of us to make this system a real part of the legislative machinery of the House will be accomplished. But if he merely means that there is to be a Motion made when there is great pressure of time upon a Committee, that on particular occasions the Committee shall sit from eleven o'clock in the morning to eleven at night, and the House shall not sit after Questions, or after any particular time, then I do not think that will be sufficient. I think we ought to try to do something really effective by way of making this change in procedure. If we can make the Standing Committee system effective, we could do without a great many of the fetters on the action of this House which I personally deplore, such as the guillotine, Closure, and things of that kind—expedients which are really designed to limit the effectiveness of this House, and to
    1010
    destroy its reputation in the country. Then I think we should have done a great thing. We should have done something real to re-establish the reputation of this House in the country and to really make it what it ought to be, the great place where all the subjects which are causing anxiety in the country can be discussed, and we should not be driven to such an expedient as we have been driven, namely, that when we have a great industrial crisis we have to summon a special assembly outside this House because this House is no longer regarded as the place for the ventilation of grievances affecting all Members and classes of the community. I do hope the Government will show themselves, as they are anxious to show themselves, worthy of the opportunity they now have to produce a far better position for this House than it has ever had in our lifetime, and that they will accept in substance, if not in the exact form in which it has been moved, the desire expressed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this matter.
    Colonel GRETTON: We are in somewhat of a dilemma. The suggestion of the Government will not make for certainty and regularity in. business. As a Member of this House of considerable experience, and with a knowledge of Committee work, I am entirely in favour of increasing the number of Grand Committees, and sending more business to them. That is an absolutely necessary change, but the experience of anyone who has sat on these Committees when this House is sitting simultaneously is that the Committee does not attend to its business. It occurs to me that there is very great force in the argument of the Noble Lord, that if Grand Committees are to sit for long hours after the usual time fixed for the sitting of this House then the House ought to adjourn in order to enable the Members to do their business. I do not think we are driven to that dilemma at this particular moment. It would be sufficient if we proceed with these Grand Committees, that they should adjourn in the ordinary way when the serious business of the House of Commons commences. We have an alternative suggestion. The House of Commons is going to lose a considerable amount of time if one or two days sittings in the week are sacrificed in order to make way for the business of the Grand Committees. The Government will then find that it is in a dilemma, because it will have shortened the time of the House of Commons which

    1011
    they desire to use for business of first-rate importance, and the discussion of high matters of policy, and they will find their, time cramped and all the evils we have experienced in past years, the Closure, and other forms of curtailment of Debate will still exist or partially exist. I should be strongly in favour of setting up the Grand Committees as proposed, and allowing them to adjourn at the ordinary time. If that time is not found to be sufficient, the Government could bring forward proposals to make some further reform in the procedure. It is premature at the present moment to propose the Adjournment of the House for the sitting of Grand Committees. We are not driven to that alternative yet.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I did not think we were going to reach this Amendment so quickly. My right hon. Friend's interesting proposal, as I understand it, means that the Government should have the power to make a Motion, without Amendment or Debate, that on particular days the House should adjourn for the purpose of dividing itself into Standing Committees. That certainly goes a very long way to meet the point of view I put forward. My right hon. Friend put that suggestion forward as an experiment, or as the machinery for trying an experiment, and I think there is a good deal to be said for trying the experiment before the House finally commits itself. I would have preferred to see it done the other way, and that certain days should be assigned as days on which the House would adjourn unless the Government made the Motion that on those days the House should not adjourn. There is another point raised in this Amendment to which I am anxious to draw attention, and that is I see no reason whatever why Standing Committees should not sit notwithstanding the Adjournment of the House. For example, let us suppose a normal sort of Session, not precisely like this one, in which there was a great controversial Bill going on, which was closely occupying the time of a Standing Committee, and let us suppose that the other business of Parliament, as often happens, was in a good state of progress, and that the Standing Committees were easily able to deal with the other Bills. Suppose you approach a season like Whitsuntide. Nothing could be more desirable than to give the House a long holiday at Whitsuntide, and for a week or perhaps more of
    1012
    that period the Standing Committee which was hard pressed with its work could continue the work of dealing with the great controversial Bill. I believe that would be a very convenient arrangement. It conforms to the principle which I commended to the House yesterday. It does not matter about giving Members of Parliament work; if they feel they are doing useful work they do not mind being kept in attendance if they feel they are doing good, but they do dislike being kept hanging about, merely to give a more or less mechanical vote for or against the Government. It would be a good plan to amend the proposal and to allow the Committees to sit notwithstanding that the House had adjourned. It could be left to the Committees to decide whether they liked to avail themselves of that opportunity or not.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not entitled to speak again except by the courtesy of the House. As regards the general view put there really is no difference of opinion. My object is precisely that advocated by the Noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord H. Cecil). This is a question which I have discussed privately with my Noble Friend, who takes a different view from, mine. My own view is that at this moment it would give such a shock to the general idea of how the House of Commons is conducted that it would not be well to adopt it now, though obviously we might adopt it if experience shows that it is valuable. As it stands, our proposal is an experiment which is to be made. There will be no difficulty in getting Standing Committees to give their views to the Government on matters of this kind, and we will find immediately whether the new system is working well. If it is not, then the House would not be in the least shocked if it were asked to try the other experiment of arranging that on particular days of the week the House should not sit, so that the Grand Committees might go on. With regard to the views expressed by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, we are asked every Thursday what the business is going to be for the following week, and we nearly always can tell, and in the case of this kind the House would know exactly what was proposed. I think that the suggestion which I have made will meet with the general view, and that we should leave it to experience to show the result of the new proposals which we are now putting forward.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether we are to understand that the proposal is to insist on the right of the Standing Committees to sit after four o'clock during the sitting of the House?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ensure that the House and the Standing Committees should not sit at the same time. My right hon. Friend has gone a certain way to meet us, and in the circumstances I shall ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendment to the proposed Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS—to leave out the words,
    "may sit daring the sitting, and notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, but they."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The point covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford has already been dealt with.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I submit that there is a difference between the two Amendments. Many Members of the House would like to express their view as to whether the Standing Committees should sit after four o'clock or not. The actual point that the Committees should not sit after four o'clock is not covered by the Amendment which has been withdrawn.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This was part of the Standing Order. It was contained in the paragraph to which we have already referred.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It raises a specific point whether they can sit after four o'clock on which if is desirable to get the opinion of the House.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: My point is that the Amendment, which was discussed at considerable length by the House, was on the question whether or not a change should be made in the practice in that respect, and Standing Order 47 says in these very words, that they will not sit after 4 p.m. without the Order of the House. Now the hon. Member wishes to discuss that again. I do not think that we can do that now.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words,
    "but they shall not sit on any day over which the House is adjourned."
    1014
    I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. It would not compel the Committees to sit on days on which the House is not sitting, but it would make it possible to do so. It might in many cases be exceedingly desirable, when the House is not sitting on Friday, that Grand Committees should have power to sit on that day, or, taking the case which way put by the Noble Lord just now, if the House had adjourned for a three weeks' holiday, a Grand Committee might take a few days at the beginning or end of that holiday to clear up its work. If the words which I propose to omit are left in the Standing Order, it will be impossible for Grand Committees to do the work on any day on which the House is not sitting. I may give the House an instance which I think very much in point. It is taken from the Conference which was appointed about eighteen months ago to draw up a scheme of franchise reform, which was afterwards embodied in the Reform Act. We were getting on slowly with the work, but the House adjourned, and the members of the Conference, under the guidance of Mr. Speaker, agreed to come back during the Vacation for this particular work, and we sat upstairs, morning and afternoon, when the House was not sitting and when we could concentrate our minds on the work, and we made a splendid progress in the work. I do ask the Government, therefore, to remove these words, in order that it may be legal for a Standing Committee in proper circumstances to carry on its work on days when the House is not sitting. The case is plain, and I hope that the Government will see their way to agree.
    Sir E. CARSON: I would urge this Amendment upon the Government. It does not seem to me to be business to say, "You can sit while the House is sitting, but you must not sit while the House is not sitting." I should have thought that the very best day to get on with work in these Committees would be when they would be undisturbed by Divisions or anything else to distract them in this House. This does not compel the Committee to sit on a day on which the House is not sitting, because if the Committee themselves desire they can adjourn for those days on which the House is not sitting. But the businesslike thing is that they should have the fullest freedom to sit when they like whether the House is sitting or not, and that you should not restrict them in what seems to be the most

    1015
    convenient time for the Committee to get on with their business. Every Amendment ought to be made which gives more and more facilities. What we really want to do is to have the best possible scheme to get on with the business as quickly as we possibly can.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as the Government is concerned we rather welcome this as giving an opportunity for getting on with the work. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, and if there is no strong feeling in the House against it I would be glad to accept the Amendment; but I would like the House to understand that there might be objection. Suppose a majority of the Committee wished to sit and a pretty largo minority thought they should not sit. Minorities as we know must suffer, but they must be considered. However, unless other Members feel more strongly on the matter than I do, I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would be very glad to join in asking that the Committee should be allowed to sit when the House is not sitting. My sole object in the Amendment which I desired to propose was that they should not sit concurrently.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words,
    "On a Division being called in the House, the chairman of a Standing Committee shall suspend idle proceedings in the Committee for such time as will, in his opinion, enable Members to vote in the Division."
    I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it is perfectly preposterous that we should encourage in the manner provided by the lines which I desire to omit, the practice of deliberately making it practicable for Members to come down suddenly to vote when they have not heard the discussion, and to give their votes blindly on matters which concern the welfare of the country. We know that at present Members troop into this House and vote without knowing what they are going to vote for, simply according to the orders of the Whips, but at present this is not stated openly, and it is not recognised by the Standing Orders or by the traditions of this House that this should be allowed. But if we pass this
    1016
    Standing Order it means that we deliberately inform all and sundry that Members who are doing work upstairs, who from that very fact cannot have heard a single argument advanced, are specially exempted and sent downstairs to vote they know not how. It seems to me that this is degrading Parliament. It is bad enough that Members should vote without knowing what is going on, but that we should deliberately make a Standing Order that Standing Committees upstairs are to adjourn directly the Division bells go, and that hon. Members are to troop downstairs from these Committees to vote here seems to be quite deplorable.
    If these lines are left in the Division bells would be heard upstairs, and Members who desire to vote can then leave the serious work upstairs and come down and have their names added to the Division List. Their names would not carry much weight in the estimation of the people who have heard the Debate, but they will be recorded and their constituents will see that they were present on that day and voted. But deliberately to declare that discussion upstairs of a serious character is suddenly to be cut short and provision is to be made for people going down to vote on a subject which they do not understand seems to be deplorable. The reason for it, of course, is that Members want to keep up their record of Divisions. Old Members of this House know perfectly well that a Division record is of no use whatever. If we could explain to the constituencies that a divisional record does not carry the weight which is sometimes attributed to it and is not really a vitally important matter, and that men are engaged on Committees and could not take part in the Division, we should be making a change which would be useful for the work of all Members of this House. Personally I am against these words, because they are deliberately encouraging people to vote without knowing what they are voting for.
    Sir E. CARSON: It seems to me that this is a very impossible Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I thought that my right hon. Friend was going to second it.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. S. ROBINSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "Division," to insert the words,

    1017
    "On such days as the House shall determine, after Questions, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, without debate, the House may resolve itself into Standing Committees, which shall sit simultaneously."
    I listened with great interest to the speech in favour of this Amendment by the Leader of the House, and I hope that he will accept it in the spirit in which it was put forward, which is that of a desire to improve the business working of this House. One point that has been made is that Members who have sat on Committees upstairs have found that some of the best intellects in the House have not been present, as they have been at their work in the legal profession. Some Members may say that there are too many Members of that profession in this House, but their help in Grand Committee work has been of great value. I must confess I am very jealous of the power which this House exercises over finance. A few Sessions ago we had a great contest as to the supremacy of this House in matters of Finance. At the present time it is suggested we should relax our hold as regards the number of days in Supply, reducing the number of allotted days from twenty to twelve. We are informed that this is a temporary measure, and I hope that it will prove to be temporary. It may be a wise thing to do in the special circumstances. But I would like to submit to the House that the various Estimates from the different Departments—the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service—might, if they were sent to separate Committees, be debated in a way in which they are not debated on the floor of this House. They would be thrashed out in a manner that cannot be done here, and I think that will give us back a good deal of the control we are in danger of losing, and will be of great advantage to the House in the consideration of all matters of finance.
    In connection with this Resolution the question has been asked, Where are we to find room in which the Standing Committees can sit in the event of six having to sit simultaneously? There is no reason why one should not sit in the House itself. There are certainly two rooms in Westminster Hall which would be suitable for the purpose, and there are three or four more upstairs large enough to accommodate all the Members likely to attend. Then the question arises as to due notice being given of the Motion that the House shall resolve itself into Grand Committees. That is a simple matter. Every Thursday the Leader of the House is asked what is
    1018
    the business for the following week and it will be in his power to announce that on Tuesday or Wednesday in that week, or on any other day it is proposed to ask the House to resolve itself into Grand Committees. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of voting against the Motion, although it is not to be debated, and then the business of the Grand Committees can be proceeded with. I think Members will get all the notice they require in that way. So many points were dealt with in the Debate which preceded the discussion on this Amendment that I think it is hardly necessary for me to go over them again. Something has been said about the difficulty of finding a quorum, but. I venture to suggest there will be no such difficulty as obtains under the present arrangement. I have been on a Committee upstairs when we have had to appeal to Members to come from another Committee sitting in an adjoining room in order that we might get a quorum. If the Members realised the responsibility thrown upon them of attending these Committees and of carrying on the work of the country we surely shall have no difficulty on that point.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: As has already been indicated by the Leader of the House we are prepared in substance to accept this Amendment, but we propose that all words after the second word "House" shall be deleted and the following words substituted, "Shall adjourn in order that the sittings of the Standing Committees may be facilitated."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have an Amendment which would come in before that of which the Attorney-General has given notice. I want to leave out the words "Minister of the Crown" and to substitute for them "a Member." I shall be much obliged if my opportunity to do that is safeguarded.
    Mr. BIGLAND: Would it be possible to have a Division on the question after the Minister of the Crown has moved it?
    Sir G. HEWART: It is to be decided without debate.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Without discussing the minute details of the Amendment, I am going to ask the House definitely to reject it altogether. It is a proposal which strikes right at the life of the

    1019
    House of Commons. As hon. Members have seen this afternoon, I am willing to agree to a great extension of the system of Standing Committees, because I have had much experience of them, I know what good work they do, and I know we have a lot of extra work to be accomplished. But I do suggest that if we have Committees working from half-pastel even in the morning to three or four in the afternoon they will be able to do all that is needed. I can assure new Members that it is exceedingly difficult to get Members on these Committees to sit after luncheon, but experience has shown that with a sitting between half-past eleven and two o'clock you get shorter Debates and the Bill is passed through very quickly. I think that the right hon. Gentleman who sits near me, and who has had great experience of these Committees (Sir D. Maclean), will support me in that. If we have anything like four or five Grand Committees sitting from half-past eleven in the morning till three in the afternoon they will quickly clear off all the Bills that the House can possibly send them. We are asked to cut right away from the whole duty and work of the House of Commons. We are asked to give the Government power to come down here and adjourn the House on two days a week from now until the end of all time. We may be told it is only an experiment and that the Government are not intending to do it. But we are perfectly well aware that a Government does not like sittings of the House of Commons, and if they can get their measures through without such sittings and without all those things which sittings imply, they will adopt that course. They will send their Bills upstairs to Grand Committees, and practically close the House of Commons. I think it would be most inconvenient to Members themselves. We have often heard people complaining of the week-end habit of the House of Commons, because it adjourns early on a Friday in order that Members may go down to their constituencies. But this proposal will produce a mid-week-end habit. [Laughter.] It is rather difficult to find words to express one's meaning in this respect, but it will introduce a habit of the House of Commons not sitting on these two days in the middle of the week. It may be only gradual, but remember appetite grows upon what it feeds upon, and after a few years the House of Com-
    1020
    mons will not sit on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. [An Hon. Member: "But Committees will."] I do not think it necessary. Probably there will be only two or three Grand Committees sitting—I do not believe there will be work for six—and while, perhaps, 160 or 170 members are engaged on them upstairs the whole of the House is to be adjourned because there will be no work for other hon. Members to do.
    As I pointed out yesterday the work of the House of Commons is not merely that of passing legislation. It is the redressing of grievances, and it ought to sit in Session in order that people may know that it is prepared to do this work. If there is anything going wrong in the country, how, under this proposal, would it be possible to move the Adjournment of the House, which is one of the best recognised means of redressing grievances and testing the action of Ministers. It would become impossible if a Minister is to have the power to come down after Question Time and move that the House do adjourn in order that Grand Committees may sit upstairs. We shall lose the opportunity of having Adjournment Motion Debates after a quarter-past eight, although some urgent matter of definite public importance may have arisen. We shall lose that weapon on at any rate two days of the week. A suggestion has been made that this change is to be made in order that legal Members may take part in the work of the Grand Committees. But if the Grand Committees are to sit in the morning and the afternoon it will be a pure waste of time to carry out this proposal. Surely the House is not going to stultify itself by accepting an Amendment of this kind at the very time when we are trying to get more work done! Surely we are not going to make this change to suit the convenience of lawyers! The Standing Committees will sit as heretofore, from half-past eleven till three or four o'clock, and I submit that during those hours the real work will be done. I venture to ask hon. Members, whatever the details of this Amendment are, to say that they will not have the House adjourn on two days—days when hon. Members are all up from the country and have arranged to take their part in the Debates of this House and to do their duty. Further, I again submit that the proposal is unnecessary, as all the Grand Committees can do their work perfectly well between half-past eleven and four.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: As far as my own opinion goes, I am in general agreement with the Motion before the House. Hat what has fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) calls attention to one really serious matter. That is the Adjournment at 8.15 p.m., and it shows how very careful we must be in the full consideration of this matter. We all know that a matter of "urgent public importance" can often only come to the minds of hon. Members by news on the very morning of the day on which they are to debate it. It may be, as it often is, a matter of urgent and indeed vital public importance, and one which is very inconvenient for the Ministry of the day. You have to deal with, human nature as you find it and know it, and as it is expressed in this House, Therefore, to pass this Motion as it stands, especially with the words "without debate," is to commit, I am afraid, rather a serious infringement of that portion of the duty of the House which is as important as legislation, and which is commonly summed up in the phrase "the grand inquest of the nation," The Noble Lord sitting opposite to me on the fourth bench (Lord Robert Cecil) knows what happened in 1906 and 1910. Certainly on one occasion he took a very active and most useful public part in impugning some acts of the Home Office. Such matter as that must be raised instantly, or otherwise the opportunity is gone. These are matters of very great importance, and I should like to hear something more from the Minister responsible for supporting this Motion on such a point as that.
    Sir G. HEWART: I have said that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment in substance, but I would suggest to my hon. Friend who is responsible for the Amendment upon the Paper that, having received the assurance that has been given, he should withdraw the Amendment, and we will bring up the matter as a separate Standing Order, having regard to what has been said in the course of this Debate.
    Lord H. CECIL: I hope the Government, who met hon. Members other than my hon. Friend opposite by a concession earlier in the Debate, will not recede from that concession now.
    Sir G. HEWART: Certainly not.
    Lord H. CECIL: It would be very disappointing if they did, because we attach
    1022
    very great importance to this particular proposal, and I really think my hon. Friend's (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) apprehensions are altogether illusory. The Government has much greater control over the House than it has over a Grand Committee.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If this matter is going to be dropped now and resumed at a later stage, would it not be better to postpone further discussion?
    Lord H. CECIL: I quite agree, Sir, but I was rather afraid my hon. Friend's arguments might produce an untoward effect on the Government. I will not, however, continue.
    Mr. HOGGE: Before it is withdrawn, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to the question as to whether in the form that the Government are going to put it down they will safeguard the privilege of Members of this House of calling attention to matters of urgent vital necessity, which are called at 8.15 p.m., and which could not be so called if the House were adjourned without Debated?
    Sir G. HEWART: I certainly think that that is a matter for which we must provide in the form of words which we adopt in order to give effect to the promise we have made.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is it proposed in the Amendment that the House would adjourn under that Amendment, of which I am entirely in favour, without a Division?
    Sir G. HEWART: Upon the whole I think not. It seems to me as the matter now stands that it would be right to give the House an opportunity of dividing on such a question.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the Government whether they propose to bring this up at the end of all their Amendments or at some earlier stage? Experience of some of these discussions in times past leads me to fear that if it is put off to the end of the whole of these Amendments the time may not be available for its discussion. This is a very vital part of the Government's proposal, and I should be glad to have some reassurance from my right hon. Friend on that point.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give favourable consideration to an Amendment I have

    1023
    handed him, namely, that the Motion should be put not only by a Minister of the Grown, but by a Member of the House!
    Sir G. HEWART: Two questions are asked me. As to the first, by the Noble Lord, my answer is that the new form of words shall be put down, with the utmost diligence; and in answer to the second question, we will pay attention to the suggestion contained in the Amendment, which we have not yet seen.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will he put the form of words on the Paper so that we can see it?
    Mr. S. ROBINSON: In view of the promise of the Attorney-General, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir W. PEARCE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "twenty," and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
    I apologise for putting in a manuscript Amendment, but I think it would be of interest to know why the Government fixed the quorum at twenty. I am a comparatively old Member of the House, with a large experience of Standing Committees, and I think everyone who has served on those Committees will agree with me when I say that a great deal of time has been lost because we have not had a quorum. On many occasions I have been present at the time fixed for meeting, when there were not twenty Members present, and we have often had to wait twenty minutes or half an hour before we could start, and sometimes it has been so impossible to get the full quorum of twenty that the Committee has had to adjourn till the next day, with great inconvenience to those Members who have arrived to attend. This has happened with Committees numbering sixty, but under the proposal of the Government the Standing Committees will only number forty, and if they were to consult any of the officials of the House I believe they would find that if they want to expedite the business and get through their programme the one thing that would help more than anything else would be to reduce the Standing Committee quorum. I think the time thus saved would obviate the necessity of sitting while the House is in Session. The reduction of the quorum obviously gives the Government more
    1024
    power, but I do not think that is a vital point, because if there was any keen interest in a particular Bill or question the Committee would be sure to fill up. The number I venture to suggest is twelve. That probably may be too few, but I would ask the Government if they have really considered this point, and whether I am not right in my contention that it would be a saving to reduce the quorum below twenty, and, if so, whether they would not very largely increase the volume of business they would be likely to get out of the Standing Committees.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment. I would call the attention of the House to the fact, that insisting upon a large quorum often paralyses the action of a Grand Committee, simply because people stay away on purpose. I remember a rather celebrated occasion when quite a number of Members were hanging about in the passage outside ready to go in if a quorum were formed, but determined to stay outside and thereby obstruct the progress of the Bill as long as there was not a quorum. If you insist on a quorum of twenty, it may be that nineteen who want to get on with the business and eighteen who do not are on the premises, and that the eighteen will not allow a quorum to be formed, simply by remaining outside the room. If you would avoid that, the number of the quorum should be smaller. If twelve is too small a number, we might say fifteen, but with that number I believe the opponents of a measure would take very good care to be on hand, because they would know that by merely staying away they could not prevent the business being gone on with.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON: I cannot help feeling that a good deal of the experience which has been quoted by hon. Members arises from that gained on Committees where private Members' Bills were being considered, and where in short the Bills were not, from a Parliamentary point of view, of first-class importance. In my view twenty is not a very large number to get together, especially if it is a Bill that this House wants to pass, but there are many Bills that have been sent upstairs which had little chance of living through all the stages of this House, and that may have been one of the causes why the whole proceedings of a Committee have been blocked for weeks by the simple plan of boycott. I feel that from a Parliamentary point of view to suggest that twelve Mem-

    1025
    bers might pass an Amendment to a Bill is rather a low number. I would submit for the consideration of the Government whether some such modification might be introduced as we have in our own proceedings in this House, whereby no Division shall be valid unless twenty Members take part in it. That would not make it necessary to suspend a discussion in Committee if, for instance, during Question Time here a few Members might want to go down to ask a question. The Debate could be continued over the interval, or in some cases when an Amendment is being considered, the Committee might open the Amendment at half-past eleven, but would not be able to pass it without the necessary quorum being present. A little elasticity like that might materially assist the conduct of business.
    Sir E. CARSON: I hope the Government will adhere to the number of twenty. I think the House when they hear hon. Members recount former experiences ought rather to discount them. We are going to set up these Committees as a real business element in reorganising our procedure. As to supposing such a thing as Members speaking outside in the passage so as not to have a quorum, I hope now that important measures are to be sent upstairs that will never happen, and bring the House into discredit. I think we ought to do everything to lay down that we mean business in appointing those Committees. Therefore you have to take a very serious view of what the Committees and the quorum ought to be. I think half the number of a Committee is little enough. A Committee ought to be a microcosm of this House. It ought to be really something that represents the feeling in this House, and I do not think you could have that feeling represented by less than twenty Members. It seems to me a very fair number, and if Members do their duty in trying to push on the business—and if we do not push on the business we shall come to grief for a dead certainty—I do not believe there will be any real difficulty. My right hon. Friend opposite has made a proposal which I do not think is practicable. Without a quorum you could not go on and on with a Debate in the hope that other Members would turn up so as to permit of a Division being taken. It is far better to put real, serious responsibility upon Members of these Committees and expect them to do their duty.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been rather overdone, because there must have been many occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman has waited outside a Committee Room.
    Sir E. CARSON: Never.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: At the same time, I quite agree with him that it would be deplorable if the quorum should be reduced below twenty on that ground itself. Twenty is a small enough microcosm of this House to legislate, especially on such important matters as Housing or Land Bills, which are coming on. But I rise to deprecate the suggestion of my right hon. Friend below me. I certainly think you do not want to have either Divisions taken or Debates going on with fewer than twenty Members present. Surely the chief glory of our Grand Committee system is that people vote who hear the discussion, and if you are going to have Debates going on and Members being summoned by Whips you do away with the principal value of Grand Committee legislation. I was a little surprised to hear this Amendment moved by one Liberal Member and seconded by another Liberal Member. Is it part of Liberal principles that you should legislate by a quorum of twelve Members, and so practically put the voting power into the hands of a bureaucracy? In all these Committees you have the Minister in charge of the Bill and his Private Secretary, and you have the legal adviser of the Government and his Private Secretary, so that you always start on every Grand Committee with four safe votes, and if you are going to cut down the quorum to twelve or less you might just as well legislate in the Home Office without coming to this House at all. The only possible way of getting a reflex of public opinion is by having a sufficient number to decide the legislation. Therefore, I hope we shall not in this case have any change from the scheme approved by the Government.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I may say this has been very carefully considered by the Government, and we came to the conclusion that it would not do to alter the quorum. The whole essence of this change is that Members should treat these Committees as seriously as the whole House of Commons. I believe, in those circum-

    1027
    stances, we can rely on getting a quorum. I hope the hon. Member, therefore, will not press his Amendment.
    Sir W. PEARCE: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife, I would suggest that it would come better as a new paragraph. The same remark applies to the next two Amendments. I will take them after we have disposed of the Amendment which deals with paragraph (2). It will be necessary, first of all, to dispose of paragraph (1) as amended.
    Question, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Standing Order," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to leave out the word "fifteen" ["together with not more than fifteen other Members"], and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
    Lord H. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the nature of the Amendment? If I understand rightly, it is a proposal to alter the number of Members added to a Committee. I venture to hope the Government will not press that. In my view—and I speak from experience of these Committees—the size of the Committees is not at all too large. I quite agree with the speeches made against the proposal to reduce the quorum. The number is not too large to do the business now to be assigned to it. You want a Committee, as my right hon. Friend said, which is a microcosm of the House of Commons. You do not want it to be merely a body of persons, some of whom are members of the Government, or tied supporters of the Government, and not to represent in any degree the independent judgment of the House. I do not suppose the Government contemplates anything such as packing a Committee on an important Bill. It would certainly not be difficult to construct a Committee on which there would be no opposition to the Government. Therefore, I do not think it is desirable to reduce the numbers below what they are now, and I do not see any ground for doing it. It is proposed that there shall
    1028
    be six Committees. If you have sixty, or even eighty, Members, that falls very far short of the total membership of the House. It is quite true every Member will not attend every meeting. There will always be a certain number of absentees, and when you have a large number to choose from, you get, at any rate, thirty or forty Members in attendance more or less representative of the Whole House, and who will be able to do the very important work the Government have indicated they intend to put upon these Committees. I hope the Government will not press this Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I should like to support what the Noble Lord has said, particularly with regard to added members. Added Members are generally persons with special knowledge of the matter before the Committee, and the more important the business you give to these Committees the more desirable it is to give wide freedom of choice to the Committee of Selection in nominating an adequate number of Members who know the subject matter from a Committee point of view, and have had experience. Therefore, from the point of view of efficiency, it seems to me the usefulness of these Standing Committees will really be imperilled if you cut them down to this limit, particularly with regard to added Members. It is quite possible to say the numbers added should not be more or less than so many. But to tie them down to so low a number as ten would, I am convinced, hinder, and not help, the objects which the Government have in view; and I say this as one who warmly approves the general plan and the attempt to get more business done.
    Sir T. WILSON: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press this Amendment. Quite a number of questions will come before the Committees dealing with the industrial life of the people of the country, and we want to have a fair share of Members added who understand those questions, so that the views of the people they represent may be properly expressed in Committee.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know if my hon. Friend who has just spoken realises that this deals solely with the Scottish Committee. I am very much surprised if he is able to speak for the Scottish Members of the Labour party. I expect he will hear from them in the course of the even-

    1029
    ing, if he presses that representation to which lie refers. I do hope the Government will stand by this, because we are making a real and very great and important change, and since the idea is, as far as possible with the limited scope of these proposals, to develop on lines of devolution—and this refers to a devolution on somewhat national lines—what the Scottish Members say is that the fewer English or Welsh Members they have there the better. I do hope, on the ground of the reputation of Scotsmen, that in this particular proposal the Government will remain firm.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I am quite aware that this Amendment does relate only to Scotland, but I must join distinct issue with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think the addition of a certain number of English Members in any way militates against the chance of a thoroughly good consideration of Scottish Bills. We are not going to have a new policy altogether started under the guise of these reforms. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that, because these reforms are introduced, we are now to have, as regards Scottish Bills, what he calls a policy of devolution, and I suppose afterwards we are to have Home Rule.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Certainly.
    Sir H. CRAIK: We are now considering rules of Parliamentary procedure. I am not going to have, under these rules of Parliamentary procedure, a proposal made which is to involve, as the right hon. Gentleman admits a half-way house to Home Rule. I have had as long an acquaintance and, perhaps, a more practical acquaintance, with these Scottish Committees than the right hon. Gentleman has bad, and I am quite convinced that those who have sat on these Committees will agree with me in saying that we often have very good expert advice from English Members. I hope we are not going to have a small separate Home Rule Parliament under the guise of altering the Rules of the House. I join entirely with those who think these specially chosen Members who are interested in the subject and would very often desire to sit upon the Committee are the least desirable persons and it would be a great pity, even in a Scottish Committee, if the number of English Members were reduced as is proposed.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is rather a pity that we should be asked to decide side issues on a question of principle. I think the best plan would be to make a Motion to postpone consideration of the Scottish issue so as to enableus to deal with the larger issue, which does not, of course, preclude the point of view which is now being raised coming up again after we have decided the general question as to the total number. In order to do this, I propose that we leave out from "Standing Orders" in line five down to "and" in line twelve.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Amendment will have to be to leave out all the words down to the end of that paragraph. The words that come in after line twelve relate to nominated Members. Therefore it will be to leave out all the words from the word "constituency" in line six down to the end of the paragraph. Would that meet the right hon. Gentleman's views?
    Sir E. CARSON: What will be the effect of that?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It simply means that we decide the general question of the number of the Committee without raising this special issue, which I understand can be raised again.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that whoever is responsible for drafting these Rules, in setting down this Amendment, did not know that paragraph (2) related solely to Scotland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, that is not the criticism. The criticism is that we did not realise that the Scottish Members, or any of them, desire that their Committee should be treated in a different way from the general Grand Committees.
    Mr. HOGGE: We want to be quite clear what the Government's proposals are before we allow them to withdraw this Amendment and put forward any fresh words. The Scottish Members in this House consists of members of all parties, and the Bills that go to the Scottish Grand Committee affect Scotland only, and are not the general Bills that go to the ordinary Grand Committees. I think the right hon. Gentleman, who is now a Scottish Member again will agree that he and the other representatives from Scotland can look after the affairs of Scotland

    1031
    quite easily in their own Committee. The fifteen added Members to the Scottish Committee have always been too large. We want to secure that in any alteration which is suggested by the withdrawal of this Amendment now, there should be less interference by the House with the Scottish Grand Committee which deals particularly with Scottish measures. I should like to know how the matteris left. It is suggested, for instance, that we should go back and move a fresh Amendment, but we may find ourselves at the end of these proceedings ruled out by the Order of Debate from considering that matter again if we allow it to be dropped now. I am certain a great number of the new Scottish Members have as clear a mandate as possible from their constituencies that Scottish affairs should be looked after by the Scottish Members, and perhaps it would help our discussion if some of the new Members for Scotland would relate their experiences.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is rather difficult to deal with this, because it raises the issue whether the Scottish Grand Committee should be treated in a different way from other Grand Committees. I was wrong in thinking it could be raised by a later Amendment, and I do not see any way of dealing with it except by dealing with the Amendment as it stands. I wonder if the House would be willing to treat the question of the numbers as one issue, and when we come to the next Amendment take the decision one way or the other! On that point, in regard to the speech of my Noble Friend—and it applies to this Amendment as well—the Government have no interest one way or the other in the matter. On the face of it we should desire to keep the numbers as at present. We obviously wish that the Committees, which we are trying to make more important and more representative, should be as numerous as the membership of the House will make possible. The sole reason why we have reduced them is not, in my view, the idea, which has a good deal of truth in it, that the smaller the Committee the more efficiently it does its work. I do not think that would be the right attitude to adopt in the case of a Committee which is to be a microcosm of the whole House. We should desire it to be as representative as the House is. We
    1032
    have done it simply for this reason—and I am afraid it is a reason which is unanswerable—that unless you reduce the numbers you cannot get the number to man six Grand Committees. My Noble Friend is right if he takes the total numbers of the House, but I ask him to deduct from that, first of all, the members of the Government, who cannot serve on Grand Committees with any regularity, except a Minister in charge of a Bill. In addition, there are many other Committees which must of necessity go on in addition to these Standing Committees. There are Special Committees set up; there is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and there are Private Bill Committees, which take a great deal of time, and beyond that, unless we were to adopt the principle which we were unable to adopt when it was suggested by my Noble Friend, that Committees should not sit in the morning at all, we must leave out the very large number of Members who have businesses to attend to and cannot come in the morning. If you make all these deductions, the House will have to come to the conclusion that the Government is right in proposing to reduce the numbers. I think that is necessary. It is not a matter of principle, but a matter of convenience and expediency. We cannot possibly go back to the numbers on Standing Committees as they are now, and if I found a general desire on the part of the House to add a small number, say, to those who are specially appointed to a Committee, to leave it, for instance, at fifteen, as it stands now, I should be ready to fall in with the wishes of the House.
    Lord R. CECIL: I hope my right hon. Friend will not finally close his mind to the other consideration. This great and important experiment which we are trying will be hopelessly handicapped if we fix the membership of the Grand Committee at forty with ten added, that is fifty in all, to consider really big legislation, for instance, a measure like the Home Rule Bill. Granted that all cannot come, and that you must allow for that, the whole discussion on a matter of enormous importance might be taken in an assembly of thirty, or possibly forty Members at the outside. I cannot think that is a satisfactory way of doing it. The old Grand Committee consisted of possibly ninety-five Members. It could have eighty and fifteen added.
    Mr. J. W. WILSON: It never did in practice.
    Lord R. CECIL: This is a new thing. We are going to send much more important Bills, and though I quite agree that your Grand Committees would not of course consist of eighty Members with fifteen added, you ought to have power to create a Grand Committee of that size in order to deal with very important matters. If my right hon. Friend had altered sixty to forty I should have seen much less objection. Then he could have had a variation in the size of the Grand Committees which would have met the case. May I put this further consideration. He has undertaken to give himself the power to have these Committees sitting in the evenings. If you have a state of things when there are six Grand Committees sitting on important measures, and large Grand Committees at that, a case would arise clearly when the Government would propose that the Committees should sit in the evening, and at a time when they could get the assistance of the professional Members of the House. I hope he will think this over again. I feel sure we must not do anything at this stage to discourage public opinion in reference to this new departure, and if you have very small Grand Committees dealing with very important subjects I believe the plan will not be tried under the best conditions. My right hon. Friend, it seems to me, in his last speech gave the most excellent and conclusive reasons for adopting the proposal I pressed on the House some time ago.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am anxious to meet the general wishes of the House in this matter, and if that object could be attained in this way I should be very glad to do it. Instead of saying forty, I should be willing to say "not less than forty or more than fifty" in the one case and "not less than ten or more than fifteen" in the other.
    Viscount WOLMER: I should like to make the suggestion that there should be much wider discretion, say, forty and eighty, so that on unimportant Bills there should be small Grand Committees and for important measures, such as the Home Rule Bill, which was referred to a Grand Committee, the Government would be able to fill the Committee up to ninety-five, and so get a real microcosm of the House of Commons. That would not be necessary
    1034
    in the case of minor Bills, but it would be a very desirable power in the case of more important Bills.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is unacquainted with the work of private Members of the House during the period when we have had Grand Committees. He probably does not know that when any Bill goes upstairs to a Grand Committee there are always a number of private Members who try to get put on to that Committee, because they have Amendments down to the Bill. They very often fail to get on to the Committee because, under our present system, there are not enough vacancies to take all of them. If a man is sufficiently interested to put down Amendments to a Bill, and to read it through and study it properly, surely he ought to have an opportunity of getting on to the Committee. The Leader of the House said there were not enough Members to go round, but as long as there are Members who are keen to serve on these Committees surely you ought not to rule them out. Members in the last Parliament will remember that again and again people were going round and saying, "Will you come off Grand Committee in order to let me go on, because I have got Amendments down." To imagine that because there are a number of business men who have work in the morning that there are still left behind a very large residuum of actives Members of this House who would not serve on Committees if they got the chance, is a mistake. I would strongly urge on the Government not to leave the figure at fifteen, but to increase it to twenty. The extra Members need not be put on, but this would afford an opportunity to people who wish to take part in any legislation to get on the Committees. There are specialists in this House on almost every Bill that comes up. There are an enormous number of specialists on housing, and to say that their number is only ten is absurd. There may be twenty or twenty-five. All these people should have a chance of getting on the Committee dealing with housing Bills. Probably there are one or two Members, like myself, who are keen on the taxation of land values who ought to be represented on such a Committee. But we shall have no chance of taking any part in a discussion on such a Bill if the Rule goes through that only ten Members should be added. Even if the number of ordinary Members is limited to fifty the

    1035
    right hon. Gentleman could still allow twenty Members to be added to the Committee if they are anxious to serve.
    Sir EDGAR JONES: I rather think that the Government proposal is the sounder one, even from the point of view of the hon and gallant Member opposite. Take, first of all, the proposal of the Noble Lord. Members are forgetting that the practice of this House has been this. The Committee of Selection sets up the Grand Committees at the beginning of the Session. That is a point we must not forget. The Members of the House are divided—so many on Standing Committee A, so many on B and so many on C. I am myself very strongly of the opinion that we should stick like grim death to that, be cause the numbers there are free from the interference of the Executive. If you are going to leave it open to the Government, on a particular Bill, to raise the numbers, say, from forty to eighty, and if the Government can pack—I do not use the word in an invidious sense—on forty Members suddenly for a particular Bill—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Committee of Selection puts them on.
    Sir E. JONES: The hon. and gallant Member himself suffered from the method in which these Committees are set up on a famous occasion a year or two ago. I would urge that we should stick to the number and leave to the Committee of Selection to make either Committee A, B, or C either forty or fifty at the beginning of the Session, and whatever number is necessary should be added afterward. On the question of the numbers who should be added for a special Bill, I agree to their being kept small, and I agree with the hon. Member for East. Edinburgh that there is a great danger if you want too many people added specially for a Bill that Members will be inclined to get on for a special purpose outside of what is fair and reasonable. I think a Committee of forty to fifty and ten to fifteen is quite sufficient generally for any Standing Committee, and I hope the Member for East Edinburgh will not confine his proposal to Scotland, but will apply it to the other Committees as well.
    Sir E. CARSON: I do not think the House really knows what the proposal before it at the present moment is—at
    1036
    least I myself find great difficulty in following where we are, and I think that it would be well that we should get down to some specific question. As I understand, the Amendment originally moved is not now before the House.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is.
    Sir E. CARSON: It may be technically before the House, but it is not the actual Question, because the Leader of the House has told us that he is prepared to reconsider the matter. I understand that my right hon. Friend has made a suggestion for the consideration of the House that instead of leaving out "not less than sixty or more than eighty" it should run "not less than forty or more than sixty."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said fifty.
    Sir E. CARSON: Well, fifty. I am not pinning myself to the exact number, nor, I take it, is the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman also suggested not less than ten or more than fifteen, as I understood it, in his second Amendment. Clearly what you really want is elasticity. There will be Bills and Bills, there will be small Bills, where forty might be a perfectly proper number, or a Special Committee of ten; but in the great Bills—and we really must keep that before our minds—where the Committee is going to do the real business of this House, subject, of course, to the supervision of the House, we must have a substantial Committee which really represents the House, and we must run no danger whatever of having anything else. Therefore, I would suggest to the House that the method proposed by the Leader of the House is really a business one, namely, to make it not less than forty nor more than sixty, and not less than ten nor more than fifteen. There, I think, you have got over all the difficulties.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must deal with the Amendment which is technically before the House.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: After the word "not" ["not more than fifteen"], insert the words "less than ten nor."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, at the end of the Standing Order, to add,
    "(6) Reports of all Debates shall be published in like manner as the Debates in the House."

    1037
    In view of the great changes involved in the Government's proposal, I hope the Leader of the House will give favourable consideration to the new paragraph I have just moved. The effect of the Government's proposals will be that some of the most important work will be done in Committee without any record being kept, unless this new paragraph which I have moved be accepted. If hon. Members are to be kept in touch with all the work that is being done by the House and in Committee, it is absolutely necessary that we should have the report of the proceedings published in exactly the same way.
    Captain S. WILSON: Every morning?
    Mr. ADAMSON: Every morning, in exactly the same way as are the Reports of the House. This method cannot really be a business method unless we have a proper record of all the work which is accomplished. I believe that the publication of the Reports, in the way I have suggested, would tend rather to shorten the proceedings than to lengthen them, and I accordingly move this new paragraph.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I waited to see if this was the unanimous wish of the House before answering. I certainly should be sorry to see this proposal adopted. Our object is really to make these big Committees more important in every possible way. We have got to take human nature as it is, and I am sure there is a not inconsiderable number of Members of Parliament who would attach more importance to the Committee if the speeches were all reported. That is one side. On the other side, all experience has shown, and my right hon. Friend has shown, that one of the reasons why Grand Committees get through their work so well is that there is no reporting of the speeches. Reporting does tend to lengthen the speeches on Grand Committees. Personally, I am against it, and I think it would be a great mistake to introduce it into the Procedure, at all events now. If the House ever desire it, it would be very easy to do it at a later date, for, unless I am mistaken, it is in the power of Mr. Speaker now to do it.
    Mr. THOMAS: It was done in regard to the Insurance Act.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That strengthens what I said. It is in Mr. Speaker's power, and all that is required at any time is that a Resolution should be moved in the
    1038
    House. I hope my right hon. Friend will not press his Motion. I am sure it would be no help to the procedure of Standing Committees at this stage.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I regret that the Leader of the House has met the proposal of my right hon. Friend with what amounts to a direct negative. [Hon. Members: "No!"] Let us see what this means. We have all been going on the assumption that this is a fundamental change in our procedure, and that the great Bills arts going to be handed up to the Committees. As matters at present stand, there is no official record at all of the proceedings of the Committees. Time and again pledges are given by Ministers as to what will be done on the Report stage. I am not for one moment saying that they have at any time, so far as I know, been broken, but at any rate there is no official record at all. With these great Bills before these great Committees, what an extraordinary state of things there is going to be. There will be no official record at all, and the Minister is to give an undertaking that a private note will be taken but no official record. I press that as showing how important it is that at any rate there should be an official record which may be consulted by all Members of the Committee and by the public. There is another point which is very important. What record is there for the great Press of the country. [An Hon. Member: "They can come in!"] What record is there the public can have of what takes place at what, after all, is the most important stage?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If it is of general interest the Press will attend.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: What chance have the outside public of knowing what is going on in regard to great Bills affecting the lives of millions of the people? I think they are entitled to have some official record of what has gone on there. I think we are really losing sight of a most important matter. This is not a matter of the kind of Bills that have been going up before, because great Bills are going up. The Finance Bill is to go up there. This is a matter in which the Labour party is deeply interested as well as the whole of the public, and unless we have some official record by which the public can judge of what is going to

    1039
    happen in those Committees we are taking a step the gravity of which we shall recognise when it is too late. Unless I am wholly mistaken there is no other opportunity in this House of revising these things. There is no Report stage and no Committee or Third Reading, and what we do now settles it. I want to suggest to the House that we cannot exercise too great care in this matter. I want to help the Government through so that we can get to business as soon as possible, but we must exercise every care, and here are two or three instances which show that it is necessary that we should see where we are going.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: It appears to me that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is a very short and obvious one. His main contention is that the Bills sent up to Grand Committee will be so important that there ought to be a record of the Debates upon them for the public. The answer to that is that the Press are admitted to the proceedings, and they are very much better judges of what the public want a record. If those Bills are so important that the public really want to know what speeches have been made and what has been said, we may be perfectly certain the Press will see that reports are published; if, on the other hand, they are not so important or interesting, then they will not report them, and even in that case the public will not gain anything by having seven official reports. What is proposed is that we should have seven daily official reports.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I did not mean that. This has been sprung on one and requires thinking out.
    Mr. McNEILL: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman opposite supported the Amendment, and the Amendment is that we should have seven official reports—that is, seven official daily reports. Apparently the Siamese twin leader opposite does not agree with him. If the proceedings are worth reporting the Press will do it, and if the Press do not do it the public will not gain anything by having all these official reports. The public do not look so much at the Official Report. The Press correct their report by reference to the Official Report, but that is quite different to the point raised by my right hon. Friend opposite, who appeared in the guise of a protector of the public from
    1040
    having important proceedings screened from their view. I do not think there is the least fear of that, and I hope the Leader of the House will adhere to the position he has taken up with regard to this Amendment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down does not clearly understand the situation. The Official Report is used not so much to give information to the general public, as by different special interests in this country who make extracts from it and publish it in their own local papers dealing with their special interests. It is used, also, by the local Press for printing the speeches of hon. Members of this House. I have seen reports in the Press of the proceedings of Grand Committees, and they rarely exceed a quarter of a column in the "Times," and the only ease in which I know that was exceeded was in regard to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, in which it was thought the public would take more interest.
    Mr. McNEILL: That bears out my argument.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This House does not legislate so much for the benefit of those who read the halfpenny Press, but we legislate for the mass of the people of this country. They do not read the Official Report, and their opinions are formed for them by the people who do read the Official Report and translate it to them by means of the daily Press or through special papers into the instruction of the masses of the people of this country. It might be possible to allow special Bills to be dealt with upstairs in secret or be satisfied to let them have a quarter of a column in the "Times" next morning, but it is much more important that the public should not be kept in the dark without knowing what has been said upon the Estimates upon which the Government policy may be arranged. The remaining days are to be allowed for discussions on the Colonies, the Home Office, the Board of Trade, or any of the other thousand-and-one problems of national interest. They have to be discussed in Committee, and we are going to have Debates on foreign affairs and such matters as the League of Nations, and you will have no official report but merely get the reports in the halfpenny Press or the other variety which is to publish the news next morning.

    1041
    I think it is monstrous that the administration of this country and criticisms of it should be carried on more or less in camera in Grand Committee.
    It is true that we might have some sort of a fuller report, but that will not be an official report. I beg the House and the Government to remember that even in their own interests they should see that there are official reports of these proceedings. The ipsissima verba of Ministers' speeches and others is often extremely important to refer to by the Government officials, and when the people understand that the first change effected by the Coalition Government is one which is going to blind the eyes of the country as to what goes on with regard to important Bills and blind them to all criticism of the Administration, the people will be more disappointed than they are at the present time. You are going to make them more disappointed if they see government is carried on in a hole-and-corner manner.
    Let us have our discussions just as we have our diplomacy, all open and on the table with official reports, even though it involves the large amount of additional printing. When you talk of seven official reports it is ridiculous. Anyone knows that the amount of talk that goes on is not one-tenth on Grand Committees of what it is in the House of Commons. The reports would be quite short and would come well in one official report of a similar size to the present one. The Committees would not be sitting simultaneously. The Welsh committees would sit very rarely and Scotsmen would only sit when there was a Scottish Bill. The Committees would not sit more than a day per week on an average, and this would not mean a large amount of additional printing. A great principle is involved in this which is that the Debates of this House, or any microcosm of it upstairs, should be reported so that it can be referred to by the Members and the public with same certainty of getting the exact words which have been uttered by the Ministers and their critics. In the case of two particular Bills which were sent to Grand Committees six or seven years ago, I believe the minority employed shorthand writers to take down every word, and in a subsequent Bill they got permission to have an official report. Now if it was actually worth while to employ shorthand writers to take these things down in the interests of the minority, surely it is even more important
    1042
    now, when we are going to discuss subjects of infinitely more importance up stairs in Committee than has been the cast in the past! Therefore, I think we ought to go to the expense of having an official report of what goes on.
    Sir G. HEWART: There seems to me to be a certain degree of unreality in this discussion. Let us see how the matter stands. My hon. and gallant Friend has summed up the grievances of those who complain by saying that under the plan the Government propose discussions in Grand Committee will be taken in a hole-and-corner manner. There are, I suggest, at least three answers to that allegation, in the first place, it is common ground that the Press will be admitted to these Committees. The Press, in accordance with its usual practice, will exercise its usual discretion, and will take up a matter as occasion offers, will cherish it so long as convenience serves, and will drop it as soon as the decline of popular interest, or the rise of new excitement, seems to suggest. Secondly, there is an official report—[Hon. Members: "Where?"]There is circulated daily an official report of the proceedings of Grand Committees. The Amendments are reported, the results are reported, the Divisions are reported, and everything which is accomplished is reported. What is omitted is the talk. In the third place, if those two considerations do not suffice, everybody knows that it is within the power of Mr. Speaker in a particular case, without any express authority given by the House, to direct a full report of the proceedings, and, in deciding whether such a report should be given, Mr. Speaker, of course, will have regard to the general wish and the convenience of the House. If upon any particular occasion there should be any doubt upon the matter, the House has it within its own power to convey to Mr. Speaker, by means, for example, of a Resolution, what is its general wish and convenience. For those three reasons, if there were no others, I submit that this Amendment ought to fail. The House observes the universality of its terms. It is not that reports may be published or circulated in like manner with the reports of the Debates of the House, but that there shall be no exception to that rule, and that we shall have in every ease what is called a verbatim report. I submit that is superfluous and ought not to be done.
    Mr. THOMAS: My right hon. Friend spoke of the unreality of this Debate, but the Amendment is not put forward so much with a view of educating public opinion. Personally, I have no regard whether the Press take a certain view or not. I do not think the House ought to be influenced by that, and I do not think we ought to be concerned whether it will tend to hon. Members talking to their constituents. I am principally concerned with its effect upon the Constitution and the position of Ministers themselves. In the early days of trades disputes a shorthand note was unknown, and I do not hesitate to say that I always opposed a shorthand note being taken in any trade negotiations. I did it for the reason that it tended often to people talking inside in order that they might be able to use what they said inside, however unreal it was, for propaganda purposes outside. I believe that just as we want to do business in negotiations so we want to do business in the Committee stage. But let me put the other and serious alternative. It has been shown in negotiations with Ministers in trades disputes that certain pledges and statements have been made on which disputes have arisen. One side has said that the Minister made a certain pledge and the Minister has entirely denied that interpretation. I may disagree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on any point of principle or politics, but it will be a bad day for this country and it will be a bad day for the House of Commons when the word of a Minister is not accepted as being honest. That is the difference in the whole situation. Apply that to a Grand Committee. I venture to say that any Member of this House, taking any big Bill you like passed during the last or previous Session, will admit that in Committee the Minister in charge of the Bill made at least a dozen promises to consider certain things on the Report stage. You often have a Minister from that bench jumping up at once and, rather than face a Division, saying that if the Amendment is withdrawn he will consider the drafting of some Clause for the Report stage of the Bill. I put such a position on the Home Rule Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) is satisfied that there should be no report. The Home Rule Bill is in Committee upstairs, and on a certain Clause the Minister in charge makes a promise.
    1044
    There is no record. When the Report stage is reached in the House he puts on it an interpretation that is denied by one of the Nationalist Members, and the Minister puts forward another interpretation. I put it that that, instead of helping business, would very considerably hamper business, and really destroy the value of the Committee stage upstairs. I entirely agree that we have got to guard against wasting the time of the Committee, and you do not want unnecessary reports, but there ought to be some safeguard to ensure that any promise made in Committee is placed on record and is not open to dispute by any Member when it comes to the consideration of the House as a whole.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: It appears to me that it would be quite easy to meet the case which the right hon. Gentleman puts. It is quite true that under the existing practice, knowing that the thing is going to be reported, when a pledge of that sort is given the House passes on and takes no further notice, but if everybody knew that there was no official report it would be merely a question of the Members concerned taking a note and agreeing with the Minister, that that was his promise.
    Mr. THOMAS: Then the underlying assumption is that the only people interested are the hon. Members in dispute, but I put it to the hon. Member that the great public—their constituents—are interested, and are entitled to know as well as the hon. Members and to put their interpretation on it, and that can only be done if there is a complete record of the proceedings. After all, these Grand Committees will in the future take the place of this House as a whole. The Members of the House are entitled to know, and their constituents are entitled to know, what goes on upstairs, and they can only know if a full report is taken of the Parliamentary proceedings. It is for that reason that the Labour party have put forward this Amendment, and not in any unreal sense. It is really because they believe that it would facilitate business.
    Sir E. CARSON: There is one matter upon which, I think, the House is not informed. What are the powers of the Committee to keep a record? We all know that they do keep a record, but I do not know under what rules or whether it is under your orders. If they have the power of keeping a record, or if you have the

    1045
    power of ordering a record, it may be that we should get over some of the difficulties which have been put forward if there were some power of extending the record. My right hon. Friend opposite, as I understand, supports the whole of this Amendment, which means seven Official Reports.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Are you referring to me?
    Sir E. CARSON: No, to the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. In my opinion that would be a gross, scandalous waste of money. I do not believe that even the Proceedings of this House are very largely read, or read to any extent, by the public in the Official Report. I believe, if you pass this, it will mean the endowment of some of those contractors who are going about in carts making fortunes collecting waste paper. Everybody knows that there are tons of the Official Retort at the present time which go to waste, and if you multiply that seven times you take out of the taxpayers' pockets money which might be far better spent. No one knows what the waste and the cost would be. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that Ministers are kept to their pledges by the Official Report. I have been 26 years in the House, find I entirely dispute that proposition. I have never yet seen a Minister moved one iota by bringing up his pledge in the Official Report. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what has happened on the Home Rule Bill and the other Bills which I have sat out hour after hour in this House. Whenever you get up and tell a Minister "you promised so and so," and refer him to the passage in the Official Report, he says, "That is not what I meant." [An Hon. Member: "That is a lawyer's argument!"] Yes, it may be, and there are worse people for arguing than lawyers. Then what happens. With a view to facilitating business, the whole of the speeches are gone into. I have seen it done over and over again. Somebody who moved the Amendment gets up and says, "That is what I understood the Minister to mean." Then another quotation from the Minister is brought up, and then another quotation from somebody else.
    Mr. THOMAS: Supposing the Minister says that he did not say anything?
    Sir E. CARSON: He cannot very well say that if there is something down. After all, the Minister is doing the business of the country with his Government and if
    1046
    he has changed his mind he has a perfect right to say so, particularly when he comes to this House, because this House is not going to be bound entirely by what takes place in the Committee upstairs. This House will have to express its judgment upon the merits of the question. Of course, if it becomes necessary we may have to have some of these records, but, believe me, you will get on far quicker with the business if there is no Official Report, and that is what you want to do. Let us not get out of our minds—it seems necessary to remind the House very frequently, as the Attorney-General lately did—that we are not powerless in this matter. A simple Motion as regards any Bill will authorise the reporters to take down and report to the House the whole proceedings as regard any particular Bill, and it is far better to leave it at that than to say that every single Bill, no matter how small and how trivial, that goes upstairs is to be reported, and that the country is to pay the cost of a report. I submit that the speech of the Attorney-General is unanswerable. Under the existing system we retain, in our own hands, the power to have a Bill reported when it is necessary, and not when it is unnecessary.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I do not think we should leave this matter where the right hon. Gentleman has left it. We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) for having raised this question of whether a record of the proceedings upstairs is necessary or not. [Hon. Members: "The hon. Member for West Fife!"] I was referring to an earlier speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, in which he argued that we ought to know exactly where we are going. It seems to me that the power already exists of ordering a full report. The Official Report which is already made of the Divisions covers most of the ground, and the only really substantial point which remains is where Ministers give some undertaking. I would like to ask the Government if they could not meet us by promising that the Official Report should be extended in this way. If a promise is given to me I should have the right to say, "May that be recorded?" If it is recorded, there it is next day, published in black and white. The terms of the promise are there as agreed upon between the Minister who gave it and the person to whom it was given. If that is carried out, then I ven-

    1047
    ture to think that we may accept the Government proposal and be content with the securities we already have and with this additional one.
    Sir F. YOUNG: I understand that the practice of this House is to report Committee stage proceedings as fully as the Second Reading stage. I have spent the most of my life in a part of the Empire where democratic ideas do not stagnate by any means—that is Australia. I want to point out that it has been found expedient there, in at least some of the Parliaments, to cut down the Hansard Report of the Committee stage proceedings. I not only have lived in Australia, but I have had Parliamentary experience there, and I want to say that the effect of that limited report has undoubtedly led to the business being carried through without waste of time. On many occasions when a Member has forgotten that he is in Committee and is speaking at great length, it has only needed an interjection across the floor of the House to the effect that the sitting is in Committee to bring a rapid end to the speech. That has happened on many occasions. As regards the general public having knowledge of what takes place in this House and receiving proper education in political ideas from the proceedings of this House, I think all that can be provided in the Debate on general principles which takes place on the Second Reading stage, and to that extent I do not think therefore the political education of the people generally is at all likely to suffer. Whatever may be the many criticisms passed by Parliament, not only in this country but elsewhere, the main criticism is that there is more talk than work. I take it the great object of the Members of the present Parliament is to reverse that position and remove that criticism as far as possible. I am cordially in agreement with the main propositions of the Government for the alteration of Standing Orders, and I think we shall have achieved the end desired by having working Standing Committees without having their work prejudiced by the introduction of long speeches with a view of getting them reported.
    Mr. RATCLIFFE: As a new Member of this House I venture to obtrude my views on this question. Although I am new to the work of the House of Commons, I do not think it can be said
    1048
    of me that I am new to public business. I have not been impressed with the way in which various questions have been dealt with in this House either to-night or last night. Whatever public knowledge I possess has been gained in connection with municipal work, and, with all respect to this House, I think the municipalities can give it points in many respects. We have generally in our public bodies a good hard-working class of men, but we usually divide them into two classes—those who work hard behind the scenes and those who reserve their main efforts for field days. Our experience with regard to the work of our committees in municipal matters is one which might be followed. I am sorry to use that word "followed" in reference to this House, but still I do think our example is one which could be followed with advantage by the Members of this Assembly. It is an absolute fact that most important work is done in Committees behind the scenes, work of which the public know nothing, and of which they get only an epitome in the minutes which may be published monthly just before they are to be brought before the full council. Then, and then only, they become public property. I do not wish to cast any reflection on anybody, but I am certainly afraid that many Members whom I have heard speaking here to-night are far more anxious to see their own words in print than they are for the public interest in the question. That, at any rate, is my opinion. There is not to my mind any justification for asking that we should have a voluminous report of the work that goes on in Committee, because when it comes before the House of Commons every Member who is interested in the Bill, in any shape or form, is entitled to ask questions upon what has been done in Committee, and can vote according to his honest convictions. I do not attach as much importance to the speeches leading up to the decisions which have been arrived at in Committee as I do to the actual results of the Committee's deliberations, which results in themselves may be taken as a correct interpretation of what the Committee has done. There has been a good deal of unnecessary talk about a number of things which is not worth the breath wasted upon them. With regard to Committees and the question when they are to meet, or the difficulty of securing a quorum—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that these are not the questions before the House. The only question to which attention should be directed is whether there is to be any publication on the speeches which are made in Committee.
    Mr. RATCLIFFE: Then I will simply say that I beg to support the Government.
    Mr. J. M. MACDONALD: I think it is important that there should be a record of the proceedings. Under the present system, when an Amendment is withdrawn a mere statement of that fact is made, and there is nothing to show that an Amendment has been withdrawn because the Mover of it has been convinced by the arguments used against it. I think it would be of real value, both to the House and to the outside public, that, when an Amendment is withdrawn on a pledge given by a Minister, that pledge should be definitely recorded. If that is done, it will go a long way to meet the case presented to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and at the same time it will not involve the heavy expenditure to which objection has been taken in some quarters.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I rise to answer the appeal of my right hon. Friend and at the same time to beg the House to come to a decision on this Amendment. I really think, if I may say so, that all the fears that have been expressed are not justified by what is going to happen. It has already been stated that Mr. Speaker has complete power to order whatever kind of report he thinks suitable under the circumstances. He is, of course, influenced by the views of the House of Commons, and he has listened to this Debate. The suggestion made by my right hon. Friend seems a very reasonable one, but the difficulty I anticipate is that the clerk who takes charge of the Committee is not a shorthand writer, and it would not be easy for him to do what is asked. But the House can rest assured that the whole point is, firstly, in the hands, without any influence whatever, of Mr. Speaker, and, secondly, of the House itself. I think we might now take a decision one way or the other, and I hopemy right hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there added?"
    The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 224.

    Division No. 3.]

    AYES.

    [7.42 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hartshorn, V.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Hayday, A.

    Smith, Capt A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Spoor, B. G.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Bromfield, W.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Irving, Dan

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

    Cape, Tom

    Johnstone, J.

    Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Cairns, John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Jonas, J. (Silvertown)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, Wm. (W. Ham)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Tootill, Robert

    Donnelly, P.

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwelty)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Entwistle, Major

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Wignall, James

    Finney, Samuel

    O'Grady, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Onions, Alfred

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Grant, James Augustus

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Radmond, Captain William A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. Frederick Hall.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    NOES

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Betterton, H. B.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

    Ainsworth, Capt. C.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

    Campion, Col. W. R.

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Carr, W. T.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

    Casey, T. W.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Breese, Major C. E.

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

    Barnett, Captain Richard W.

    Briggs, Harold

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Barrand, A. R.

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Barrie, C. C.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)

    Clough, R.

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

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

    Cobb, Sir cyril

    Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Cohen, Major J. B. B.

    Hopkinson, A. (Mossley)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hudson, R. M.

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Coote, W. (Tyrone, S.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Cope, Major W.

    Hurd, P. A.

    Remer, J. B.

    Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

    Hurst, Major G. B.

    Renwick, G.

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cowan, D. M (Scottish Univ.)

    Jesson, C.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Davies, A. (Lincoln)

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

    Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rowlands, James

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Knights, Capt. H.

    Samuel, A. L. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

    Dennis, J. W.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

    Denniss, Edmund R. B.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Donald, T.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

    Seager, Sir William

    Doyle, N. Gratten

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

    Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lister, Sir A.

    Shortt, Right Hon. E.

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Simm, M. T.

    Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham)

    Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

    Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

    Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

    Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

    Lorden, John William

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Fisher, Rt Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Stephenson, Col. H. K.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lyle, C. E.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Foreman, H.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Stoker Robert Bunion

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

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

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

    Sugden, Lieut- W. H.

    Gange, E. S.

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

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

    Talbot, G. A (Hemel Hempstead)

    Geddes, Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Maddocks, Henry

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Malons, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

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

    Glanville, Harold James

    Martin, A. E.

    Waddington, R.

    Glyn, Major R.

    Mason, Robert

    Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Weston, Col. John W.

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Gregory, Holman

    Mitchell, William Lane-

    Whitla, Sir William

    Gretton, Col. John

    Moles, Thomas

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

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

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

    Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Hallwood, A.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

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

    Hallas, E.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

    Neal, Arthur

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Nelson, R. F. W. R.

    Woods, Sir Robert

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Woolcock, W. J. U.

    Higham, C. F.

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

    Parker, James

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Hinds, John

    Pickering, Col. Emil W.

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Hood, Joseph

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Colonel Gibbs.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Pratt, John William

    Rae, H. Norman

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, at the end of the Standing Order, to add as a new paragraph,
    "(6) In Standing Committees there shall be a time limit to the length of speeches, as follows—

    Mover of Amendment and Minister first replying thereto

    15 minutes.

    Other Ministers and Members

    10 minutes.

    Provided that if the Member speaking or any other Member so request the time limit may be suspended with the leave of the Chairman, if he is of opinion that it is the wish of the Committee."
    I fear that the House, and, perhaps, you yourself, Sir, may imagine that I have put
    1052
    down this new paragraph with the idea of getting in the thin end of the wedge as regards the limitation of Members' speeches, but I can assure the House that that was not my intention. I have also on the Order Paper of the House a Motion to move another Standing Order to deal with the length of speeches on the floor of the House, and not dealing at all with the proceedings upstairs in Standing Committees. I put down this new paragraph and the new Standing Order because it occurred to me that things upstairs and things down here might be different. I should like to ask your ruling, Sir, upon this point. Am I entitled to discuss the

    1053
    major question—that is, the length of speeches in the House generally—or must I confine myself to the length of speeches in these Standing Committees?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must confine himself to the terms of his Amendment.
    Major NEWMAN: Shall I have an opportunity of moving the other Motion later on?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Which other Motion?
    Major NEWMAN: The one that is on the Order Paper of the House for an early day.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member will have an opportunity on an early day.
    8.0 P.M.
    Major NEWMAN: Then I confine myself very strictly to the Amendment I am moving. As the House knows perfectly well, there has been attempt after attempt on the part of private Members of this House to limit the length of speeches in the House. It is a good many years ago that I myself, in conjunction with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wason), got up an agitation on the subject. We circularised the Members of the House, and received replies from all Members of the House, and we got the vast or very great majority of private Members of the House in favour of shortening speeches. I am prepared to confess that from the Front Benches on both sides we got no sympathy whatever, nor did we expect it. Select Committee after Select Committee on the procedure of this House have made recommendations either for taking away from hon. Members some opportunity of speaking at all or else of putting some time limit on hon. Members' speeches. I have no desire to curtail the opportunities of private Members in this House. The Front Benches do that for us already. What we would like to do is to curtail their liberty of always coming in and making speeches and cutting a good many of us out. Only in 1914, just before the War, a Select Committee on the Procedure of the House sat, and reported, I believe, in July of that year. They reported in favour of drastically curtailing the length of speeches. That Committee examined yourself, Sir, and they examined the Chairman of Ways and Means.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If it is possible to avoid the quotation, I may explain that the Committee never did report.
    Major NEWMAN: Anyway, if they did not report, they very nearly reported. The matter was thrashed out, and the Committee took up a certain amount of paper in printing what had been said, and made a number of valuable suggestions. They did examine you, Sir. They also examined the Chairman of Ways and Means; also Sir Courtenay Ilbert, Mr. Asquith, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. These five gentlemen whom they examined spoke in favour of a shortening of speeches. Sir Courtenay Ilbert who I suppose, is the chief sufferer, having to remain seated for a great many hours, most emphatically, more emphatically than did Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means, spoke in favour of the limitation of speeches. Mr. Asquith himself, who is a model in his speech-making as regards brevity, strongly recommended the limitation of speeches. This Committee drew up a draft report I suppose, recommending, amongst other things, that in Standing Committees the mover of an Amendment and the Minister replying to it shall be allowed to speak for fifteen, minutes, and other Members ten. It may be said that I am not concerned with the long speeches downstairs and am only endeavouring to shorten them upstairs. It may be said that speeches upstairs never do exceed ten minutes. It may be so, but I myself have sat on Standing Committee C ever since it was first established and I would not say that that was the case. We have got to remember, as has been pointed out by more than one speaker, that it is not only comparatively small Bills that are now going upstairs, but big Bills. Hon. Members talk about Bills like that concerning Home Rule for Ireland, Housing, and so on—important measures.
    Undoubtedly there would be a tendency for Members taking part in Debate on these Bills very greatly to exceed ten minutes, and very likely to speak for more than half an hour, even in Committee. I may be told that one of the main reasons why Members speak at great length in this Chamber is to obstruct. That is why, as a matter of fact, the Front Benches have always both been against any limitation of the length of speeches, because they may need the services of certain

    1055
    Members to obstruct. If speeches are not to exceed in length ten minutes, then they will have to provide two or three men for the obstruction, and not only one. But I myself have seen obstruction upstairs in my Standing Committee C. If there is obstruction now there certainly will be a bigger chance in the future. There is another point: these important Bills being sent upstairs have a Second Reading in the House here. But there will be a tendency to start a Second Reading Debate again when they go upstairs, without regard to the consequences in point of time. There is also the Kangaroo Closure, and an artful Member, whose Amendments have been passed over, will try to get them in by artful and controversial speech, which will mean a mere waste of time. If there is the nine minutes' rule for speeches only ten minutes can be wasted. I suggest that as one of the reasons why this comparatively small Amendment should be carried—[An Hon. Member: "Ten minutes! "]—and I do not want to stultify myself by exceeding my ten minutes, though some hon. Members above the gangway seem to think I am going to do so. I hope this new paragraph may be added to Standing Order 47 so that we may get some curtailment of speeches upstairs in Committee.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It is a very long time since I had the honour of addressing the House, and I would, therefore, claim the indulgence of hon. Members. I propose to put forward the best arguments I can for the adoption of this Amendment, In doing so, I should like to give the House some idea of the length of speeches in an ordinary Debate in this. House I do not think hon. Members realise for one moment the length to which speeches go. If they will bear with me a little while, I will give them a summary of the Debate which took place in 1912 on the Home Rule Bill, which produced an average Debate in this House. I happened to take the length of speeches at the time, as I was interested in the question, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. The Home Rule Bill came on for First Reading on three days in April. The Debate was opened by a speech from Mr. Asquith, who managed to compress the whole of his remarks into 116 minutes—just under two
    1056
    hours. That was acknowledged, at the time, to be a very fine performance. He was answered by the right hon. Gentleman the present Member for Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law),whose speech lasted 68 minutes. I think that length was justified, too. There were eleven speakers during that first day, and their speeches averaged in length 43 minutes. On the second day nine speakers took part. Their speeches averaged 48½ minutes.
    The Debate on the second day was opened by the Foreign Minister, who was answered by Mr. Herbert Samuel in a speech of 92 minutes' length. The average length of speeches on that day was 48½ minutes. The Home Rule Bill was quite a typical kind of Bill which this House considers so far as the length of speeches go. On the third day there were eleven speakers, and their average length was 40½ minutes. So that for the First Reading there were thirty-one speeches, totalling 44 minutes apiece. That average of speeches was very fairly divided amongst the parties in the House. Sixteen Unionists spoke, with an average length of 41¼ mintues each. The Liberals occupied 43½ minutes each on an average, and the Nationalists 49½ minutes each. On that occasion the Nationalists were the longest speakers. About a week later the Second Reading came on. Substantially what we heard on the First Reading was repeated. The Debate was opened by the right hon. Gentleman the war Minister, who spoke for 75 minutes. He was answered by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who quite impartially spoke for 75 minutes, too. I would like very respectfully to point out that in this particular habit the Members of the Front Benches are by no means the least offenders. That day, the first day of the Second Reading, the speeches averaged forty-eight and a half minutes.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment relates only to Committees. If it were carried it would not affect matters such as those to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now referring.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I realise fully what you say, Sir. I am using a Debate that has taken place as a short way of putting my argument. I thought perhaps that if I hold a mirror to the House and let them see to what length speechhas grown it would be the most efficient argument I could put forward in support of this Amendment. To summarise the matter

    1057
    and not to worry the House with figures, I would say that the Second Reading Debate of the Home Rule Bill produced sixty-six speakers, whose speeches averaged thirty-nine and a half minutes. For the whole Debate there, were ninety-seven speakers on the First and Second Reading, and they averaged forty and three-quarter minutes. Ninety-seven speakers averaged practically forty-one minutes, and dealing with a question which has been thrashed out many times in this House and practically every word of which had been said over and over again, not only here, but on the platform. That seems to me about the best argument for supporting the Amendment. Hon. Members do not realise to what extent speeches have grown, and unless one of two things happen, unless an Amendment is carried of the nature we are now discussing, limiting speeches automatically, or secondly—which is perhaps almost the better way if it were possible unless a fashion can grow up in this House for shorter speeches, we shall be overwhelmed by our own verbosity. The question has been brought up before, and I never quite understand why, when there is such an overwhelming feeling in the House to shorten speeches, it has never been done. There must be some good reason given if this Amendment is to be opposed. I think that one of the best ways of getting on with the business of the House, and an equally good way in these Rules of Procedure, would be some limitation of speeches, and for that reason I second the Motion.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject is a very old friend to anyone who has been for a long time a Member of this House, and I confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the desire which has been expressed by both my hon. Friends. Indeed, when we were framing these Rules of Procedure I did think of this matter, and with my colleagues I discussed the question as to whether, in regard to the House as a whole, that method would help us in shortening our procedure, and we came to the conclusion that it was a question very difficult to deal with, and it would not sufficiently help us to make it worth while applying it to the House as a whole. As regards the Committees upstairs, I do not think it could be adopted at the present time, and I will tell the House why. It is extremely difficult to fix the exact length of time
    1058
    for speeches. Both the speeches to which we have just listened are an example of this danger. I listened to my hon. Friend (Major Morrison-Bell) with great interest and with a good deal of terror, because I was not sure in what degree of culpability I should stand if he had mentioned my name, because I took part in those Debates. The first Parliament with which I had anything to do was a Parliamentary debating society, and there we had a ten-minutes rule for speeches, and I can certainly say that the effect of that does enable one to find out that you can say a good deal more in ten minutes if you know that a longer time is not to be given to you. My experience also is this, that just in proportion to the amount of preparation you have given to your speeches is the length of the speech. The more you have prepared your speeches the shorter they may be.
    What would happen if you tried to apply this Amendment? The speech of my hon. Friend opposite is an example. He did not speak for more than fifteen minutes, but he was evidently under the impression that it was his duty to speak for fully fifteen minutes. That does not help us, and that would be found to be not an uncommon practice in Committee upstairs. In this House we never make a change in procedure—whether it is a good Rule or a bad Rule—until the evil is staring us in the face in such away that we have to remedy it. That has not happened yet in Grand Committee, and I hope it is never going to happen. I think the general opinion will be that it would be very unwise to attempt to cure an evil which has not yet arisen, and to make a change of this kind in Grand Committee at the present stage. My hon. Friend has raised the subject, but the principle is familiar to us, and I hope he will not think it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to point out to my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Morrison-Bell) that he is in error when he says that the speeches of this House have tended to increase in length As a matter of fact the reverse is the case. If he looks back forty, fifty or sixty years he will find that very long speeches were made. Mr. Gladstone never thought it within his dignity to introduce a Budget in anything under four hours. I remember listening to Mr. Gladstone who was leading the House when a Member made

    1059
    a casual observation and Mr. Gladstone made a most interesting speech on it. I timed the speech, and it occupied one hour and ten minutes. That would never be tolerated in the present Parliament. I feel certain I am right in saying that the tendency is for speeches to decrease in length and not increase. Speeches in Committee are very seldom long. I do not think the illustration which the hon. and gallant Member gave was quite fair. That was a Bill which had caused the disruption of the Liberal party, which had caused it to be relegated to the wilderness for twenty years in 1886, and which was one of the most controversial Bills which has ever been introduced and which had split up the whole Kingdom. If you have a Bill of that sort, surely it is not advisable to say that a man can only speak ten minutes.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a hundred speeches of forty-one minutes each was a fair record?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see any objection on a measure of that sort.
    Mr. R. McLAREN: As a new Member, I claim the indulgence of the House in addressing it. I had not intended to take part in the Debate, but I think there is something to be said for the Amendment. It is perfectly true that in many cases speeches are delivered which are very lengthy, and it will be admitted that where there is a lengthy speech which is devoid of interest people get very tired. It is a fact, however, that in many cases a gentleman rises to address the House and speaks with great interest. I am perfectly satisfied that in this House we have had some remarkable speeches, and although they were long speeches, I must confess that to me they were most interesting. In connection with Standing Committees it may be different. We are here as Members of Parliament to do our best for the country, and we have come here with the determination that so far as we are able we shall do our part in connection with Standing Committees or in any other way. In connection with Standing Committees it should be borne in mind that in those Committees men are free to express their views in a sort of conversational way, and ten or fifteen minutes is quite ample for a man to express his views in these colloquies. In my young days I used to read with great interest the Debates in this House, and sometimes I
    1060
    have been quite surprised that the House of Commons should have listened, as apparently it did listen with satisfaction, to some speeches which I thought from beginning to end were practically twaddle. Of course, if you curtail the length of speech in the House of Commons, you take away a very important thing for the House, especially for the Opposition. We are to-day in power, but the time may come when the Unionist party may be on the opposite benches, and I do not think that in this House we should like to be curtailed, especially on those questions as to which we should wish to obstruct with all our power; but in Grand Committees what we want is to sit round a table and discuss our views and practical points.
    I understand that at these Standing Committees men who know their business thoroughly are able to express their views in a practical manner so as to bring conviction to those who hear them. In connection with the Debates as to procedure, I have been rather disappointed at some of the speakers, who appeared to speak a great deal and give us very little. I have been disappointed, also, with the general Debate on the Address. One heard some Members of Parliament speaking for forty-five minutes when they actually could have said all that they did say in five minutes or less. It is a sad disappointment for some of us to listen to long speeches with really nothing in them. No one begrudges, to sit and listen to speeches with interest from beginning to end and to the general Debates of the House. It would be a great pity indeed if you were so to curtail the speeches as not to get the benefit of the ripe experience of the older Members of the House, but I think that it would be a good thing if the Government would accept the Amendment, so as to curtail Debates if possible in Standing Committees, where such good work must be done, and in this way advance the work of the House of Commons.
    Major NEWMAN: In view of the sympathetic attitude of the Leader of the House, I desire to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to move, at the end of the Standing Order, to add the words
    "Any Member of the House may attend and speak at any of the meetings of these Standing Committees, but, may not vote or move any resolutions."

    1061
    I move this with the deference of a new Member. It is a Standing Order which has to my knowledge been of considerable use on several of the municipal bodies that are doing work of the Grand Committee style on a small scale. Reference has been made in the course of the Debate to the number of experts and specialists who are present at various Committees. I am aware that under the Clause already passed a certain number of specialists are added to each Committee, but I would suggest that there might be others who in the course of circumstances would not find their names among those selected, and it would be to the advantage of the constitution of these Committees that an expert who had not been selected, and who was especially interested in the subject before the Grand Committee, might have an opportunity of expressing his views personally. Members, as strangers, are allowed to attend, but they are not allowed to take part in the discussion or vote. I do not suggest that these men should be allowed to vote or move Amendments, but the Committee might have the advantage of their experience and special knowledge on these particular questions. I would also suggest that it would act as a safety valve. Members are rather chary of giving up the freedom which they have now of discussing every question which comes before them. By this devolution to Grand Committees a certain number of Members only are able to take part in certain discussions on special occasions. This safety valve provides an opportunity for Members who wish to give expression to their views on particular questions of which they have an expert knowledge. Therefore I submit, with all deference, that this provision, which has proved useful in many municipal bodies and, I believe, also the London County Council, would be of advantage in connection with these Committees.
    Amendment not seconded.

    STANDING ORDER 48.—(Nomination of Standing Committees.)
    Each of the said Standing Committees shall consist of not less than sixty nor more than eighty Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard to the classes of Bills committed to such Committees, to the composition of the House, and to the qualifications of the Members selected; and shall have power to discharge Members from time to time, for non-attendance or at their own request, and to appoint others in substitution for those dis-
    1062
    charged: Provided that, for the consideration of all public Bills relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, the Committee shall be so constituted as to comprise all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire. The Committee of Selection shall also have power to add not more than fifteen Members to a Standing Committee in respect of any Bill referred to it, to serve on the Committee during the consideration of such Bill: Provided that this Order shall not apply to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "sixty nor more than eighty," and insert instead thereof the words "forty nor more than sixty."
    After the word "not" ["power to add not"], insert the words "less than ten nor."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, at the end, to insert as a new paragraph:
    "Any Member of the House may give notice to add any number of Members not exceeding ten to a Standing Committee in respect of any Bill referred to it and such Motion shall be taken as the first Order of the Day after which such notice shall be given, and upon such Motion Mr. Speaker shall forthwith permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves and from one Member who opposes such Motion, respectively, and shall, without further Debate, put the Question thereon."
    I would appeal to the kind heart of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is always anxious to preserve the rights of private Members. I move this Amendment with confidence, as the condition of affairs has been so different of late from what it formerly was. During the last year or two we have had numbers of private Committees of Members who are associated together because they are interested in some particular subject. The Air Committee, in which I take a good deal of interest, consisted of 150 members, and there is a great Commercial Committee which consists of 200 members. There is a new Committee, the Transport Committee, which already consists of 140 members. These Committees are composed of men interested in some particular subject and who are more or less experts in that particular subject, and are very anxious with regard to any legislation that may take place in regard to the subject. I do venture to think that there should be some means of putting expert members' of this description on those Grand Committees. My right hon. Friend knows that the Committee of Selection in choosing the Standing Committees has regard to the composition of the House and the qualification of the

    1063
    Member and nothing more than that. The rule is, to make your Standing Committee a reflex of the House itself. The Government at the present time has some four or five hundred supporters and on the Standing Committees the membership would be in proportion to the number. Most of the members of these private Committees are no doubt supporters of the Government, but at the same time the Select Committee has no authority to take note of the existence of those private Committees and some of the men particularly interested in certain subjects might or might not be included on the Standing Committee's. We had an instance the night before last of the use of those Committees, when the Under-Secretary for Air brought forward a Bill asking leave to make certain regulations. What happened on that occasion shows the usefulness of a Minister recognising those Committees which are undoubtedly in existence though they are not official Government Committees. Take the Bill which is coming on very shortly for the establishment of a Minister of Ways and Communications. There is already a private Committee of 140 Members who are interested in the roads question. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to say that there should be some means of getting the selection of those Members interested in roads and in the road question, and who are road authorities as members of county councils and other bodies, and who really know the law on the subject, and what the local authorities of the country want. That Bill may go to a Grand Committee and it may quite well be that with the best wish to do what is right the Committee of Selection merely puts on A, B, C, D, or E, who may happen to be Members who have taken no particular interest in the question. No doubt they would do their best to make the Bill as good as possible, but they would not have the necessary technical knowledge. I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the ipsissima verba of my Amendment, but I would ask him whether he could not contrive some kind of scheme which would enable a private Member, who came down with the backing of a resolution of, say, a hundred or a hundred and fifty Members, to ask the House to put five or ten Members on the Standing Committee. The object of the Government, I am sure, is to interest all private Members in the work, and the only way
    1064
    to do so is by putting the right Member on the right Committee, as for instance, the road man on the road committee, the air man on the air committee, the commercial man on the commercial committee, and so on. I think if such a scheme as that could be arranged it would be greatly to the interest of private Members.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his statement which shows that he wishes this subject to be considered rather than to press his Amendment at this stage. He has made out a strong case for the kind of thing which he aims at. It is quite true that one of the objects we hope to achieve is to give greater interest to private Members and to make them realise that in doing this work they are doing work as important as if they were taking part in Debates in this House. Obviously, it is to the interest of the House that as far as possible the right men should be placed on the right Committees, but it would be rather difficult to adopt anything like this proposal. It is quite correct to say that Members are chosen from the point of view of the different strengths of parties in this House, and it is obvious that must be so in the main, and for this reason, that unless that is done you might not have the view of the majority of the House represented in Grand Committee and that Committee might come to decisions which would be reversed afterwards. It is obvious you must aim at having Standing Committees fairly representative of the House. But it is true, and I am sure my hon. Friend, who has experience of these Committees, knows it, that though that is the object of the Selection Committee they do not adhere to it in the same way with regard to the special members who are added. I am informed that in cases such as he has named the Selection Committee would take into account people who had shown an interest in the subject. But if the Committee of which he speaks was all on one side on the question that would not be a reason why they should be put on and so overload the general feeling of the whole House. I do not see how we could give effect to the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and I hope he will not press it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the kind way in which my right hon. Friend has met my proposal, I would ask leave to withdraw it, but I hope that he will consider whether something could not be done on the subject.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    STANDING ORDER 49.—(Chairmen of Standing Committees.)
    The Committee of Selection shall nominate a chairmen's panel to consist of not less than four nor more than eight Members, of whom three shall be a quorum; and the chairmen's panel shall appoint from among themselves the chairmen of each Standing Committee, and may change the chairman so appointed from time to time.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "the Committee of Selection shall nominate," and to insert instead thereof the words "there shall be."
    This is the first of two Amendments, the second being consequential. The object is to enable the chairmen of very important Standing Committees to be elected by the House instead of being merely appointed by the Committee of Selection.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: May I ask for an explanation of the Amendment? The hon. Member proposes that instead of the Committee of Selection nominating the chairmen's panel, that "there shall be a chairmen's panel to consist of not less than four nor more than eight Members, who shall be nominated at the commencement of every Session," but he does not say nominated by whom.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I consulted Mr. Speaker on this Amendment this morning, and I was advised in drafting it by one of the Clerks at the Table that the word "nominated" meant that they were nominated by one of the parties in the same way that the Committee of Selection is nominated by the Government at the beginning of every Session, and that then that nomination has to come before the House and that the House can divide on it, if they wish to do so.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. Those hon. Members who have only just come into the House should know that at the beginning of every Session, I believe, this Committee of Selection is nominated by the Government, and then that nomination is put to the House and the House
    1066
    is able to divide upon it. Under the scheme that is now proposed, the Chairmen of the Standing Committees will go on being nominated by the Committee of Selection, but my Amendment proposes, on the other hand, that the Chairmen of the Standing Committees shall be elected by this House. I feel that it does make all the difference, now that the, Standing Committees are going to be so much more important than in the past, and that the Chairmen of these Committees are going to have far more important duties than they have had in the past. In the first place, it is quite conceivable that enormously important measures will be sent up to Standing Committees, Bills exciting very bitter controversy, and also under the new plan the Chairman of a Standing Committee is not only going to have the power of giving the Closure upon Amendments in certain cases, but he is also going to have the power to give the Closure, upon the whole of the Committee stage upstairs. Supposing the first Clause of a Bill had taken a very long time, it would be in the power of the Chairman of the Standing Committee to give the Closure on the whole of the rest of the Bill, so that it should be reported at once to the House. I feel that that makes all the difference, and that, under these circumstances, it is only fair that the House as a whole should have the opportunity of saying whether they agree with the nomination or not. I am fortified in what I say by the very great authority of Mr. Speaker, who was one of the witnesses before the Committee on Procedure in 1914, and Mr. Speaker on that occasion said that he agreed that these Chairmen ought to be elected by the House, and he said that when the proposal was made that these Chairmen should have the power of initialling Amendments and sending those initialled Amendments only down to the Report stage of the House, but it is far more important that they should be elected by the House when not only they are able to initial Amendments, but that they shall be able to ignore Amendments altogether and give the Closure whenever they like. I should like to read the words of Mr. Speaker. The proposal was made to him by one of the Members of the Committee on procedure, "Would it not be necessary in some way to strengthen their position by some definite election so that when they gave these important rulings they should possess sufficient

    1067
    authority to carry them through?" Mr. Speaker then said, "Your suggestion is a good one. It would give the Chairmen more authority, and at the same time it would make them more careful from the knowledge that they are elected by the House and that they therefore owe a duty to the House as a whole. I think that would act as a very good check." I must say that I read that Report very carefully, and it was owing to the evidence given by Mr. Speaker that I put down this Amendment, and I feel that the Chairmen themselves would welcome this Amendment. I do not believe the ordinary Chairman in the least wants to have this great responsibility thrust upon him if he is merely nominated by the Committee of Selection. I believe that the Chairman if he knows he has got to have this great responsibility thrust upon him would infinitely rather be elected by this House. He would have more authority, and I think he would take very good care if elected by this House to send down the work of a Committee upstairs in a comprehensible and proper form. I therefore hope the Government will accept my Amendment.
    Major MOLSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope the proposal which has been made by my hon. Friend is one which will commend itself to the Government. The duties which are going to be borne by these Chairmen will very often be not a little bit less onerous than those cast upon Chairmen and Deputy-Chairmen of Committees here, when Bills are to be fought out in the heat of party passion. Circumstances are bound to arise in which they will feel a very great weight of responsibility, and I am quite sure that it would add to their feelings of support in the most difficult and arduous duties which must fall upon them if they had not merely the sanction of a body which itself had been nominated, but also the sanction of the House of Commons itself. To be nominated to preside over a deliberative assembly is not a very happy position, and I cannot conceive anything which would strengthen him more in those duties to which I have alluded than to know that he had been freely nominated and selected by the House of Commons itself.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was rather attracted by the proposal when the hon. Member first made it, because it undoubtedly does give some power to this House, which I think they ought to have, but on thinking it over I should like to ask whether he proposes that the Chairmen shall be elected for the duration of the Parliament or every Session, and I ask for this reason. There are going to be a good number of these Standing Committees, and a very large number of Bills will be sent up to them, some of which will undoubtedly be very controversial. There are not a few Members who will not know the rules, and supposing a Chairman takes a strong line against a Member or against a few Members and offends them, what is to prevent them from coming down and saying to their friends "When So-and-so is put up at the beginning of this Session to be Chairman of Committees, don't you vote for him. Let us put in somebody else." I commend that point to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I believe I am right in saying the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means are elected for a Parliament, and if my hon. Friend would consent so to alter his Amendment that the Chairman of the Standing Committees should be elected in the same way as the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, he would have my support.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend has put forward an Amendment which has a great deal to commend it. Like my right hon. Friend behind me, I am attracted by it, but I do not think he has quite got over the difficulties he himself has raised by the suggestion that it should be for the whole life of the Parliament. It is not so easy to get a large number of people who will be available for that length of time. I confess that, Mr. Speaker, having himself taken the view that this would be an improvement, is probably the strongest argument that could be presented. The whole question is as to the best way to get the most competent Chairmen for the purpose. I think there is something in the view that particular people might attract a certain amount of hostility by their action. I am not prepared, therefore, on behalf of the Government to accept this change now, but if my hon. Friend is satisfied with this—it will be a very easy change to make—it will be carefully considered before the end of this Session, in

    1069
    consultation, with the officers of the House, as well as Mr. Speaker, and if the conclusion arrived at is that it is a better arrangement, I shall be very glad to suggest it to the House.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: Leave out "four," and insert "eight."
    Leave out "eight," and insert "twelve."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

    STANDING ORDER 46.—(Committal of Bills.)
    (1) When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to one of the Standing Committees, unless the House, on Motion to be decided without Amendment or Debate, otherwise order; and such a Motion shall not require notice, must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time, may be made by any Member, and may, though opposed, be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business. But this Order shall not apply to—

    (a) Bills for imposing taxes or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills; or

    (b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders.

    (3) Where a Bill has been committed to a Standing Committee, or has been so committed in respect of any provision, then, at the Report stage of the Bill or provision, the Rule against speaking more than once shall not apply to the Member in charge of the Bill or to the Mover of any Amendment or new Clause in respect of that Amendment or Clause.

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I observe the Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford University in his place. I think it only fair to draw his attention to the fact that his Amendment standing on the Paper is not correctly an Amendment to the Amendment put down by the Leader of the House, but is a separate Amendment. If he wishes to move it, he would have to move it first. I understand its purpose is to send a Finance Bill upstairs?
    Lord H. CECIL: On a point of Order. I want to make the Amendment so as to send a Finance Bill upstairs. I also want, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, to oppose his proposal. I understand I must do that separately, and that I must first move my own Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERassented.
    Lord H. CECIL: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out
    "(a) Bills for imposing taxes or Consolidated Fund, or Appropriation Bills; or."
    1070
    I desire, rather briefly, under the distressing, Rule of the House which gives no interval for dinner—and I am now approaching the point when mental activity is hardly possible, owing to growing feebleness from starvation—to say that there is really no reason why the Finance Bill should be excluded by permanent Rule from the operation of the general practice of sending Bills to Standing Committees. I do not say that necessarily every Finance Bill should go to a Standing Committee, though, personally, I believe a Standing Committee in a better body for dealing with Bills than a Committee of the Whole House. But there seems no advantage in having an absolutely wooden rule by which no Finance Bill would ever go to a Standing Committee. There are many Finance Bills not of a specially controversial character which might easily be dealt with by a Standing Committee—Bills which do not raise any great issue of fiscal policy, but which contain a great many detailed proposals which could be dealt with very well by a Standing Committee. Therefore, I see no advantage in the rule excluding Finance Bills from the general practice of sending Bills to a Standing Committee. An Appropriation Bill is usually, of course, a Bill which would not be sent upstairs, because the Committee stage is a matter of form, and there is no advantage in sending it upstairs. But a Budget Bill might, I think, with great propriety go in most cases, or certainly in ordinary cases. At any rate, I submit, to the House that there is no reason for having a definite and unalterable rule by which a Finance Bill alone is never to go to a Standing Committee.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I bog to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry my right hon. Friend seconded the Amendment if the only reason was to get a speech from me, because, like my Noble Friend, I am not desirous of speaking more than can be helped at the present movement. I cannot accept the Amendment. We have to consider what the general feeling as to the change we are making would be. I have conducted through the House two or three Finance Bills. I cannot help thinking that that financial sense of what is thought proper—of which we had so many examples yesterday—would have received a shock from which it would never have recovered if it were suggested that

    1071
    the Finance Bill, which settled the taxation, should be sent to a Standing Committee. I do not think, in the present state of public feeling inside and outside the House, that the proposal would be acceptable, and I hope, therefore, my Noble Friend will not press it.
    Lord H. CECIL: I do not desire to press the Amendment against the wishes of the Government, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (3).
    9.0 P.M.
    Lord H. CECIL: I do not think this is a very great improvement. The paragraph provides that where a Bill is Reported from a Standing Committee, the ordinary rule which prevents Members speaking twice on the same question when the Speaker is in the Chair is so far relaxed that the Member in charge of the Bill is allowed to speak as often as he likes, and also the Member who moves an Amendment. I do not think that is a very serious invasion of the normal rule that a Member should not speak more than once when the Speaker is in the Chair, and in respect of the Member in charge of a Bill it is very convenient. It is convenient in both cases, but there cannot be any doubt that it is convenient to a Member in charge of a Bill, and the strict rule is never kept when it applies to Report from Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Member in charge of the Bill. He is always, by the indulgence of the House, permitted to speak more often than once. If a rule is never kept, it is not desirable to have it. It does not promote the proper conduct of Debate if unofficial Members see that Ministers in charge of Bills are allowed to ride over the Rules of the House and speak as often as they please. It would be much better, in my judgment, instead of altering the Rule in regard to Standing Committees, for the Government to alter the Rule in regard to all Report stages of Bills so far as the Member in charge of the Bill is concerned, because the practice of the House has already altered it. We ought to endeavour to keep to the Rules which we have, and if a rule is found so inconvenient that it is never kept, it should be altered. The Government, instead of altering an incon-
    1072
    venient rule, are substituting an inconvenient rule for a convenient one. They are taking away a convenience which exists in respect of Report from a Standing Committee and making the proceedure on Report from the Standing Committees the same as procedure on Report from Committee of the Whole House by which the inconvenient regulation is laid down that even the Member in charge of a Bill can only speak once. It is very inconvenient, and it is never adopted even when it is the Government, which has several Ministers who are available. When a private Member has to conduct a Bill through Report it is quite impossible, because he has no assistance and has to depend only on himself. As we have got in this Standing Order a very convenient relaxation of the normal rule, a relaxation which might be very wisely extended, we should not abolish it really to save an infinitesimal amount of time at best, and only to produce a situation which would involve the habitual breach of a Rule of the House, and the scandal and mischief that comes from such a breach.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My Noble Friend has really put only part of the history of this Rule which it is proposed to alter. He has told the House that it is never observed by the Treasury Bench, which always speak on Report stage on a Government Bill as often as it likes. He goes through the formality of saying "by the leave of the House," but no one ever dares say to such a great person as a Minister that he must not speak again, and therefore as a matter of fact the Rule does not apply to the Treasury Bench. A private Member's Bill will go upstairs to Grand Committee and the Member in charge of it when it comes down for Report will have to explain it, and it will be very difficult for anyone, without speaking more than once on an Amendment, to state the reasons why it should not be accepted. Again, there is this reason, and it is a very strong one: When you propose an Amendment, even if you are such a clear speaker as my Noble Friend, it does not at all follow that you can always impose your meaning upon the mind either of the Government or of the House. An hon. Member says, "I cannot accept this Amendment because it is going to have this effect." You say "this is a misunderstanding; it does not have this effect at all."

    1073
    Over and over again I have seen that happen, with the result that the Amendment is accepted. That is all going to be done away with, and the only resource you will have will be to turn to your friend next to you and ask him to get up and say, "That is not the effect of the Amendment." Unless he has been working with you, he will not be able to do that, and consequently your Amendment will be lost.
    Perhaps the House will be interested to know the history of this rule. It was instituted in the year 1907, when Sir Henry campbell-Bannerman sent all Bills up to Grand Committee. The question arose as to what would be the procedure on the Report stage when the Bills came down. The arguments used by my Noble Friend and myself at that time appealed with such force to the whole of the Unionist Party that my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) moved that not the mover of an Amendment or the Member in charge of the Bill, but every Member, might speak more than once upon the Report stage. There had been a little misunderstanding as to what the Government was going to do. We thought it was going to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, but it turned out that they did not intend to go as far as that. But they met us eventually by putting the Standing Order in the form in which it is now. My right hon. Friend was very angry, and said:
    "His Amendment was a perfectly plain and distinct one, and had exactly the same meaning to-day as it had on Thursday. He would add that anything he might say would have the same meaning to-morrow as it had to-day."
    I felt quite certain, after that, that he would have voted with my Noble Friend and myself against this alteration. I have the Division List here, which is very interesting reading. In support of the Amendment that every Member should speak as often as he liked on the Report stage of a Bill coining from Grand Committee, I find the names of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), one of the Whips, my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson), the late Home Secretary, the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law). Here is the name. "Law, Andrew Bonar, Dulwich." I was going to make as earnest appeal to my right hon. Friend not to alter this very modest proposal, when only a few years ago he himself was in favour of a much stronger one. I do not know whether my arguments appeal to the Attorney-General,
    1074
    but I trust he will consider them and that we shall be allowed to have this very small privilege, which will not waste any time but will add to the efficiency of the conduct of the business of the House.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I really think this is a suggestion which must find a large degree of favour from the Minister in charge of the proposal. In addition to what has been said by the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, with such feelings and experiences may I just add two other points? First of all, it is quite obvious that the Report stage will be of much greater importance than ever before. The second point is that the House will in all probability shortly give to the Chair the unlimited power of the selection of Amendments so that, although the Report stage will be more important than ever it was, the power of the Government because of the ascendancy of the Chair over the Debate, will be much greater than ever it was. How the Government can resist the appeal of the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken I rather fail to see, and I do hope that it will be acceded to.
    Sir G. HEWART: After listening to the philosophy which we have heard, from my Noble Friend below the Gangway; to the history which we have heard from the right hon. Member for the City of London; and to the combination of the two which we have heard from my right hon. Friend opposite, I am always persuaded that we ought not to persist in this proposal. I am quite persuaded when I look at the remaining proposals that we have on the Paper with regard to selection, and therefore I shall not persist, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    RE-COMMITTAL OF BILL.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move as a new Standing Order:—
    If a Motion to recommit a Bill be opposed, Mr. Speaker shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for such recommittal from the Member who moves and from a Member who opposes any such Motion respectively, and shall without farther debate put the Question thereon.
    Resolved, That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

    STANDING ORDER 30.—(Division Frivolously Claimed.)
    Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand-

    1075
    glass, if, in his opinion, the Division is frivolously or vexatiously claimed, take the vote of the House, or Committee, by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge, his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House or Committee, or name Tellers far a Division. And, in case there is no Division, the Speaker or Chairman shall declare to the House or the Committee the number of the minority who had challenged his decision, and their names shall be thereupon taken down in the House and printed with the lists of Divisions.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move to leave out the words
    "as indicated by the sand-glass."
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is not a very important Amendment, but I think the House ought to realise what it really is. Under the old Rules, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, if he was of opinion that a Division was vexatiously or frivolously claimed might cause hon. Members claiming the Division to rise in their places. This power was very seldom exercised. I remember it being exercised on one occasion when a right hon. Friend of mine came down to the House at three o'clock in the afternoon, to move what, in his eyes, was a very important Amendment. We sat up nearly all night, and his Amendment was not reached until three o'clock in the morning. Then Mr. Speaker told him that he was frivolous in claiming the Amendment, although he had been there from three o'clock in the afternoon, a matter of twelve hours, without being able to move it, and he was made to stand up. That led to a considerable scene. I do not think that Rule has been very often enforced since, but when the Rule was enforced the Clerks at the Table came round and took the names of the Members who had risen in their places, and those names were recorded. This Amendment says that when hon. Members composing the party led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, which is not a very numerous party, and which might, late at night, be representing—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet is addressing himself to the next Amendment on the Paper, which has not been reached.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg pardon.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "frivolously or vexatiously," and to insert instead thereof the word "unnecessarily."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not so much object to this, although the other words are best, but I think my remarks had better be made on the next Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words,
    "And, in case there is no Division, Mr. Speaker or Chairman shall declare to the House or the Committee the number of the minority who had challenged his decision, and their names shall be thereupon taken down in the House, and printed with the lists of Divisions."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: Now I will go on with my remarks where I left them off. Where a man claimed a Division, and Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, held that it was frivolously or vexatiously claimed, he could order him and his supporters to stand up, and the Clerks at the Table took their names. The effect of the present Amendment being carried will be that their names will not be taken. There are many occasions on which a small minority in this House really thinks it ought to emphasise its action on some particular business or question before the House. It may be unpopular, but they may hold very strong views on it. It may be that their constituents are in agreement with them and they want to see that, at any rate, they have done their best in the House to carry out the views of their constituents. I cannot for the life of me see what is going to be gained by preventing seven or eight Members, who honestly and conscientiously hold that it is their duty to stand up for or against a proposal, from having their names recorded. Therefore, I hope I shall have the support of my right hon. Friend who is leading the Opposition, and I hope also that the Attorney-General will once more agree with my persuasive points.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I very much regret that on this occasion I am not able to agree with the right hon. Baronet, because I have had some personal experience of the real difficulty which lies in the last paragraph of the Order in regard to the conduct of the business of the House. I am quite willing to take the risk, on behalf of those associated with me, of the disadvantages which my right hon. Friend so very kindly referred to. Over and over again, scores of times, in my own personal experience, it would have been for the convenience of the House, and it would have expedited business, if one

    1077
    could have put this Rule in operation as it is now proposed. But the real thing that stopped it almost all the time was the almost impossibility of taking the names of Members standing up. There might be a small group of them in all parts of the House, and it would be very difficult indeed, sometimes in the heat of debate and in the vexation at the very unnecessary way in which progress was being obstructed. I am quite sure it would add to the convenience of the whole of the proceedings of the House, and certainly conduce to the dignity of the proceedings of Parliament in Committee, on Report, and on all other stages if the proposal is allowed to go through.
    Amendment agreed to.

    SELECTION OF AMENDMENTS.
    The following Motion stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. BONAR LAW: To move as a new Standing Order,
    That in respect of any Motion or Bill under consideration either in Committee or on Report, Mr. Speaker, or in Committee the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Deputy Chairman, shall have power to select the new Clauses or Amendments to be proposed, and may, if he thinks fit, ask any Member who has given notice of an Amendment to give such explanation of the object of the Amendment as may enable him to form a judgment upon it. Provided that the power of selection shall not be exercised by the Chairman of a Standing Committee.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move the new Standing Order standing in the name of my right hon. Friend. I do not think I need add any words in support of this proposal, but I would like, if I may, to introduce a word into the first line, so that it will read, "in respect of any Motion or any Bill under consideration." Then, I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you have added, after the words "either in Committee," the words, "of the Whole House." I propose also to omit the last sentence.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: With regard to this proposal, it has been asked whether it would add to the dignity of the proceedings of this House. I remember very well the discussions we had on the Parliament Act and the Welsh Disestablishment Act, and how this power was used. It casts a very great responsibility on the Chairman, but as far as my observations went I think that power was exercised both by Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means with a very great regard for the rights of minorities. It is perfectly true that you could not by any human in-
    1078
    genuity meet all the difficulties and injustices which are bound to arise. Sometimes an Amendment was selected which looked quite the right one, but in the course of Debate it was several times discovered that another Amendment would have been a better one. Therefore, we cannot in this matter get a perfectly working machine, and we have to take things just as they are. I may say that the experience which I had in the Chair was all in favour of a proposal of this kind with some safeguards. As far as I am concerned I just wish to say that my experience is in favour, on general grounds, of the proposal of the Government.
    Sir R. ADKINS: It is an advantage to have the valuable experience of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, who has advised the House from a wealth of experience and with the greatest sincerity. I rise to ask whether the Government could not at this early stage indicate whether they will not give some security as to the use of this power which they are now introducing to the House. I think it is a much better way to have what is called the kangaroo closure method fixed in the Standing Orders and not merely called for on particular Bills when feeling runs high, and when there is a great divergence of view as to the priority of Amendments. I think it would be better if we had that system definitely laid down in the Standing Order apart from any considerations of that kind. As my right hon. Friend has just said, it casts a very great responsibility on the Speaker and the Deputy-Speaker, and if the suggestion is adopted of associating a few of the most experienced Members of the House with the Speaker, and the Chairman of Ways and Means as a Consultative Committee on the exercise of this very far reaching power, I think that would commend itself to the general acceptance of the House, and it would make it easier for many hon. Members, who cordially support what we believe to be a great improvement in the interests of business, and it would remove at the same time those elements which make the proposal open to criticism. I hope my right hon. Friend will indicate whether the Government are open to suggestions on those lines.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There are two objections to this proposal. The first difficulty is that of making quite certain that the Amendment you have chosen is really a good one, and whether or not when it is

    1079
    debated it turns out to be rather different to what the selector of the Amendment thought it was. The reverse also applies, and an Amendment which looks hardly worth attention very often turns out to be a very important one, and one which has sometimes led to great alterations in a Bill. The difficulty is to know which is going to be taken and how does this work. You put Amendments on the Paper. Suppose the kangaroo is in operation, and I have an Amendment on the Paper. Of course, I am wondering whether it is going to be selected or not, and I go to the Chairman, and I say to him, "Do you think my Amendment will be selected?" Of course, he answers "Yes" or "No," and it is difficult to give an explanation in such a short time while the attention of the Chairman is being given to the business of the House. Consequently, many Amendments must necessarily be rejected and not discussed in the House at all.
    Another point is that it very often arises in discussion that it is necessary to move a manuscript Amendment. How is that going to be done under this proposal? Is that to be dependent upon the consent of the Chairman? If consent is withheld again a very difficult situation is produced. Then there is the great responsibility which it casts upon Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Deputy-Chairman. My right hon. Friend said it had worked well during the last few years, but he should remember that during that period we have been fortunate in having an exceptional Speaker and Chairman of Committees and Deputy-Chairman of Committees, and we might not be so fortunate in the future. It must also be remembered that we are making this alteration for all time. We know that Mr. Speaker is going to leave us shortly, and it is a very dangerous thing to make this alteration at the present time. I have been reading the Official Report lately—it is very interesting reading—and I have come across some very nice remarks made about this closure when it was first introduced. My right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for the City of London, who is now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Balfour) then said:
    "If it does not go the whole length in justifying my hon. colleague's epithet of revolutionary, it does show very clearly that a very important and new departure is going to be made in the procedure of this House. Do not let anybody imagine that all the Prime Minister and the
    1080
    Government are doing is to put in convenient and logical form the ordinary procedure of this House. That, I think, is not the intention of the Government. I am quite sure it will not be the effect of the Government's proposal, and I am perfectly certain that if this passes we shall from this date have a quite new procedure regularly adopted whenever a highly controversial or difficult Bill is before the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1909, col. 1219, Vol. 8.]
    We are going still further now. We are not going to adopt it when there is a highly controversial or difficult Bill before the House, but we are going to adopt it in all cases. He goes on to say
    "The House is going to take a very important decision,"
    There is one part where he alludes to the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees. He says:
    "As soon as a Member of this House is elected to the high office of Speaker, he not only ceases to be a Member of a party from the moment that he occupies the Chair, but it is understood practically now that never again in this House will he occupy the position of party politician. No such ceremony surrounds the selection of chairmen. They are neither removed in the same way from temptation nor does anybody in this House expect or desire them to put off, when they are not in the Chair, their natural and traditional position of party politicians. It is inevitable, under these circumstnces, that these gentlemen should exercise their very responsible duties under very special difficulties, and in my experience they have carried them out on the whole in the general acceptance of theHouse."—[Official Report, 28th July, 1909, cols. 1221–2, Vol. 8.]
    Then he goes on to say that it is putting a very difficult task upon their shoulders and one which it is not wise that the House should do. Later on there was a Division, and all the Members of the present Government, including my Noble Friend who I see below me (Lord E. Talbot) voted against the proposal. What has changed the position? Why should a new House, which is supposed to be devoted to the business of the nation, be suspected of being prepared to do all sorts of things before we know what it is like? Further on there is a very drastic proposal. The right hon. Gentleman said that he supposed it was going to be an alternative for the Closure, which gave power to take the whole of the remaining stages of a Clause. We have on this Paper a Motion which says that that rule is to be extended so that whenever the Closure is first moved the whole of the Clauses may be taken at once and the Bill reported to the House without any further discussion. Surely that is enough for anybody. I do not know whether the Attorney-

    1081
    General is going to insist upon that proposal, but surely if he is, he will not insist upon this one. If he does, then the private Member might just as well go back to his constituency and not come here at all, for all the influence that he will be able to exercise in Debate.
    Colonel GRETTON: I am entirely at one with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in thinking that this particular alteration in the Rules is unnecessary and altogether too drastic. We must remember how much we have already given up to the Government. The number of the Bills that are to be kept on the floor of the House is very small indeed, according to the intention of these proposals. The House will no longer be congested with Committee business on minor or even important Bills. The Bills taken in Committee of the Whole House will be so limited in number that there will be time available for the consideration of all points raised in the House. With regard to the Report stage, this Rule seems to be entirely unnecessary and too drastic. The majority of the Bills are to be taken out of the cognisance of the House in their Committee stage and to be sent upstairs, and the only occasion that Members will have of raising various points for discussion and consideration in this House will be on the Report stage. Those of us who have had experience of this House for a number of years know very well that if a Member raises frivolous objections or Amendments which have no importance even on the Committee stage the House soon gets weary of his interruptions and his efforts die away. Frivolous Amendments with no weight or substance are still more difficult to support on the Report stage, because each Member can only speak once, except the Mover. This particular Rule, as has been pointed out, places far too great a responsibility on the Chair. We have seen this happen in days of stronger controversy. This Rule is really the most drastic Closure that has been used in this House. The House does not like these Rules, and it does not properly or seriously discuss business if it is shackled in this way. I venture to suggest that the Rule is really unnecessary. We ought to leave the business which is conducted on the floor of the House that measure of liberty which we have always hitherto known and which has only occasionally and in seasons of great stress been abused.
    1082
    After all this is a new House of Commons, and we are here with the spirit to get through the business. Why then trouble the House in this way? Why not give, it an opportunity to deal with its business, in a business-like way, without shackling it with drastic Rules before it has been in Session for little more than a week I think hon. Members should be given liberty to discuss those points which the House wants to debate. The House will signify its disapproval of the action of any Member or group of Members in raising frivolous and vexatious discussion, and I think the Government should be satisfied with the very great advantages they will gain from the alteration already made in Standing Orders.
    Mr. FRANCE: I want to ask if the right hon. Gentleman will accede to the request made to him to give some indication whether he can guide the House as to any safeguards which can be introduced such, as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean). I am diffident in, making suggestions on this matter in the presence of those who are much more experienced than I am. I assume that the Government, in putting these proposals down, must have anticipated one of three things: either that there would be frivolous and vexatious amendments, or those which are deliberately and maliciously obstructive, or that there is a greater number than can possibly be dealt with in the reasonable amount of time allotted for discussion. One of these possibilities I imagine must have been in the mind of the Government in putting down this drastic Amendment. I agree it is better to embody this in the ordinary machinery of the House than to introduce it in a spirit of panic at the last moment. I also believe it is much the better of the two methods to adopt this than the other form of Closure which we are told is going to be suggested later on. This method, commonly called the kangaroo method—Closure by selection—is better than Closure by accident which may deprive without rhyme or reason Member or Members of an opportunity of introducing Amendments of considerable value. I should have been glad if the right hon Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), who himself has had much experience in these matters, had indicated the kind of safeguard to which he attaches importance.
    Sir G. HEWART: I hope the House is prepared to accept the proposal of the Government in the form in which it stands. Let me say one word as to the extent of the proposal. It is no more than making a permanent attribute of the authority of the Chair that which is now an occasional attribute, and which needs a special Motion to bring it into operation. It has been suggested in more than one quarter that this proposal would be acceptable if some safeguard or other were promised or adopted. As I gather, the safeguards so far suggested are two in number. It is suggested in the first place that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, should have recourse to the Chairman of the Standing Committee. I imagine that that is the first thing he would think of. Then it is suggested that Mr. Speaker in the one case or the Chairman in the other case should be advised by a Committee in the selection of the Amendments to be discussed. I am sure the House will observe this, that if deliberation there is to be between Mr. Speaker or the Chairman and a Committee that involves the assumption that the Amendments from which the selection is to be made are before the selecting body in order that they may come to a decision upon them. Unfortunately in practice that is not the case. What happens is that a certain number of Amendments are on the Paper, and it is not easy to see beforehand what may be the importance attributed to particular Amendments. As the Debate continues, as the controversy develops, an Amendment which appears to be important may become relatively unimportant, while one which appears to be unimportant may assume considerable importance. It is a fluctuating and uncertain problem. And the difficulty does not end there. In addition to the Amendments on the Paper, there develop in the course of discussion impromptu Amendments and Amendments to Amendments which are handed to the Chair, and, as my hon. Friend said just now, they are often Amendments which are necessary to meet an emergency that has arisen. They are, therefore, of the greatest importance. How is it possible that Mr. Speaker, with the help of a Committee, should be able beforehand to judge the value of Amendments which may arise in the course of Debate? I do seriously suggest to the House that, anxious as we are that this difficult task of selection
    1084
    should be performed with the utmost care, it is not possible to provide against these contingencies.
    Again, it is suggested that the Amendments which ought to be selected are those moved with the general consent of the House. But how are you going to ascertain beforehand what is the general consent of the House? That point can only be decided by Mr. Speaker or the Chairman according to whether he is satisfied that a particular Amendment is one which it is generally desired by the House to have discussed. But what is the criterion for dealing with such Amendments, and upon what data is the judgment to be formed? I suggest the only way in which the Chair can judge is from its experience and knowledge of the House, from its appreciation of the Debate, and from its appreciation of the fluctuating and changing importance of the several topics which the Amendments involve. For myself at the moment I cannot conceive any procedure which could have the effect of safeguarding this selection of Amendments, but, on the other hand, I do think that the Government proposal will produce adequate and better results. It is on those grounds that, while we should be very glad to meet the suggestions in a practical way, we ask the House to assent to this plan in the form in which it now stands.
    Lord H. CECIL: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words,
    "That in respect of any Motion or Bill under consideration either in Committee or on Report, Mr. Speaker, or in Committee the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Deputy-Chairman,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "When a Bill has been reported from a Standing Committee no Amendment or new Clause shall be moved to such Bill or Report unless—

    (a) notice has been given of it within five days after the Report has been made, being days on which the House has sat; or

    (b) it is moved by a Member who has prepared and brought in the Bill; or

    (c) it is moved with the general consent of the House;

    and no Amendment to an Amendment shall be moved except by the leave of the Speaker. The Speaker, after consultation with the chairman of the Standing Committee."
    The Government proposal does not affect Standing Committees if almost every Bill goes to a Standing Committee, therefore we have only to deal with the Report stage, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. In any case the main question now is, what is to be the procedure upon the Report

    1085
    stage? I agree that in order to make the system of Standing Committees work well you must be guarded against excessive discussion upon Report, because you will have a large number of Bills coming down as it were together from the Standing Committees approaching the month of July, probably, and you will have to pass those Bills through their Report stages before a reasonable time in the month of August. Therefore, you do need some precaution; otherwise you will have a great congestion of business on the Report stage, much more than under, the present procedure, because you will have all the Bills coming down for Report at nearly the same moment. I also agree with the Government that probably the least objectionable restriction of Debate is to give a power of selection. But the power of selection is open to very grave criticism if it is exercised without deliberation. If it is exercised from moment to moment as the Debate on a Bill, is going on in the House, I do not care how skilful the Speaker may be, or how desirous he may be of giving those Amendments that deserved consideration the best opportunity of discussion, it is almost impossible for him amidst the pressure of Debate going on around him, to do the duty in an adequate manner. Moreover it puts the Chair in a very invidious position in regard to the Government and the majority, because if the Chair has to decide from day to day and hour to hour, as the Bill progresses, there is a constant pressure on the part of the Government and the majority, who see the time running short, to get the selection made more and more rigid and fewer Amendments considered. Therefore I believe that selection after deliberation is the right plan.
    I quite recognise that it is not very easy to invent the machinery by which that selection after deliberation can be worked. The Attorney-General stated the difficulties very clearly. The difficulties are that you want Amendments considered, and that many of them come in at the last moment. That argument of the Attorney-General applies unanswerably to the Committee stage. I do not think it is unanswerable to regard to Report, because when you reach Report stage the whole Bill has been gone through by the Standing Committee, the chairman of the Standing Committee must know what Amendments are important and what are unimportant, and it must be possible for him to advise Mr. Speaker quite accur-
    1086
    ately as to what Amendments deserve consideration. It is quite easy, too, for those hon. Members who have sat on and have attended the proceedings of the Standing Committees themselves to know what Amendments ought to be brought before the House on Report and to put the Amendments down in goodtime. The unexpected ought not to arise on Report after careful examination in Committee. Therefore I see no reason why Members should not be required to put their Amendments down within a specified time. I suggest five days after the Report has been made to the House; that represents one Parliamentary week. Those are the only Amendments I would allow to be put as a right except Amendments moved by those in charge of the Bill.
    I would also allow Amendments to be moved by the general consent of the House. The Attorney-General is apparently unaware that that is what in his profession would be called "a term of art." It has a quite definite and well-understood meaning. For example, you cannot take the Third Reading of a Bill on the same day as the Report stage of that Bill, except by the general consent of the House. That does not mean that any individual can stop the majority doing what they wish. It has been ruled from the Chair that you must have a considerable body of opinion, a section of the House, to stop it. I know that it is not precisely defined how many, but it is possible to take, by the general consent of the House, proceedings which are not opposed by any considerable section. Of course there are some things which can only be done by universal consent. I therefore propose that an Amendment which may be for the general convenience shall be accepted. I have handed in additional words in manuscript to meet any criticism made by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Suffolk dealing with the case of a consequential Amendment arising upon an Amendment which had been put in on Report without the consequences having been fully foreseen. It would be necessary to insert such a consequential Amendment, and I therefore propose to insert the words "unless in the opinion of Mr. Speaker it arises out of an Amendment already agreed to on Report and ought to be considered by the House," that is, in common phrase, with the consent of the Chair, with the exception that I propose to give in the Standing Order directions to the Chair how

    1087
    to exercise this discretion. With that machinery it will be quite possible to work deliberate selection.
    10.0 p.m.
    Like all elaborate machinery its details are open to a great deal of criticism. You must do something. I do not think you can leave Report quite as free as it has been, because you will have a congestion of business towards the close of the Session. Selection is better than Closure by compartments or even Closure under the Rule, that is, Closure down to certain words or of particular parts of the Bill. Closure by selection is infinitely better if it is made once for all, not from time to time, and is made deliberately. Therefore I suggest that although there may be certain inconveniences in the machinery I am proposing, on the whole this is the best course to take. If you have deliberate selection made once for all by Mr. Speaker, you get the maximum of security against an obstructive and dilatory Debate and the minimum of injury to the legitimate opportunities of those who are anxious to oppose a Bill in a proper and Parliamentary manner. I am sure that every Member of experience in the House will agree with me that the moving of Amendments, whether moved in Committee or on Report, is not only defensible if they are legitimate improvements of the Bill, but is also defensible if they are part of a detailed opposition. It is a perfectly legitimate exercise, if it is not done obstructively, and it is the right of opponents to a Bill to expose the weak spots of a Bill by moving Amendments. A great many people often speak on the amending stages of a Bill, either Committee or Report, as if they were only entitled to put in small detailed Amendments about which there was no particular controversy. There is a perfectly legitimate Parliamentary object in exposing the weak points of a Bill by detailing them on this and that point all the way down. Notoriously it had the greatest possible effect on the Home Rule Bill of 1893. This procedure has often been used in more recent times, and is, as I say, perfectly legitimate. It is not to be confused with obstructive or purely dilatory tactics, which are often indulged in merely to take up the time of the House. I conceive that the selection proposed, properly and deliberately made, would exclude that sort of detailed criticism of a Bill which was dilatory and obstructive, while, at the same time, it would not exclude Amend-
    1088
    ments designed to expose the various weak points of a Bill which were really part of an elaborate Opposition. So I put forward this rather elaborate machinery in the hope that it may engage the attention of the House and receive the favourable consideration of the Government. Before I sit down I would direct attention to the last words of the proposed Amendment in my name which appear at the bottom of the Amendments to the proposal of the Government:
    "No Bill reported from a Standing Committee shall be considered until the Speaker has completed the selection of new Clauses and Amendments and such selected Clauses and Amendments have been printed and circulated."
    This would, of course, secure that every Member would come down to the House knowing precisely the business before the House, and would not be taken by surprise. Human nature being what it is, it is often very vexing and upsetting to come down and find that an Amendment to which one attached importance and on which one was prepared to speak was not going to be taken. This other way would enable the business of the House to be more efficiently conducted.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: I desire, if I can, to avoid the repetition of what I said a few moments ago upon the proposal of the Government. The Noble Lord was quite right in thinking that careful consideration has been given to the Amendment, and that every argument he has put before the House has been taken into account. I was at first disposed to favour this Amendment, but upon further and closer examination, I am bound to say that I myself am unable to accept it. Let us just see what is the subject-matter of this Amendment, and what exactly is the change that the Noble Lord proposes to make in the proposal of the Government. The Government proposal is in reference to Amendments and new Clauses in Committee, and upon Report. It makes the proposal that in dealing with Amendments Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall have power to prescribe and select the Amendments which have to be discussed. That is the proposal which the Government makes. My hon. Friend's Amendment falls really into two parts, the first part deals only with Amendments and new Clauses upon the Report stage, but when we come to the last and unfinished sentence of the Amendment that, because it

    1089
    is going to be tacked on to the Government's proposal, will refer no less to Committee than to Report.
    Lord H. CECIL: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Amendment he will see that I cut out the Committee altogether. If accepted the Amendment would not change the procedure in Committee at all. That would remain as it is now. The effect is to leave out all reference to Committees.
    Sir G. HEWART: If that is so I have not quite followed it, but at any rate it does not affect what I am about to say. Let me deal first with that part of the Amendment which comes before the last sentence. The proposal is that where a Bill has been reported from Standing Committees no Amendment or new Clause shall be moved unless, and then follow three conditions, everyone of which has to be satisfied. One of these three conditions has to be satisfied. The observation I make is that in regard to the first it is impracticable. It involves this, that notice has to be given of the Amendment or new Clause within five days after the Report has been made, being days on which the House has set. Five days is a full Parliamentary week. That would involve a period far too long, especially at certain periods of the Session. The difficulty is that as soon as one begins to think of any particular number of days the same practical difficulty arises. My Noble Friend may say that that is not the whole proposal. There is an alternative proposal, and that is that no Amendment of the Clause is to be moved except by the Member who has prepared and brought in the Bill. Why should the power, whatever it may be, of moving Amendments or new Clauses at that stage be in any degree limited to the Member who has prepared and brought in the Bill? Thirdly, it is said that an Amendment or a new Clause may be moved if it is moved with the general consent of the House. Does that mean more than this, that Mr. Speaker or, as it may be, the Chairman, is satisfied that it is the general desire of the House that a particular Amendment should be moved? When one looks at all these proposals, what is there in them—I say it with all respect—which improves upon the plan of the Government, the essence of which is to leave it to the discretion, the experience, and the wisdom of the Chair to deal not beforehand but at the time,
    1090
    with the changing, fluctuating course of the Debate itself, and to select those Amendments, which may be on the Paper, or which may be manuscript Amendments, which in the opinion of the Chair ought to be discussed. I say in all seriousness that, having considered the matter with care, there is nothing in these proposals which in our opinion practically improves the proposals which the Government have put upon the Paper. There remains one thing further: my Noble Friend goes on to suggest that the Speaker shall make his selection after consultation with the Chairman of the Standing Committee. It is not to be suggested seriously that the Speaker would refrain from consultation. Is it not obvious that that is the very first step he would take?
    Lord H. CECIL: He might not have the opportunity. Many questions might come on without notice, and there would be no opportunity of consulting anyone.
    Sir G. HEWART: No doubt, with regard to Amendments which were not on the Paper, he might have to make a selection, but with regard to all Amendments which were on the Paper, and which were capable of consultation Mr. Speaker would consult the Chairman of the Standing Committee. There remains, the further Amendment that is to provide that no report from the Standing Committee shall be considered until the Speaker has completed his selection. That again, involves a delay which, in particular cases, might be an intolerable delay. The whole of this suggestion is based on the main proposition that the task of selection should be performed, as my Noble Friend says, not without deliberation. It is never performed without deliberation. There can be deliberation beforehand about Amendments which appear to the Paper. The point that I am concerned to make is that in order that there may be deliberation no such interval as is suggested is required, and no such machinery as is proposed by this Amendment if practicable.
    Mr. RENWICK: I am not satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment of the Noble Lord, at any rate, does help us on the right road. I cannot for the life of me understand why when a Bill, which has been considered upstairs, comes before us we should not have a full opportunity of discussing it. This is the only opportunity we have of discussing it. According to the new Rule

    1091
    we are going to hear what takes place upstairs. When the Bill comes down this is the only opportunity we have of discussing it, and we should be allowed to discuss it without any of these elaborate precautions to prevent discussions which are put forward by the Government Amendments. I would like to know when the Speaker does not approve of an Amendment whether he is going to send for hon. Members and cross-question them about what they mean by the Amendment. Are we to stand in a queue to come before him to be cross-questioned by him? It is not fair to the Speaker. Is he going to set up a sort of confessional and have we to confess before him what we think and what we do? That is not what we want. We want to discuss the Bills after they come downstairs. We want to discuss them in a straightforward manner. I defy any new Member to understand what is meant by these elaborate proposals, and the elaborate arguments of the Attorney-General. I do sincerely hope that the Government will not press this question. I know perfectly well what it means. I know that when the Bill comes down from upstairs we shall be told that it has been well considered upstairs, and that it is quite unnecessary to have further discussion upon it, and when we put down Amendments to the Bill they will be cut out or closured. I therefore sincerely hope that the Government will accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. It does not go as far as I would like it to go, but it does go a step in the direction of preserving some means of discussing the measures when they come downstairs on Report.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. I will go further than that. There is one thing which the Government in connection with these proposals seem to forget altogether. By the Amendment of the Rules they want to save the time of the House of Commons, and at the same time want to limit the opportunities of private Members to discuss the various Bills which come before the House. Under the new procedure a Bill may be passed through Committee by twenty or twenty-one Members of the House, and unless this Amendment is carried the decision of eleven Members of a Standing Committee will, practically speaking, be an Instruction to the House.
    1092
    In saving the time of the House we ought to see that there is ample opportunity to discuss Bills on the Report stage. The Government may attempt to stifle discussion on Bills here, but they are not going to stifle discussion of those Bills in the country. It is better to go slowly in there form of procedure than to go quickly. I think the Government are going the wrong way about the matter. There is one thing which seems to have escaped the attention of the Government and I am afraid of my right hon. Friend here, and that is the human clement in connection with the proceedings of the House of Commons. We have been told about Scottish Grand Committees and I think we have certain Members here who can see nothing but Scotland. We have got to remember we are sent here not to legislate for Scotland or England or Wales, but to legislate for Great Britain and Ireland. That being so, I advise the Government to go slowly on this matter. Members are extremely jealous of the rights and privileges and powers of the House, and therefore I hope the Government will accept this Amendment, or at any rate will adjourn the Debate, and consider the advisability of bringing forward an Amendment of their own to meet the situation. Personally, I have no jealousy of Members as to their rights and privileges, and I do not want to see the power of Parliament taken out of the hands of this Assembly and placed in the hands of eleven Members of a Standing Committee.
    Amendment negatived.
    Main Question again proposed.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned." I do this in order that the Bill, which was taken a stage yesterday, which is urgent, and in regard to which I think there is no opposition, may be now taken.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR EDWIN CORNWALL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

  LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Expenses of Local Elections.)
    Subsection (1) of Section five of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act,

    1093
    1884, and Sub-section (1) of Section nine of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, l890 (which, prescribe the maximum amount of the expenses of candidates), shall have effect, both as originally enacted and as applied by any other Act, as though "two pence for each elector" were substituted for "three pence for each elector."
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words,
    "Provided that no person shall be liable to any penalty or disability in respect of expenditure in excess of the amount permitted under the said Acts, as amended by this Act, but not in excess of the amount which would have been permitted if this Act had not been passed, if this excess was due to expenses that had been bonâ fide incurred or for which his had made himself liable before the passing of this Act which would not have been incurred or for which he would not have made himself liable if this Act had been in operation, and any person entitled to apply for relief under Section 20 of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and illegal Practices) Act, 1884, or Section 24 of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890, may apply for relief on the ground that the excess was due to such cause, and that these Sections shall have effect accordingly."
    We are not desirous of doing anything which is likely to interfere with the passing of the Bill, seeing how near the county council elections are, but still, it leaves open all sorts of questions with regard to expenses that may be incurred or may have been incurred previous to the passing of this Bill. Hon. Members will no doubt appreciate that the Bill reduces the expenses of candidates by one third. This Clause, if accepted by the House, will mean that chose who have, unfortunately, entered into arrangements for the purchase of stationery, and so forth will be exculpated under this Bill, and I have no doubt, should any cases come up in the Law Courts after the passing of this, at all events every latitude will be given. I do not know whether I may be permitted to say so, but, of course, it is quite possible that after the passing of this Act it may be necessary to bring forward further Amendments, but it is not desirable that I should do so at the present time, because it has been more or less agreed by certain municipal bodies; that this Bill should be passed in this state. But there are points, in consequence of the alteration of the Elections Act, by which free postage has been given, and with regard
    1094
    to penalties that have been put in, so that candidates shall not put themselves forward where there is, practically speaking, no possible chance of their being elected. I do not intend to deal with that at the present moment, but if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept this Amendment, so far as I am concerned I shall be quite prepared to allow the Bill to go through.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): I am advised that the Amendment carries out the spirit and intention of the understanding we arrived at yesterday. The effect is that whereas candidates may before the passing of the Act have committed themselves to expenses which would have brought them above the maximum of 2d. per elector, notwithstanding the increased number of electors proposed to be allowed by the Act, the Amendment will exempt them from any penalties. I am glad to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Short Title) agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND [ADVANCES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the issue of certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the Civil Contingencies fund—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Dr. Addison]—To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes before Eleven o'clock.

INCOME TAX.
  ELECTION EXPENSES.
  ELECTION EXPENSES.
  PREMIUM BONDS.
  PREMIUM BONDS.
  SAVINGS.
  SAVINGS.
  AIR RAID DAMAGE.
  AIR RAID DAMAGE.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT).
  SPIRITS.
  SPIRITS.
ROAD IMPROVEMENT (GREAT BRITAIN).
  SPECIAL GRANT.
  SPECIAL GRANT.
  ARMY PAY (BONUS).
  ARMY PAY (BONUS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CATTLE AND SHEEP.
  CATTLE AND SHEEP.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  ORANGES.
  ORANGES.
  PRICES (COMMITTEE).
  PRICES (COMMITTEE).
  FLOUR MILL, ABERGAVENNY.
  FLOUR MILL, ABERGAVENNY.
  MARGARINE.
  MARGARINE.
  MAIZE.
  MAIZE.
IRELA
  LORD HALDANE.
  LORD HALDANE.
  MRS. BESANT (LECTURES).
  MRS. BESANT (LECTURES).
  RECONSTRUCTION.
  RECONSTRUCTION.
  CATTLE (EXPORTATION).
  CATTLE (EXPORTATION).
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL OFFICERS (GRATUITY).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (GRATUITY).
  INVALID TRICYCLE.
  INVALID TRICYCLE.
  CHILDLESS WIVES (APPLICATION FORMS).
  CHILDLESS WIVES (APPLICATION FORMS).
  POSTAL SERVANTS.
  POSTAL SERVANTS.
DEMOBILISATION.
  STUDENTS.
  STUDENTS.
  ORDER OF DISCHARGE.
  ORDER OF DISCHARGE.
  HANTS REGIMENT (PRIVATE A. ROBINSON).
  HANTS REGIMENT (PRIVATE A. ROBINSON).
  TROOPS IN SIBERIA.
  TROOPS IN SIBERIA.
  ARMY OFFICERS, MESOPOTAMIA.
  ARMY OFFICERS, MESOPOTAMIA.
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES.
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (WOOLWICH).
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (WOOLWICH).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  OFFICERS.
  OFFICERS.
  WAR PAY.
  WAR PAY.
  RETAIL BUSINESS (LICENSING) ORDER.
  RETAIL BUSINESS (LICENSING) ORDER.
MUNITIONS.
  CONTRACTORS (BLACK LIST)
  CONTRACTORS (BLACK LIST)
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
  AEMY OFFICERS (TRAINING).
  AEMY OFFICERS (TRAINING).
DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  MEDICAL TREATMENT.
  MEDICAL TREATMENT.
  SECONDARY SCHOOL, BISHOP'S CASTLE.
  SECONDARY SCHOOL, BISHOP'S CASTLE.
  LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES.
  LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES.
  RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (DEPORTATION).
  RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (DEPORTATION).
  MENTALLY DEFECTIVES (ACCOMMODATION).
  MENTALLY DEFECTIVES (ACCOMMODATION).
  COAL.
  COAL.
  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS).
  DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS).
  WAR CHARITY.
  WAR CHARITY.
HOUSING.
  SCHEMES.
  SCHEMES.
  DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HOUSING.
  DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HOUSING.
  STREET IMPROVEMENTS (LOANS).
  STREET IMPROVEMENTS (LOANS).
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  METROPOLITAN TRAVELLING FACILITIES.
  METROPOLITAN TRAVELLING FACILITIES.
  PROPOSED RAILWAY ROUTE.
  PROPOSED RAILWAY ROUTE.
  MINING ROYALTIES (COMMISSION REPORT).
  MINING ROYALTIES (COMMISSION REPORT).
  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  IRON AND STEEL (EXPORT TRADE).
  IRON AND STEEL (EXPORT TRADE).
  EXPORT TRADE.
  EXPORT TRADE.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  PAY.
  PAY.
  POSTAL, TELEGRAPHIC, AND TELEPHONIC FACILITIES.
  POSTAL, TELEGRAPHIC, AND TELEPHONIC FACILITIES.
  REGISTERED LETTERS, BURNLEY.
  REGISTERED LETTERS, BURNLEY.
  ALLOTMENT HOLDERS' LOSSES.
  ALLOTMENT HOLDERS' LOSSES.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS, SCOTLAND.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS, SCOTLAND.
  ROSYTH DOCKYARD (POLICE).
  ROSYTH DOCKYARD (POLICE).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (ARMY RESERVISTS).
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (ARMY RESERVISTS).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SALARIES OF THE CLERGY.
LORD STRATHSPEY LORD STRATHSPEY had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the question of the wrongful position of many of the clergy of our National Church, which is largely due to the starvation salaries which they receive.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have two reasons for bringing this matter forward on behalf of the clergy of the Church of England. One is that I understand that the majority of the clergy of the other Churches have had increased stipends, and the other is that I have had so many applications from English Church clergy all over the country to bring the matter forward that in the ordinary course of events I could not refuse to do so. I have not, of course, received applications from the clergy of other denominations. I cannot bring up all the letters that I have received on the subject, but I propose to read portions of some that have been sent to me in order to give your Lordships an idea of what the clergy in different parts of the country think of the matter.
Religion is a peculiar thing. We do not all think alike concerning it. Some people take religion from their birth, but the majority have to be coached up to it. A clergyman must be able to keep up a certain appearance in the eyes of the ordinary man in the street. We sometimes hear the remark, as a clergyman passes, "That is our poor parson." When that is the state of religion in the country it is a deplorable thing. A clergyman is supposed to be a teacher on this earth of our Creator. When the people in the street regard him with scorn, sneer at him, and call him "The poor parson," I say it is a deplorable state of affairs for religion. It is a well-known fact, ever since the time of the Israelites, that if religion had not a sufficient hold on any country that country would not last for any length of time. If, instead of our clergymen having paltry sums of £100 a year, each one had an income of £1,000
168
or more the country would thereby be greatly benefited.
When I came back to this country in 1913 I was ashamed and disgusted at the state in which I found it. It was absolutely going to decay. It is no exaggeration to say that the war has pulled the country together as nothing else could have done. We all, of course, deplore the war because of the loss of life that it involved, but the fact remains that the war pulled the country together and has pulled religion together. It has given the people an idea of religion, and has taught them to understand religion better. This will give you some idea of the necessity—
"Not money alone but workers must be found. The Church is understaffed, its clergy are underpaid. There is no monetary attraction to draw men to the ministry of the Church. The war has deprived the Church of more than 2,000 clergy, several thousands of lay helpers and social workers are needed for the task of reconstruction; the Church has no central fund to provide them. There are men knocking at the door of the Church inspired by the Divine call to its service. Chaplains serving at the front have found that war, in bringing men closer to the realities of life and death, has bred in a number of them a burning desire to take Holy Orders and serve in the cause of peace as they have served in the cause of freedom. Few of these men have private means; the fulfilment of their vocation is denied them unless their training can be assisted or provided for them. The Church of England must not close its doors to such men. They are the very men for the work of spiritual reconstruction. They have lived with their comrades in the trenches and seen them fall in battle, they have shared their hardships and their peril, and they have learned the secrets of their souls. The nation dare not lose the moral inspiration which these men eagerly tender."
Most of these men come from what we call the middle classes. The middle class in this country are in most cases an unfortunate class. They have to suffer in many cases untold miseries. They are a very proud race. They are not like the ordinary labouring class here. The miners and all those other classes, if they want anything, strike; they have unions. It is not so with the middle classes or with the clergy. Here is a letter from a clergyman:
"One of the chief causes of our poverty is the rating of the clergy fund."
The clergy are rated on every possible occasion, and on some occasions they are rated twice on one income. They are even rated on Easter offerings. He goes on—
"Most of the laity are utterly ignorant that such is the case. It is quite a usual thing for

169
the parson to pay twice as much in rates as his lay neighbour."
This is from another letter—
"The Manchester rectors are still worrying the Ecclesiastical Commissioners about an extra grant. We (the rectors) consider that we are not getting sufficient from the Commissioners out of the Manchester Chapter revenues There are large sums of money belonging to the ancient parish of Manchester, and all the parishes formed out of the ancient parish are entitled to benefit by those moneys. The money is paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and they redistribute it among the rectors. Some of us get £250 a year, others £300 a year, from them. We claim that the funds will allow an increase of £25 a year, at least, all round. We further claim that the Income Tax justly belongs to us and would allow of a further grant being made.
Here is another ease. It is a small matter in itself but refers to the income of a clergyman. Prior to 1914 the stipend of the living was £400 a year. The war has generally decreased pew rents and other things and to-day this clergyman has an income of £344. That is a general loss to that poor clergyman of £56 a year. In the meantime, with the war and other factors, the costs have gone up to double, so that if the original amount of £400 were still being paid it would be worth about £200 to-day. In the ordinary course of events a clergyman is Christ's representative on this earth and his position should be on a pedestal, and a proper degree of reverence should be paid to him, instead of his being pointed at as "the poor parson." It is deplorable, and it is utterly impossible for any country in the world to last and to remain in a prosperous state so long as religion is not cultivated.
I remember about seven or eight years ago this country began to consider that religion wanted revival, but it did not consider whether it wanted revival in this country. Instead of that, it sent missionaries to New Zealand—my little country. Very likely it was not thought of seriously beforehand, but that action in itself was an insult to New Zealand. We are not saying that we are so good that we do not want missionaries there, but the fact was that the fault and the remedy lay with this country and the fault and the remedy lies with this country to-day. It is not the least good sending missionaries to New Zealand, Australia, or elsewhere until you have remedied this country first of all.
The state of the majority of the clergy here to-day is simply one of slavery. We are a free nation, a free Empire; we have done away with slavery years ago, but
170
to-day it is, practically speaking, a matter of slavery to the clergy. In the "Church Directory" we find that the vicarage of East Ham has a population of 50,000 and the vicar gets an income of £360 a year. That is a large income for a vicar! The "London Diocesan Book" shows that All Hallows, Barking, has a population of 289 and an income of £1,823. All Hallows, Lombard Street—population 202, income £1,280; St. Edmund the King, Lombard Street—population 77, income £1,374; St. Peter, Cornhill—populatien 102, income £871. In the Rural Deanery of West City, St. Alphage, London Wall, has a population of 36, and the income is £1,010. All Saints, Twickenham, has a population of 5,000; the income is £200 a year, out of which the vicar has to pay rent, rates, and taxes. It is obvious that this does not leave much to live upon, let alone, if he has a family, educating the children and bringing them up in accordance with his position. With regard to the City churches, I consider that many of them are unnecessary; they should be closed, the property sold, and the proceeds allocated for the relief of poverty among many of the clergy by increasing endowments.
I do not want your Lordships to run away with the idea that I wish to reconstruct the country; I am here for the sake of clergymen and for the sake of religion in general. In this country there are a number of private living. Are those livings out for the good of religion and mankind? It seems to me that they are out more to help the man with influence and money. For instance, a clergyman friend of mine was once after a living and he was asked plainly whether he had influence or money; and he was told that if he had neither the one nor the other he had not much chance of getting on. I have seen a number of cases where men thus circumstanced have remained at the bottom of the ladder. It naturally follows that if religion is to retain its proper footing in the country there must be reconstruction.
Let me give your Lordships another illustration. Some years ago a young married man was appointed to a living in Cornwall with the magnificent stipend of £40 a year. After remaining there for seventeen years the income was increased to about £60 a year. The clergyman was then moved to another parish where the income

171
was about £117 or £118 a year. He thought he was in clover, but owing to the hardships incurred in trying to live on £40 a year and endeavouring to perform all the work of his late parish, he became ill and died. I should say that the vicarage in which he had lived was a thirty-roomed house. This man naturally could not leave any money behind for redecoration, so Queen Anne's Bounty lent £800 for the purpose. At 5 per cent. interest that meant £40, which, deducted from the miserably small income of £117, left only £77 a year. This being the position, no clergyman could be got to take on the living and the thirty-roomed vicarage; therefore the place dropped to pieces, and Queen Anne's Bounty lost their money. Clergymen are faced with increased rates and taxes, but they have had no increase in income to meet this extra expense. Some people have received increased wages, war bonuses, overtime, double pay, and so on, all over the country, but this has not been the case with regard to the clergy. What would the miners or the engineers say if they were in the position of the clergy? They strike. But the clergymen do not; they sit down and suffer because they are out for the cause of religion and of mankind.
While I am on this subject I want to ask the Bishops of England whether they have considered this matter. Have they considered allowing clergymen to increase their fees for marriages, and so on? These are small items in themselves, but they all help to increase the stipends. It has often been said to me that men in the English Church get big salaries, but my opinion is that no man in the Church gets sufficient. If a man in the English Church received £50,000 a year he would not have enough to live upon if he were a good man and lived accordingly. I do not consider that any vicar, however small his parish, should receive less than £100 a year, and no curate should receive less than £250.
Another illustration. Some time ago in Manchester the Ecclesiastical Commissioners stated that they would give a bonus to all clergymen whose incomes were under £310 a year, but that promise has not been fully carried out. The income of one of the clergy in this district for 1916 was under £310, but he received a bonus of only £10. In 1917, his income was still under £310 but he did not even get the £10 bonus. In my opinion it was
172
an insult to offer such a small sum as that. In 1918 his income was over £310, but in the meantime he had gone to another parish with a slightly increased stipend. This gentleman had a lot of correspondence with regard to the subject, but eventually he gave it up.
I come now to a very important matter. The Commissioners in the Manchester district have invested £1,500,000 in War Lean, and year by year since the war started they have invested £400,000 to form a reserve fund. They are doing all this while their poor unfortunate clergy are starving, and, it is to be remembered, not tire clergyman alone but his family. During the last year or two food has been scarce and expensive. Has any one of us considered what the children of the clergy are doing? Have they had enough to eat or enough firing? It is the children we have to consider, and the poor unfortunate clergyman goes without himself in order to feed his children. This money, this £400,000, belongs to the clergy. It is Church money and the clergy are servants of the Church. Railway servants, Civil servants, and everybody else, have received increases in wages and war bonuses, but the servants of the Church can stand and starve while a reserve is built up. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are not helpful to the clergy, but put every obstacle in the way. If a clergyman wants money he is told that there is no money for that purpose, and here they are piling up money. For what purpose?
Here is another unfortunate thing connection with the clergy. A clergyman has been ten, twelve, or twenty years in a house, and whether he has been a good occupier or not, when he leaves he has to redecorate or pay for it Himself. A clergyman ought to get a house free. It ought not to be a question about paying for anything. The clergy include the finest body of men in England. I have been in a Church of England College in Australia, and I have seen the work they do. It is marvellous the work they do. They are a magnificent body of men. If they were not they would not continue to work for the Church to-day on such terms of starvation and slavery. I am out for the British Empire every time, and because I am out for the British Empire I am standing up here to-day endeavouring to put religion on a better footings If the clergy are not on a proper

173
footing religion cannot possibly be, and I say that the clergy to-day are on a rotten footing.
Another clergyman says that his first "living," or "starving" was in 1896. The gross value was £132 and the net value £91. He had to pay £24 16 s. 5d. to Queen Anne's Bounty for a loan to a former vicar for improvements to the house. This man also had to pay between 1895 and 1897 to the Diocesan Society for Proctors' Fees, &c., £13 7s. 6d. About 1895 a neighbouring clergyman had a living worth £332 net, and had to pay over £30 a year for stables built by a former vicar. This man not want the stables. Another clergyman had twelve children and many pupils. His vicarage required enlarging, so he borrowed from Queen Anne's Bounty and built many rooms. He only stopped for a few years, and when he left somebody else had to take the house on and pay extra. There is one man who is paid £100 a year though he has no church. I understand that he gives one service a year on the spot where the church used to stand. Another clergyman says—
"The main difficulty of the clergy is that they are expected to be able to live now on the same income they had before the war. This, with the depreciation in the value of money, increased taxation and cost of living, is almost impossible—I might say quite impossible on the smaller incomes. The income of this living is £252 a year, and a vicarage. The house is much larger than I want, and is rated at £35 a year."
The calls for various subscriptions, he says, are not heavy but are continuous, and he goes on to say that on the night before he wrote this letter a woman was dying in his neighbourhood and he took the eiderdown quilt off his bed and sent it to her. If that is returned to him he cannot keep it, because it may be infected with some infectious disease, and he will have to destroy it. That happens to clergymen times without number. And just look at the income on which they have to do it. Yet they are expected to keep up the position of a gentleman. This clergyman says—
"On this income of £252 a year I have to educate three children, keep one servant, have a gardener occasionally, subscribe and go to all local functions, keep myself abreast with current knowledge and literature, and take the position of an educated gentleman with half the income of the village grocer. This was hardly possible in pre-war days—it is quite impossible now."
174
There is a very good scheme called the Equal Dividend Fund, and I will read it—
"To meet these needs, due to the altered condition of things, why cannot the English Church wake up and help itself in a practical manner? It can best do so by adopting a scheme such as the Equal Dividend Fund, which for many years has been successfully worked in the Scottish Episcopal Church, and by which the incomes of all incumbents have been augmented by nearly £100 a year. What has been effected in a comparatively poor Communion could easily be surpassed in wealthy Dioceses in England. The benefits of such a scheme are obvious. It brings before every congregation the duty of the living Church to support its ministry. Clergy who cannot beg for an increase of stipend from their own pulpits can make known the benefits accruing to the whole Church by the working of such a scheme. Wealthy parishes are reminded of this duty, and are able to help the poorer ones. Its simplicity commends it, for it is easily worked, and it interests both clergy and laity of every parish, as every contributing parish benefits.
"The scheme is briefly this. On a given Sunday sermons are preached for the Fund, and collections made, supplemented by donations from those unable to be present. The total is pooled, and an equal dividend paid to the incumbents of all contributing parishes. By this means the incomes of the beneficed clergy would be augmented, leaving the Diocesan Fund better able to cope with the needs of the unbeneficed. The Fund gives every parishioner the privilege and opportunity of doing his bit.' Comparatively few of the community can send in cheques, but the silver coins of the millions will help to solve-the problem of how to give the clergy a 'living wage.'"
Another clergyman writes—
"Together with a cheque for £18 7s. 7d., £8 1s. 9d. Income Tax having been deducted, I received a circular from the governor of the Bank of England asking me to invest it in War Loan—"
I suppose this clergyman had about £100 a year, with from £15 to £18 deducted for rates and taxes—
"I really cannot help thinking that most people imagine the clergy live of the Gospel' and are clothed with humility and need not the means of life common to others. As an example of the present condition of the clergy I give brief particulars of some of my nearest neighbours. The first is eighty-four years of age, with an income of £287. The second is a man well over seventy, and an income of £185. The third is over seventy, with an income of £420. In each case there is a vicarage house, and in each case this house is much too large—in the last quite three times the size required, and therefore a considerable source of expense. Of these three only the last, with its income of £420, seems worthy the name of a living,' but as a matter of fact the house is so large and its upkeep so costly that it is hardly as good as the others. The layman will say, 'Why do not these men retire?' The reason is that there is no retiring pension for the clergy. I am told that the Bishops, or some of them, think the clergy in fault for not joining the Clergy Pension Scheme. Then, I answer, why did not they say

175
so before and at the proper time? I spent nearly a week in the Bishop's Palace where I was ordained and nothing of the kind was suggested to me, and I only learned the existence of this Society years afterwards from the Church Times. It was then too late to join owing to the amount of annual premium required."
Another writer states—
"With reference to this serious question might I suggest that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Queen Anne's Bounty, Universities, and other more or less public bodies connected with ecclesiastical affairs, might do well to take advantage of the high prices now being realised for property, also of the high percentage now obtainable in first-class securities, and sell their estates or a considerable portion of them—urban as well as agricultural. By adopting this practical course they would undoubtedly be able largely to increase grants and stipends, and so extend their benefactions, whilst the purchase moneys realised, if lent to the Government, would greatly assist the country generally."
It is also recommended that these different Commissioners, Queen Anne's Bounty, and others, should join together instead of there being separate Commissioners.
To my mind there is no sadder spectacle than that of a shabby, half-starved parson passing rich on £70 or £100 a year. I remember a clergyman once saying that before you attempt to convert a man you must feed him. "God," he said, "does not like half-starved angels," and I am sure He does not like half-starved ministers of His Gospel. I am bound to add, in conclusion, that if the State Church does not acknowledge its duty in this matter the State must step in and act for the Church. The sooner the better. As the matter stands now, it is a disgrace to the whole world.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not wish to intrude very long upon your Lordships this afternoon, but the subject which the noble Lord has brought before the House is one of the highest possible importance and the extremest urgency, and one upon which I should welcome every possible light that can be thrown, and all the consideration that can be given to it by those best qualified to investigate the whole facts. The condition of things, as shown by everybody who has looked into the matter, is at this moment one for which a solution is most urgently required. It is impossible to exaggerate the need that is being found at this moment in not a few of the clerical homes of this country, and I need hardly say that day by day this
176
matter is before all of us on whom a sense of responsibility rests, and there is a desire to find some way, if it be possible, to meet, not temporarily but permanently, the requirements which are so clamant at this moment.
I bid welcome to the noble Lord as a recruit to the ranks of those who are trying to handle these subjects. The noble Lord tells us that his experience has been in New Zealand. That no doubt accounts for the fact that he is, perhaps, a little less familiar than he would have been in England with the efforts which are being made and the public ventilation given to not a few of the topics that he has brought before us to-day. I listened with the greatest care to what the noble Lord said, and I think I could show him, if it were necessary, that two-thirds of the matters to which he has referred have been the subject not of private but of public consultation and consideration in the councils of the Church and the Convocations of the Church, and in this House itself during the last few years, and that at this moment we have efforts for dealing with a good many man of the problems he has raised, although I grieve to say we can only deal with them at present to a very inadequate extent.
I trust the noble Lord will give us an opportunity of taking counsel with him on these matters. I welcome the attention which he is paying to the subject and the sympathy he is evidently showing to some of our interests and needs. The noble Lord asked, I think more than once, "Have the Bishops really considered these matters?" The Bishops, I was going to say, are doing little else. These matters are before us every day, and almost every letter which the noble Lord read from the Church newspapers have been before me and have received an answer, or, if the question is a practical one, it is at this moment under consideration. He has dealt with four or five large and difficult subjects, including questions of rating of the clergy and the city benefices about which I could explain to him a good deal, but it would be quite out of place to deal with it now. The noble Lord must be aware that the work of these parishes does not consist of those who reside there. The residents may total only seventy, but those who occupy and attend these parish churches from day to day, those churches which the noble Lord criticised, are numerous and are increasing in numbers.

177
The change for the better is a matter for daily observation. I do not want to deal with this subject now, because I hope the noble Lord will give me an opportunity of going into some of these matters with him, when I hope I might be able to throw a little light for him on a great many of the subjects he has touched upon, and probably draw some assistance from him. Our deliberations on these matters have not been confined to the last two or three months, but have been spread over several years past. They are problems which are always with us, and some of theta are the most difficult to solve in our administrative life.
The noble Lord asked why the Church of England had no central fund to assist those men in the Army who wanted to be ordained. If there is one thing I have been doing ceaselessly for a long time it is to proclaim that we have a great central fund to deal with this subject, and we have over 2,000 men who desire to be ordained. We have made arrangements for their training, and as soon as the demobilisation of the Army is completed we shall have a larger number in training. I am pleased to thick that in the noble Lord we shall have another advocate of the call we are making to the country, and I have no doubt he will be able to help us in raising funds for a cause Which he has so eloquently advocated to-day. We shall welcome his help, but the subject is somewhat too long for one to deal with in its entirety to-day. I thank him, however, for having brought forward the matter, for no subject is more earnest or more in need of attention, and he has helped us materially towards an attempt to solve it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the observations by the most rev. Primate make it almost unnecessary to add anything on behalf of the Government. No person of sensibility can be blind to the tragedies to which the speech of the noble Lord draws attention. It is indeed painful to the utmost degree that persons whose duties are to preach the Gospel should not be afforded in this life the means of a decent subsistence and should not be relieved from those anxieties the grinding pressure of which must disable them in the discharge of their duties. The speech of the noble Lord gave evidence of zeal and industry, and I, for one, gladly welcome
178
the suggestion made by the most rev. Primate that the noble Lord should place himself in communication with the representatives of the Church in this House and with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have devoted much thought and labour to these very problems. I am sure that the influence of the noble Lord will enable the representatives of the Church and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to decide whether it is necessary or proper to appeal to the Government for help.

INDUSTRIAL UNREST.
Debate on the Motion of Lord BUCKMASTER—viz., "That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the present industrial and economic conditions",—resumed (according to Order).
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I think there was a general feeling expressed by those who spoke in the Debate last night, that in view of the menacing and uncomfortable position in which everybody seems to be placed by labour unrest, we were all more or less entitled to state—I think Lord Buckmaster used the words "with frankness and without reservation"—any views we had on what. I suppose we must call the situation, and the remedies which might possibly be found to apply to it. At the outset of his observations Lord Buckmaster referred to the very considerable inconvenience to which the public have recently been exposed by the Tube strike, and he had a good deal to say upon the looseness and ambiguous nature of certain agreements which had been arrived at which had led to misunderstanding. Here, however, authorities appear to differ, for although Lord Buckmaster declared that there had been considerable misunderstanding, and that he himself was not clear as to what had been settled, the Lord Chancellor from his seat on the Woolsack gave quite a different view and said he did not think there had been ambiguity, for if there had been all sorts of different things would have happened, and that as regards that part of the business we might all go home and sleep comfortably. I will not attempt to compose differences between such high authorities as the ex-Lord Chancellor and the present Lord Chancellor, but I submit that unless we, the public, prefer to wear or to be run by our rulers and governors in blinkers

179
it is not the precise meaning or interpretation of words and clauses in agreements that we have to understand. What we have got to understand, and what we must not shrink from, is that we have to recognise a new phase, as it were, in the body and estate of industry, that is of labour, which to my mind involves the pounds, shillings, and pence relations, and indeed precipitates for any solution the pounds, shillings, and pence relations of Capital and Labour.
Last night all sorts of causes were assigned to account for this state of things. I shall not labour that. Every noble Lord who addressed us provided some gloomy economic or picturesque contribution to the general effect and cause of the general derangement. But, after all, I think it all boils down to this—that we, the public, have got to recognise and to deal with the growing impression, perhaps even the formed resolve, of Labour that it has become entitled to receive a larger share of the profits of Capital and of what we may call the otium cum dignitate of Capital. I can see that labour is very well aware of the difficulties and the slowness of legislation; of trying to get things in a highly complicated civilisation like ours up to the profit-sharing basis for industry, which arrangement would have to be implemented by legislation. I think labour is quite aware of that, and for a moment labour claims its share of capital apparently, rightly or wrongly, in very high wages and very short hours. No doubt in the present circumstances of our national finance—which were developed, in a manner that really made me feel very uncomfortable, both by Lord Buckmaster and by Lord Lansdowne—any request of that kind is a most formidable one indeed, preferred as it is at a time when, as I think Lord Lansdowne pointed out, of all others you want output stimulated, and when you have to pay your way and have to get out of the difficulties which the great war has got us into. If labour at this moment says, "We think now we must have very much more pay, and do very much less work," the dilemma in which we are placed is sufficiently obvious to all that I need not say a word upon it. Indeed, if you get rid of the progressive desire which lies at the root of civilisation and which begets the wealth of nations, one can conceive a state of things in which the appetite of labour for high wages and for short hours would result in complete paralysis of the
180
mind and body of all the enterprise which we understand by Capital.
Lord Lansdowne referred last night to a possible remedy against that demand. Make labour comfortable that capital may not go away. He instanced the case of the works which are going to be settled at Vancouver. That might succeed in one or two cases, but a great deal of industrial capital, and a great deal of industry, cannot get away, and I do not know that we can rely upon that as a very great deterrent to labour from taking the line which it seems to be bent on taking. What is to be done? Last night all kinds of remedies were suggested. Publicity and inquiry was one remedy. Then there was candour, and the development of the Whitley Council. The latter was suggested and carefully worked out by my noble friend Lord Islington, and I think he went so far ultimately as to create a sort of super-man Whitley Council. A great deal of the noble Lord's suggestions were adopted afterwards by Lord Lansdowne, and he, I think, went so far as to say that the super-man Whitley Council, as I understood, was to have actual powers to punish delinquents. Then the Lord Chancellor relied a good deal on our old friends propaganda and education. I really do not know what propaganda was to do, but as regards education I think that one of the difficulties that we are in is that labour is perfectly well educated enough to understand balance sheets, and it has come to the conclusion, particularly since the Excess Profits Tax has realised such very large amounts to the country and the shareholders have not suffered very materially in dividends, that something can be done in time of peace out of excess profits just as it can be done in time of war, and that that something should be done in their favour.
What surprised me was an omission on the part of the Lord Chancellor, and I do not think we heard it from anybody else. I live in a pastoral country on the fringe of the West Riding and the fringe of Lancashire. A good many manufacturers have told me that much of this difficulty would disappear if something could be done to release food, if you could get food prices down and allow the ordinary laws of supply and demand to come into operation as quickly as possible. We heard nothing about that from the Lord Chancellor; yet I am bound to say it is one

181
of the things—I do not say it is the whole. Question—which lie at the root of the present phase of labour conditions in this country.
Turning to these remedies, I think that they may be all good in their way, but to my view they are only in the nature of prophylactics and palliatives. I do not believe they touch the spot. What we have to do, I think, is to find out the best and fairest way by which the results of the co-operation of Labour and Capital, that is the pounds, shillings, and pence available for divisible profits, can be shared between the parties; and beyond and above that I should not only like to see Labour admitted to a greater share of the profits Of Capital but I should like it to share in the responsibilities and the vicissitudes of the administration of industries. To summarise, and perhaps to repeat myself, I think that you have to make up your minds that somehow or other, by legislation or otherwise, we have to run this country industrially on a profit-sharing basis. That to my mind is time only way by which you can stimulate output and stabilise labour, and it will be common agreement amongst everybody that increased output and steady labour are things both requisite and necessary, indeed vital, to this country we are to pay our Way, get rid of our liabilities, get back to everyday life, and repair the great waste of the four years' war.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I shall not attempt to cover a great deal of the ground that has just been dealt with in the speech of my noble friend behind me. The general impression left upon my mind at the present moment is that at the bottom there must be some genuine misunderstanding between Capital and Labour as to the economic possibilities of the future of finance and business. Experts on every hand assure us, and I am quite convinced they are right, that there must be a hard struggle in this and succeeding years in order that we may keep our place in the industrial competition in the future, and in order that we may be able to meet foreign competition successfully, under present conditions of wages and costs, even if there is in this country complete harmony and co-operation all the time between Capital and Labour. The capitalist knows that we have been living in a fool's paradise during the war in an economic sense. He
182
knows that the adjustment of prices downwards, which is bound always to be a difficult operation, must be made much more difficult by the immense load of taxation required to pay the interest on the Debt and pay a double wages bill, and he knows that unless we can compete in the next few years successfully our commercial and financial supremacy is gone for ever. Therefore he looks with great anxiety to the future even, as I say, under the most favourable possible conditions at home.
Labour, on the other hand, appears to look upon these matters in an entirely different way. Labour appears to think, because during the war it was possible to advance wages very materially, to pay excess profits, and also to pay very satisfactory dividends on the whole; because the heavy taxes levied during the war did not bring the ruin that was prophesied when it was suggested that more should be spent on social reform—because of all these things Labour argues that it would be possible after the war and under peace conditions to go on improving the position of Labour without doing any material harm in the long run to Capital. Both sides hold these views very tenaciously, and both of them unfortunately cannot be right. Time alone can show whether the vaticinations of Capital or the more optimistic anticipations of Labour are really sound; and in the meantime the country has to make a most fateful decision—because I think it is the country, rather than the immediate combatants, that will have to make the decision.
Personally, I was often very much astonished during the war to hear the easy optimism that was talked as to what our financial condition was going to be after the war was over. Perhaps my own experience, both official and personal, may have been unfortunate. The one vital consideration, it seems to me, at the present time is to get our export trade going again. Until our export trade is going again in a satisfactory way it is perfectly impossible to make ends meet in national finance; it is perfectly impossible to, make London once again the free market for gold and the great financial centre that it was before the war. That being the prime consideration, in my mind, it has been my unfortunate fate to see immense damage being done to our export trade, some of it necessary, some of it

183
perhaps unnecessary—damage so serious that I feel a great deal of it is irreparable.
I have told the tale before, and I am not going through it in any detail to-night. But I may summarise it in this way. In the first place by the blockade, rigidly carried out as it was, we had to stop goods going to neutrals adjacent to Germany. These people were rationed; in many cases we carried out the system so far that we deliberately forced them to manufacture for themselves goods that we had been in the habit of supplying them with. Because Holland, for instance, had large stores of raw rubber we would not send Holland any rubber manufactures. The result has been that we have forced Holland to learn to manufacture for herself these goods which we supplied her with before the war, and that we might have continued to supply her with had we not taken that particular step. That is one instance out of many that I could give.
Again, it became necessary, owing to home shortage, to put a great many commodities under the charge of special controlling authorities in this country. Naturally, the special controlling authority in this country did not give its first attention to the necessity of keeping up our export trade. Very often, and very naturally, they took an extremely narrow view, and it was very difficult to induce them to allow the smallest quantity to go abroad in order to keep open the channels of our export trade so that we might go ahead again with trade after the war. That is not a question of blockade; it refers equally to countries which were not concerned in the blockade. Towards the end of the war the Treasury came in on other grounds, curtailing our exports to some of our Allies for exchange reasons. I am not complaining that that was the case. All the time our shipping conditions were growing worse. We had to stop imports on a large scale, our manufacturing was curtailed, and there was a relative loss in the export trade because the goods could not be manufactured.
In addition we absolutely killed our entrepót trade, which was reduced by the end of the war to something like one-tenth in volume, I should imagine, of what it was at the beginning. With what result? America and Japan have, quite naturally and quite properly, stepped in and taken a great deal of our trade which it will be extremely difficult for us to recover.
184
Again I say I am not complaining. Much of this was inevitable. But facts are facts, and the results will be what they must be. The facts are that, partly owing to shortage, partly owing to a deliberate policy, we have driven neutrals, both those adjacent to Germany and other neutrals, to learn to manufacture many things for themselves with which we used to supply them. We have thrown much trade into the hands of our competitors who were better able to carry on the trade during the war than we were. Our shipping has decreased, our entrepoôt trade—a very valuable thing in itself—has now to be reconstructed. London is less the financial centre of the world than was the case before the war, or has been at any moment during the last 100 years, I should think. Wages have been doubled, or more than doubled; coal and other commodities are all dearer; we suffer under a huge load of debt, a first charge upon our industry in the future. Much of the rest of the world is greatly impoverished, and I dare say a good many countries will make it more their care than ever to foster their own industries before they admit the products of ours.
To one who thinks as I do the prospect is absolutely appalling; and now the one vital matter is, it seems to me, to increase our export trade in order that the country may be able to live—in order that we may be able to pay wages, apart from interest and profits. Now, less than four months after the close of hostilities, we are threatened with a complete stoppage of work, we are menaced with a step on the road which must lead to industrial ruin and financial disaster. In these circumstances I ask, Can anything be done to bring patience and common sense to bear at this tremendous crisis?—for it is a tremendous crisis. Can anything he done to avert the ghastly tragedy of a general strike? I hope I am not impertinent in saying that debates in your Lordships' House, valuable and interesting as they often are, have not often, I am afraid, a very beneficial effect upon labour. Most unjustly a good many of us are suspected either of being profiteers or friends of profiteers. So far as I am concerned, I confess I feel unable to gauge the mind of labour at the present time. I have not been much in close contact with the workers for a good many years, although I feel that my past life ought to

185
have enabled me to know more of them than has been the case with some of your Lordships. But I have done my best to pick out from the speeches of some among the more moderate exponents of labour what appears to me to be really working in the mind of labour at the present time. Of course, there is a certain nervous reaction after the strain of four years of war. In a minority—as I hope, a small minority—there is a certain amount of blind class jealousy, akin to Bolshevism. I cannot believe, on the other hand, that the fact that the railways and mines have not yet been nationalised is causing serious trouble. Independent of anything else, that would mean adding to a National Debt, already not inconsiderable, a sum of something between £1,500,000,000 and £2,000,000,000.
I think there is something in what my noble friend who spoke last said as to the exasperation that has been caused by not taking more immediate steps to give the workers a larger share in dealing with workshop conditions. But there must be some deeper difference still; there must be something which is agitating their minds more than can be entirely accounted for by those various matters. I am sure that they cannot regard the future with the grave apprehension that I do, and that many people much better informed than myself do. There is one thing on which I feel sure they are misled. I believe that they are profoundly misled on the question of profiteering. It seems as if they argue it in this way: that because a certain number of people have unquestionably made large fortunes and increased their incomes during the war, all shareholders and capitalists are enormously richer than they were, They argue from this that there is somewhere an illimitable fund of wealth which can be exploited. They forget that the bulk of shareholders are, after all, modest people, many of them with incomes far smaller than those of well-paid artisans to-day.
The kind of thing which operates in the workers' minds is something like this. In a speech—to which I shall have further occasion to refer—made by Mr. Thomas in the other House recently, he referred to the Maypole Dairy Company. Imagine somebody, some working man, who had read Mr. Thomas's speech, going home and telling his wife that the Maypole Dairy
186
Company had made 225 per cent. Profit. His wife would say, "And the price of margarine went up so much so many weeks ago; what a shame it is that the price of Margarine should go up and that seine-body should make 225 per cent, profit out of it." I have not had time to examine the special circumstances which must exist with regard to that large institution; but I mention it because the Maypole profits were no question of war-time profiteering. That company was making about 212 per cent. before the war began; for some years their profits have been enormous. That particular profit of 225 per cent. is not a question of war profiteering at all, and therefore not ad rem in this argument. That is perfectly true, but it is extraordinarily difficult to bring such a fact home to the mind of the worker.
I come now to some words used by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster in his speech yesterday, to which I am sorry to say I had not the pleasure of listening. I am going to quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT. The noble and learned Lord said—
"… The war did something else. It produced, as an object lesson for all industrial classes to see, the most amazing profits that this country has ever witnessed. It is found that in one year 80 per cent. of the profits made due to the war, over and above the profits made in industry before the war, amounted to about £360,000,000; and the remaining 20 per cent. would be about £90,000,000, making about £450,000,000 of profits made owing to the war and during the war and in excess of the profits made before the war."
Accepting the figures of my noble and learned friend—although they differ from those given in the Budget, they are sufficiently near for my purpose and very likely much more nearly correspond with the actual facts, for anything I know to the contrary—what I want to point out is that, even if they are absolutely correct, the amount of profit that has gone to the profiteer (if you like so to call him) is only £90,000,000. There may have been some other profits to add to the £90,000,000 on the part of people who did not make extra profits as defined by the Act. On the other hand, the figures of the noble and learned Lord make no allowance for anybody who earned less than he earned before the war; and I am pretty well convinced that if we could have the whole matter looked up we should find that the total extra profits made by the wealthier classes probably did not exceed £100,000,000, whilst the wealthier classes must have paid

187
in extra taxation during this war a sum which I calculate to amount at the least to from £150,000,000 to £200,000,000. There fore I argue—and I shall have some other figures shortly to present to your Lordships in support of that view—that the general effect of the war has been to reduce somewhat rather than to increase the net income of the wealthier classes of the people in this country taken as a whole.
I may be wrong about the figures that I am going to give, but I ask that they may be examined by anybody who objects to them. It is clear that the national income as a whole has gone up enormously. The point is how the increase in the national income has been divided. Taking the total number of people employed both in the Forces and in industry during the war, the numbers must have increased rather than diminished. There is no question at all, I think, that wages on the whole have been doubled, in many cases more than doubled. That means that the working classes in this country, out of the increased national dividend made during this war, have received from £750,000,000 to £1,000,000,000 more per annum than they did before the war; whilst I cannot see that the amount paid to capitalists—in gross, before taxation—can have been materially more than £100,000,000 in addition to what their capital was before the war.
I can put forward some other arguments in regard to this matter. I was rather nervous about using the argument, and I went to some people eminently well qualified to advise me; I also took the trouble to get hold of the last Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I looked up in that Report the figures for the last year given—1916–17—and I found under Schedule D. (the Schedule which would, if enormous extra profits had been made in industry, inevitably show them) what the increase in the figures was. The increase in the gross income brought under the review of the Department is very large; it rose in the one year from £732,000,000 to £998,000,000—an increase of £260,000,000. But when I looked further down the page, to see the incomes on which tax was received after the various deductions had been made, I found that the amount had increased only £60,000,000—from £533,000,000 to £593,000,000; the fact of the matter being that the enormous increase shown in the early figures is obviously due, if those figures are studied,
188
to the enormous increase in the number of working men who began to be in that year Income Tax payers for the first time. That will be obvious to anybody familiar with these figures who will take the trouble to study the deductions.
Then I turned to the only other figures I could find that materially help—namely, the Super-Tax figures given in the same Return. I give the figures for two years—1914–15 (which clearly must have been founded upon incomes before the war, I think), and 1916–17. The figures for 1914–15 are these: 30,211 people had their incomes assessed at £244,769,000. The figures for the last year given (1916–17) were 29,723 persons whose total incomes were assessed at £247,000,000. There are a few variations of interest. The incomes of £100,000 and over have increased in number by five. The £3,000 to £5,000 incomes, the first in the scale, have decreased from 15,524 to 14,463. The net result is that the total number of Super-Tax payers in the later year was materially less—perhaps I should say somewhat less—than the number in the earlier year, and the total amount paid by them was only about 1½ per cent. larger.
I suggest that it should be possible for the Govern rent to give the public later figures, and figures perhaps more correct, than those which I have ventured to lay before the House this evening, and I would appeal to the Government to take that step. If the old tables have been kept up at the Inland Revenue—it is possible that some of them have not been owing to the shortage of clerks—they could give figures which would show pretty clearly what amount of the figures in the Income Tax return was due to the taxation of small incomes and what was due to profit on, large businesses. If we could have those figures it would be of real assistance, I venture to think, at the present time. On the face of it the net result of the figures which I have given to you is that the workers have had from £750,000,000 to £1,000,000,000 a year extra—I admit this is a figure which I have guessed myself, but which must be somewhere near the truth—and the profiteers only among employers may have had another £100,000,000 before the result of extra taxation was felt, and a great deal more than that £100,000,000 must have gone, I think, in the extra taxation imposed, and properly imposed, on account of the war.

189
I referred a short time ago to a speech made by Mr. Thomas, the well-known Labour leader, in another place. After alluding to the Maypole Dairy Company, he referred to the cotton trade and said—
"For two years the Lancashire cotton operatives were earning less than they ever earned before, and yet during that period of short time, last year the average profits in the cotton trade in Lancashire were not only higher, but were equal to 45 per cent. on the total subscribed capital. The working classes, I submit, are entitled to draw their own deductions from that fact."
Mr. Thomas is by general consent one of the ablest, most courageous, and most fair-minded of the Labour leaders to-day, and, that being the case, I almost despair when I see a statement so misleading in tendency as that about the cotton trade of Lancashire.
Cotton, as your Lordships know, was in short supply because of the lack of shipping, and therefore it had to be rationed to the cotton mills that used it. There was a heavy fine imposed upon those mills that, worked more than the regulation hours, which were materially reduced during the later period of the war, and that heavy fine went to unemployment benefit for those who needed it. But the shortage of work was not met by working what is commonly called short time, but by reducing the number of spindles and looms at work, and by reducing the number of operatives actually employed. The reason was that employment in Lancashire, as elsewhere, was so extraordinarily good that operatives would not work short time at the cotton trade, but went elsewhere, to munition and other works, if they were asked to work short time. Employment was never so good and wages were never so high, and I do not think the Lancashire operatives were ever more prosperous, on the whole, than they were as regards mere money during the war. Therefore the real effect of what happened was that a smaller number of operatives were employed, earning higher wages. Wages have gone up in the cotton trade—I admit rather late in the day—and now are 115 per cent. higher than before the war began. I only pray that the cotton trade may be able to face the fierce competition which it will have to face in the future under such conditions.
The statement about profits is no less misleading. The tendency is to make out
190
the cotton trade as unscrupulous profiteers. Let me again give the facts. At the time, so far as the production of cotton goods was concerned, the Government was the principal buyer, and made its own terms because it controlled the prices. The bulk of the rest went, not in the home trade, but of course overseas, as it has done for many years. Therefore, so far as profiteering is concerned it was the foreigner or the overseas men that were made to pay, and not the poor person at home. That, however, is not the main point. Forty-five per cent., I have no doubt, was earned, but that is not 45 per cent. on the whole capital employed, but on the capital subscribed. It would be nearer 25 or 30 per cent. on the whole capital. It is far too big a profit, and cannot possibly last, but it was due to a temporary and a very temporary inflation of prices. Prices have dropped 30 to 40 per cent. since the first of November, and already that profit has disappeared, so far as future business is concerned. The outlook is very bad indeed, and I venture to say that the operatives of Lancashire, quite as much as the employers, are likely to congratulate themselves that a good deal was made in the year 1918, and that most of it has not been paid away but saved up for a rainy day.
Finally, the unfairness of the argument is also shown in this way. On the whole the cotton trade is worked on extremely bare margins. For the 20 years, 1888 to 1907, the average dividend paid by the Oldham Spinning Mills was exactly 5 per cent. For the ten years, 1908 to 1917 inclusive, the average dividend paid was 7 per cent. My Lords, it does not stand in the mouth of anybody to say that a trade which averaged for thirty years—a trade of a fluctuating character—a dividend of only 52/3 per cent. can be charged with being profiteers, because in one year it happened to make a good deal more.
I saw another statement in a paper called the New Statesman the other day. It said, "Why should it be possible for a relatively small number of private persons to become £5,000,000,000 richer than before the war?" Why indeed! I wonder who they are. I wonder whether this is a net addition to their capital, if any such change has taken place, and I wonder what increase in real wealth it signifies. Also, incidentally, is it true? I looked at the "Stock Exchange List," and I thought there must be some figures in that List

191
which would show sonic great increase if any such enormous addition had been made to the wealth of individuals in this country. What is the result? British Government stocks, Indian Government stocks, Colonial Government stocks—all gone down. Home railways, Indian railways, Colonial railways, foreign railways—every one decreased in value. Banks are about the same. Canals and docks are down. Gas and electricity companies are down, of course. Insurance companies—some down and some up. Mines are down on the average. I know nothing about mines, but so far as I could see from the "Stock Exchange List" that was the case. Commercials and industrials, of course, vary. Some are down and some are up. Only on oils, shipping and breweries and distilleries should I say that there had been any general advance; and in the case of breweries in particular it must be remembered that there is a great deal of borrowed money and preference capital and that the debenture capital and the preference shares have all gone down in value although the ordinary shares have risen. On the whole I should say there was a fall rather than a gain of thousands of millions, so far as the "Stock Exchange List" is any guide.
Again it is known that we have sold an immense amount of our foreign investments. It is known that we have borrowed, as my noble friend opposite said, £1,200,000,000 from the United States of America. I do not want to bore you with my private experiences and I apologise for having spoken so long, but I must say that, looking at my own little fortune—a fortune which I venture to say is not on the whole badly invested, but happens to be invested, for so small a fortune, in a great many different fields—all I can say is that I know it is worth a very great deal less than it was worth before the war, so much less that I have never ventured to price my investments. As to my income, I believe it has decreased a little in the gross, and I know, as regards the net income, it is enormously less. I do not want to rely on my own cage at all. Take people with fixed incomes in Trust funds. They are enormously worse off. Take the poor clergy, about whom we have heard so much. It is the fact, as we all know, that the average income of the clergyman is not so large as that of an artizan to-day. Take another case, of somebody wealthier than the average clergyman but of modest means.
192
One thousand a year gross before the war, giving at least £900 or more, even if unearned income—to furnish the same purchasing power at to-day's price would require a gross income of at least £2,100 a year.
I might give other cases of hardship, but it is correct to say roughly that, with the present taxation and present purchasing power, the incomes of wealthy men, after taxation is paid and prices are allowed for, only buy at present prices from one-third to one-half of what they bought before the war. These are incontrovertible facts. Only if it can be proved that there is a great additional gross income accruing to the well-to-do—to those who were well-to-do before the war and who remain well-to-do to-day—is there any answer to what I believe to be the case, namely, that the bulk of the previously wealthy people in this country must henceforward until prices fall (as no doubt these people did to a large extent during the war) reduce their style of living if they are to make both ends meet at all. For I feel pretty confident that the increase to their gross incomes is comparatively small on the average, if there is any increase at all, and that the net income in the majority of cases is, with to-day's standard of taxation, less than before the war.
If that is the case it ought to be known authoritatively on the part of the public, and I maintain that it is not known at the present time. If it were known it might do something, at any rate in course of time, to quieten labour unrest and to give the country a breathing time to see where it is before these deadly strikes take place in such large numbers as are threatened. If I am correct, the publication of the figures would do good, and the public at large and the workers might grasp what it is absolutely essential they should grasp sooner or later, and that is that the nation has not got a bottomless purse. If on the other hand I am misinformed and wrong, I shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the danger I have feared for our trade is not so imminent as it was, and I shall be able to look forward to the future with greater courage and greater hope.
LORD LEVERHULME: My Lords, I welcome more than words of mine can express the great privilege of the opportunity of speaking to your Lordships'

193
House on the subject which we are now debating, but I am suffering front the infirmity of defective hearing and consequently I have been dependent upon the papers to-day for the speeches that were given yesterday and I have not completely heard the speeches delivered to-day. I know your Lordships' House is always most generous and I claim your indulgence if I am in any way wearisome owing to this disability. We are met to consider the question of labour unrest. Believe me, it is the healthiest sign in the country at the present tine. There is no unrest of the Bolshevist order. Our soldiers have returned, and I do not think yon will find a single Bolshevist among them. Our men are returning to their work. The Bolshevists whom we have in this country are the men who resisted conscription and the men who refused to go and fight and who generally have not proved themselves good citizens during the war and are not expected to be entirely idle now the war is over. It is not a deep-rooted emotion in this country.
On the subject of strikes, let us consider what a strike is. There is no commodity bought and sold between any two individuals but what a small strike takes place. The seller asks too much and goes on strike if the buyer will not pay. In the markets at Liverpool, London, Glasgow or elsewhere when the demand exceeds the supply, the strike is one by the seller; when, on the other hand, the demand is not equal to the supply it is by the buyer. I cannot see how we could with advantage attempt to deprive any body of men of the right to use this means, common to all of us, in connection with the only article that they have to sell—namely, their labour. And it would seem to me, therefore, that we must hear patiently with this state of affairs at the present time. We must endeaveur to show broadminded sympathy with the objects of those who resort to a strike, bearing in mind this fact—and it is rather a curious coincidence—that on this very day when we are discussing this subject a noble Lord got up to call attention to the inadequate pay of the clergy. I should certainly say that the same observation applies equally to the ministers of the Nonconformist denomination of which I am a member, and those of all Nonconformist denominations. But we have had no strike from them. I have never heard of a clergyman striking against
194
his inadequate pay, and I am certain of this—that the consciences of those who attend churches and chapels are not less amenable to their duty to the clergy titan their consciences when they are in the factories and workshops granting rises to their work people. But the clergy have not struck, and we have had attention called in this House to-day to their inadequate salaries.
For thirty years, from about 1887 or 1888 up to 1918, or rather up to the outbreak of war, say for twenty-five to twenty- six years, the rise that has taken place in the wages of organised labour was round about one penny per hour. But in the four years of war we have had strike on strike with rapid succession, and the rise that has taken place in the wages of organised labour has not been 1d. but over 100 per cent. Do you not think we have been rather teaching the lesson that a scarcity of labour has brought advantages through the operation of strikes that a plentiful supply of labour has not brought, and have we not rather taught that by means of strikes wages have been advanced, and that where no strike has taken place salaries have not been advanced? I think it is deplorable it should be so, but that is the position. How can we deal with it? I venture to say that at the present time there is a deep-rooted suspicion between employers and employed which ought not to exist. I think it entirely arises from misunderstanding. It may be within your Lordships' memory that we have often had reports appearing in the Press of letters sent by sons of employers, sons of members of this House, who have, fought in the trenches and have come into contact with organised workpeople fighting as privates under their command. They have written home their surprise that. these men, whom they thought, were so poorly off, were very fine men; men who had studied political economy and in some cases it was acknowledged understood more about it than their officers. That surely was all to the good. They have come back with an improved idea of the working man, and I venture to say that equally the working man has come back with a higher ideal, a higher knowledge, and better acquainted with his employer and his employer's son. It has been a mutual advantage that they have been fighting the common enemies of the country, for many misconceptions have been brushed aside.

195
We are rather afraid of what is called Labour. We have no reason to be afraid of it. I visited Australia in 1892 at a time when labour there was beginning to show some activity. There was a general alarm on account of this upheaval of labour and the power labour was getting. If you want to know how strikes are energetically, not to say drastically, dealt with you must not come to a Government in England; you must go to the Australian Government, a Labour Government, and you will there find that the strikes are dealt with in what we should call a drastic and effective way. We have nothing to fear; I am confident of that. We have everything to gain. I want us to bear in mind that the workman is not a machine to be merely kept well oiled by high wages and smoothly running by good housing, although that is a very important matter, and I welcome the remarks of the Lord Chancellor on this point yesterday. But the workman is not to be kept running as a machine by satisfying his wants. Every fresh aspiration of the workman that we grant to-day will lift him higher and give him new aspirations to-morrow of still greater and increased demands, and so we shall always have what we call labour unrest if we are to be a healthy community.
Some reference has been made in the course of the debate to the question of co-partnership. Perhaps I can speak more freely on this subject as I am a convinced believer in the principle of co-partnership and have put it in operation, as far as my limited powers go, to as great an extent possibly as any one. But let me point out the weakness of co-partnership. We have heard of profiteering and of the enormous amount of profits made. The drawback I invariably hear against co-partnership from the workmen themselves is that it does not give them enough; that the dividends they receive as co-partners are not sufficiently high to be of interest to them. That is the only complaint I have ever heard against it. They expect the profits to be higher than they really are, or than they ever can be. They have an inflated idea, and that is one of the causes of the unhealthy unrest. I think it was Lord Buckmaster who referred to the amount paid as excess profits. I venture to say that we had better at once analyse these figures. The Government can do it possibly much better than any one else as they have access to the figures.
196
But the figure mentioned yesterday was £450,000,000 as having been returned. That I suppose is calculated over the last two years and is the Government's share, and from that you can calculate what has been the excess profit of the employer, as you may call him. As the excess profit has never been less than 50 per cent. and is now up to 80 per cent. you will find that if the arrangement had been made with the working people of this country at the outbreak of war that, instead of having increased wages, they should have all the excess profits their employers made, they would have made a very poor bargain. The excess profits remaining in the hands of the employers, if you calculate them, would not have given the workmen 4s per head per week. What has the worker obtained by the ordinary bargaining methods of his trade union, more often without a strike, but sometimes with the aid of a strike? He has obtained over 100 per cent. That must mean that he has obtained considerably over £1 per week, so that the rise in the wages of the worker has been five times or more the amount of the increase of profits of the employer.
It is ignorance, my Lords, on this subject that we ought to remove; there is a wrong idea on the part of the working people. In war time, with stocks rising, it is impossible to avoid making abnormal profits, and the Government itself has, in the ordinary course of conducting its various Departments, made these excess profits. I do not say that the Government should have avoided it or taken any other course. Let us take the Income Tax returns, because from them we can get an idea of what we should gain and give to the working people if profit-sharing was universally practised. I have not the latest figures; the latest I could get were for the year 1917, and they are Income Tax returns. The profits of business are put down at something over £500,000,000—well under £600,000,000. Let us assume that they were £600,000,000 for the year 1918. We shall find that this, first of all, must be subject to a deduction for interest on the capital, whatever source the capital came from. It could have been employed in Government securities, or in other kinds of investment, such as property, and would have returned 5 per cent. or so. From this sum must be deducted—how much I cannot say, and the Government might help us by ordering a return to be made

197
of what the profits were—the interest on the capital employed. I ant confident that we should find, after deducting salaries for the management, now taken in the form of profits—the employer would surely be entitled to a salary—and after deducting the interest at 5 per cent., that if the whole of the profits of all the industries and all the businesses wholesale and retail of this country had gone to the workers and others engaged in them it would not have raised their wages by another 4s. a week.
These are facts the workman is never told. I have mentioned them at meetings of workpeople, and they have expressed surprise. I have asked them to work them out for themselves, aid they have been unable to challenge the accuracy of or to dispute the figures. Whilst, therefore, this war has been going on wages have, rightly and properly, for tile workpeople advanced by over 100 per cent., but if instead of that 100 per cent. increase they had received the whole of the profits made in all the industries of the country the rise in their wages would not have been 30 s. a week, but would have been well under £1 a week. These are facts that I want our workers to understand. If we are to prevent strikes—and I think the question is the prevention of strikes it is not for us to say to the worker that he shall not have the same right as other citizens to demand as high a price as the market can give for his labour, but it is our duty to see that the worker is properly acquainted with conditions under which lie works and the effect upon industry of every rise of wages.
What are strikes for generally? Putting little disputes on are side—there will always be little disputes—strikes are generally either for an increase in wages or a reduction in hours, or both. If we refuse point blank to admit that there should be a strike for an increase of wages, we should equally refuse that there should be a strike for a reduction in hours, and point blank refusal will lead us nowhere. If we let this matter proceed to the length of a strike, then I venture to say that the employer, even if he wins, has in reality lost, and if it is a prolonged strike the worker will have equally lost. I will give you an experience of what, from an employer's point of view, was a successful strike. It was a strike upon a question of wages. The employer refused to grant the demand, and a strike took place. In the
198
end the workpeople surrendered, and went back to work on the employer's terms. What did the employer find? He found that his workpeople went back soured and discontented, and that he did not get the output from his plant and machinery which he had a right to expect; in other words, although nominally the rise in wages had not been granted and he had broken the strike, actually his cost of production had advanced more than if he had had a contented body of workpeople back at their employment with the increase in the wages conceded to them. He had in reality lost by his refusal to grant an increase in wages.
Why Should we not recognise that it is a right and proper human aspiration for a workman to desire an increase in wages? Those who, like myself, have been born and bred in a Lancashire manufacturing town have listened between five and half-past in the morning, whilst lying in bed, to the patter of the clogs of people going down the street on the way to the mills, and we have heard the same patter between five and six o'clock in the evening when the workpeople have come back. Some of you, like myself, may remember the condition of the workers in the late fifties, when, amongst male operatives, you could only see two patterns of legs—the knock-kneed and the bow-legged. That was the result of immature youths being forced to work long and laborious hours in the vitiated atmosphere of mills and foundries. Their poor feeble legs either bent inwards or outwards. When there was a reduction in the long hours we were told that the industries of the country would be ruined. A member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Shafts-bury, brought forward in another place the question of the age at which child labour should enter mills, and it was raised. Instead of our industries being ruined they were more prosperous than ever, as we all know.
I want to point this out to your Lordships. When we receive a request for an increase of wages and a reduction of hours it is not in our power to give a point blank refusal, because that inevitably will bring about a strike, and if we are victorious we shall still have lost. But it is in our power to take our workpeople into a partnership in which we say to them, "We recognise your desire for a higher income out of which you can not only

199
meet the higher cost of living but can also live on a higher scale. You will not only have to meet the cost of higher living but have to live higher. We will recognise that. That is a thing you and we have to consider. You also want shorter hours so that you may enjoy the green fields and the country, or may visit picture galleries so that there may be something more than Saturday afternoon for shopping and attending to all the other interests of your life. You will want sometimes to cultivate your mind and soul in libraries among books. Do not let either of us forget that our living depends upon successful industry, and that this country is dependent on its overseas trade, and that we are in competition with the whole world. Let us see how we can get both. Can we get both shorter hours and higher wages, or are they out of our reach? If they are not to-day practicable except at a large increase to the cost of production then you, the workers, will be the first to suffer. The higher cost of commodities would out-balance any increase of wages that you might receive. You are 95 per cent. of the consumers. If coal goes up in price you feel it more keenly than any other section of the community. If the cost of boots and shoes goes up in price you will have a difficulty in buying boots and shoes for yourselves and your wives and children. Every article that you advance in price by a strike for increased wages and reduction in hours will not benefit you if it advances the price of the commodity. We have got in this country to produce so cheaply that our articles are sought all over the world, and if they are not sought all over the world, and if we have not the overseas trade, then we have no means of exchanging for the food that we cannot grow in our limited area in this country, and we have no exchange for the raw materials that we require."
Let us sit down and see how it can be done. We shall at once come to this position, that our workers are obsessed with the idea that their best interest is in limited production. They have thought that excessive production will mean warehouses full, mills and factories shut down, and unemployment stalking our streets. They are obsessed with that idea. They do not know what it means if the articles in the warehouses are cheap. One celebrated writer, a very thoughtful writer, says that if we made only mouse-traps cheaper than anybody else can make them,
200
the whole world will beat a track to our door. They do not realise it. They are merely thinking of bulk; they do not think of price. When they work a machine they do not think that the machine is costing more in interest, repairs, and renewals than the man who attends to the machine. They are not thinking of these things; they have not been taught to think of them.
Let us sit down with them and let us say, "The position is this. Here are the figures of production per worker in this country and the production per worker in the United States. In the United States there is no limitation of output. The trade unions there do not object to a man's output being as great as ever he can make it; and the result is that., whilst you here ill England are working for certain wages, which is the maximum your union has been able to obtain for you, if you take a boat and go across to New York, though you will be no better a workman when you land there, you will be welcomed there, for the British workman is welcomed in every part of the world. The British workman is second to none in the whole world, and he will be welcomed there at double the British rate of pay. But surely you must inquire the reason. You must want to know why it is that you are only worth one rate of pay here in England, and double the rate if you land in America. You will find out if you search the figures that the output per man in the United States is considerably more than three times that per man in this country. At any rate, if I say from two to three times I am speaking conservatively."
Cannot we put our heads together and say to our workmen, "You want more wages and shorter hours; then let us see if we cannot work so that you can have both. But the key to the position is not that the shorter hours are merely working short time. The key to the position is that if we shorten hours and increase wages we must reduce cost of production. If we do not reduce the cost of production then you as the workers will find, however much your wages have gone up, their purchasing power (as you have found during the war) is reduced; and, if you are paid sovereigns for every shilling you are now paid, the articles would have gone up to such a price that, with the restricted output, you will still be short of boots and shoes and clothing and houses—still be

201
short of everything that makes civilised life happy and comfortable."
I believe that if we admit that the workman (as we know the British workman is) is as fine a type as any there is in the world—and in my experience more amenable to argument and to logic and to proof than any other section of the conununity—if you do this, and we then set our minds to try if we cannot satisfy his natural and right ambition for an improved social position, admit that there are only two classes, after all, in this country (and I am certain that in this House it would be agreed to as readily as in any Assembly in the world, the two classes being those who do their duty and those who fail to do their duty) and that we can all join together in endeavouring to do our duty to each other, discussing as partners what road we shall take; then I believe on those lines, and working in that way, we shall find that the bogey of strikes will be shorn of all its terrors, that a strike will be merely a prelude. to consideration of the situation; and that quickly and readily we shall not only raise ourselves as a producing nation, so that our goods are more welcome in every country of the world than they were before the war, but here in England the price of commodities will come down, and in this process we shall have taken the only course that will enable us to discharge our heavy load of debt. We shall not be able to discharge that debt unless production is great, unless output is great and—the consequence—profits on reduced cost are great; so that the tax collector, with the sweet simplicity of Income Tax and Super-Tax and any other tax that may be required, will find active commerce and not stagnation, active shipping because of the goods that will be moved to the country and from the country, active industries in every direction, and work increasing. I want to say, in conclusion, that I have Spoken with great diffidence. I may have repeated what many other speakers have said, but I have welcomed this opportunity, and I am more conscious of the privilege of speaking in your Lordships' House than words of mine can express.
EARL BRASSEY: My Lords, I should like to express to the noble Lords who placed the Notices on the Paper my gratitude for having produced the interesting discussion to which we are listening. I share to the full the anxiety of the noble
202
Lord who opened this discussion, as well as that of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, as to the economic condition of the country. There are many people who believe that this country is in sight of national bankruptcy. I am not sure that they are not right. At any rate, I am very much alarmed that there is no indication in the King's Speech or in the Government programme of any intention to do what Lord Lansdowne described as putting an end to the era of reckless borrowing and returning to an era of sobriety and carefully regulated expenditure. Instead, we have proposals for the creation of new Ministries, of which we have had enough created during the war, and of lavish expenditure in very many directions.
It seems to me that the elaborate schemes that are being brought forward for bettering the conditions of the people cannot be carried out, or cannot at any rate be effectively carried out, unless we have the money to pay for them. I know from practical experience that it is impossible to begin to improve the conditions of your workers and to pay good wages unless the business is being worked at a profit. So in the case of the nation, I believe it is impossible to improve the lot of the masses unless the country is paying its way. The first step in reconstruction and towards the improvement of the conditions of the masses is to return to a sounder economic position, and to establish effective control over public expenditure.
In the prosecution of the war it seems to me that the permanent interests of the country have been more or less lost sight, of. If the country is to pay its way—as Lord Emmott and others have pointed out—production must be increased, and we must recover the trade we have lost during the war. Neither result is attainable so long as the energies of merchants and of manufacturers are paralysed by Government control and by uncertainty as to the fiscal policy which is going to be adopted. There has been a good deal of talk about Imperial Preference and about the protection of pivotal industries. What steps are being taken in that direction? Unless steps are taken in that direction I believe we shall be unable to find employment for many of our people, and still less be able to better their social conditions as so many of us desire. I agree with many of the speakers who have preceded me in this debate that the economic condition of the

203
country is very grave, and I can only hope that the debate will result in turning the serious attention of the Government to this question.
As to industrial unrest, I may, perhaps, be pardoned for saying that I approach the consideration of this question as the grandson of one of the great railway builders of the last century, a man who constructed portions of the first railways in this country and in many countries of the world, who had at times 70,000 men in his employ, and who never had a strike. I approach it also as the son of a man known to many of your Lordships as one who took an active part in securing the legalisation of trade unions by Parliament. Further, I ask permission to address you on the ground that I myself have been for the last twenty years the manager of a large mining business employing some 5,000 workmen, that I have made it my duty in the conduct of that business to know the conditions under which all the workers work as well as live, and because I can say that which I do not think any other member of this House can say—namely, that for many years before the war I spent more than a miner's week underground. I am a firm believer—like Lord. Leverhulme who preceded me—in the worker having a share of the profits of the industry in which he is engaged, and also having a voice in the management.
I am satisfied from personal experience that the employers in this country are, in far too many cases, one of the principal causes of industrial unrest; in too many cases there has been the tendency in the past—though I am happy to say that this tendency is passing away—to treat the workman not as a human being bat as a machine. Big companies have spent thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of pounds, in sinking a pit, in erecting a factory, or in acquiring some new and expensive plant, but they have taken no thought whatever for the housing of the men who work in that pit or in that factory. Nobody feels more strongly than I feel that you cannot have a contented working population unless that working population is properly housed. It is the duty of the employer, whether he be an individual employer or a company, to take some pains to see that the conditions under which his workmen live are good when they are absent from his factory or from his pit. That, in my opinion, is the first cause of industrial unrest. The second
204
cause is obviously the extravagance of public expenditure during the war—more especially the extravagant way in which industry had been conducted by the Munitions and other Public Departments. The third cause is one which has been referred to more than once in the course of this debate—namely, the large profits which have been made by a good many people, profits in which the workers do not share.
A word as to the special demand with which we are now face to face of the miners, the railway workers, and the transport workers, for higher wages, shorter hours, and better conditions of employment. In view of the fact that the granting of these demands will impose a very heavy burden on the community, will be a heavy burden on industry, will restrict production and trade on which employment largely depends; in view of the fact that a fall in the cost of living is very probable in the near future—and if Mr. Runciman is correct (and I attach very great weight to anything the ex-President of the Board of Trade says on this subject), a fall in the cost of some of the most essential articles of consumption could take place almost at once, provided Government control were removed; in view of all those facts I am not sure that the demands put forward by the miners and railway workers are very reasonable at the present time, and I think they ought not to be granted without very careful inquiry.
Before I sit down I want to say a word on the demand which is being actively put forward not only by the classes of worker to which I have referred but by other workers—that is to say, for the nationalisation of mines, of railways, and other industries. I myself am strongly against the carrying on of industry by the State. After our experience of the State control of industry during the war, I do not think that in the interests of the community State control of industry is desirable. The Welsh coalowners, in a statement published the other day, said that the experience of State control during the past four or five years was in itself a convincing argument against the interference of the Government with business; and they did not hesitate to declare that, had it not been for the service of men possessing practical knowledge and experience of the coal trade, and the check which this knowledge provided against incompetence, em-

205
ployment in the coal fields would have been much more irregular and the loss of trade would have been far greater than it has been. I know of nobody engaged in business who is in favour of the Government carrying on industry for themselves.
The second reason why I am against the State control of industry is this. I think labour will be much more unreasonable in its demands, or at any rate much less reasonable in its demands, if the cost of meeting those demands is met by the taxpayer, whose pockets are believed to be bottomless, and if the decision as to whether these domands is should be conceded rests with a Government who are spending other people's money, than if labour learns the consequences to the industry in which it is employed, from an increase in wages or shorter hours, after a conference with employers round a table. I fully share what has been said by other speakers on this point, that it is absolutely essential, if we are to have better relations between Capital and Labour, that joint committees of employers and employed, as suggested by the National Alliance and in the Whitley Report, should be established.
The third reason why I am against the carrying on of industries by the State is that Parliament has no time, under present conditions, for controlling the carrying on of industry by Public Departments. There can be no more striking instance of the breakdown of our Parliamentary institutions than the fact that the Government have had to call an extra Parliamentary conference to discuss these questions. In a democratically governed country these questions ought to be discussed in Parliament. We have been said to be fighting for the triumph of democracy. Democracy, if I understand the meaning of the word aright, means that the people should, through their representatives in Parliament, control legislation and administration and public expenditure. If that is true, we have not got democratic government in this country to-day, and we cannot have it so long as we attempt to deal in one Parliament, by one set of men, with three distinct classes of business—the separate interests of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, the affairs of the United Kingdom as a whole, and the affairs of our widely-extended Empire. I believe that there will be no end to industrial unrest, and can be no end to it, until we have established in this country National
206
Legislatures, which can give their time to considering all these social problems in which workers are mainly interested, to which representatives are elected for their competence on these questions and not for some totally different reason, as they have been elected at the last Election, and in which labour may have a predominant voice and the opportunity of forming a Government.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have had the advantage of hearing the whole of this debate and also of restudying that part of it which has already appeared in print, and I have been much impressed by one feature which the debate bears. Your Lordships are keenly conscious—that is everywhere evident—that a new and menacing problem has presented itself for solution, that a new spirit has come (that has been the phrase of some who have taken part in the debate), but there has also prevailed a comfortable sense that, menacing as the problem is, it would be dispelled if only the workmen had sufficient knowledge, such knowledge as some of your Lordships have felt you possessed.
On the controversy that arises between two theories it is no intention of mine to take part, but I wish to point out that it is a fallacy to suppose that the working classes, as represented by the Labour Party, are not furnished with all that knowledge which we had presented in outline so admirably by Lord Emmott to-night, and much more. If any of your Lordships who walk home down Tothill-street will look into the Bureau of the Labour Research Department, on the left hand as you go north, you will see a variety of books, pamphlets, and articles dealing with, I think, every one of the subjects which have been discussed to-day, and with a great many more. These are not the work of ignorant workmen who have not time to look up or study these things. These writings are the production of some of the most brilliant young economists in this country. If you go to Oxford or Cambridge, or to any of the Universities, you will find a very large proportion of the younger men—I am not sure it is not a majority—on the side of Labour. They call themselves the Friends of Labour. Among them are a proportion of very eminent students, men who have devoted their lives to the study of these labour and industrial problems, and who have produced a mass of learning on the subject

207
Which compares most favourably with anything produced by any other Party in the State. It does not stop there. You may say that that is only the work of those who advise the Labour Party. Turn to a journal like The Round Table, which cannot be said to be the organ of any particular Party. Read the article appearing four quarters back in that journal, and in these articles, and in such books as the brilliant volume of articles by Mr. Zinmern, you will find the subject put in a wider form than it has been put to-night, with full knowledge of the facts and appreciation of things said, and with other circumstances which give the matter a new meaning.
We have been told to-night to look at the excess profits and to see what a large share of the profit made during the war has gone to the working men who were employed, and what a comparatively small share has gone to the employers. The Labour Party and its advisers would answer that this is a sure fallacy. The fallacy is that you are dividing that profit, and all profits, between Labour on the one hand and Capital on the other, as if they were two equal entities, but the true entity is what you discover as you go through the streets. Walk through London, or any crowded city, and go into the churches, and listen to the sermons on the contrast between rich and poor, and you will be told that millions of workmen are living in a condition which presents the sharpest and keenest contrast to the mode of living of the comparatively few who share the surplus wealth. If you take the comparison, not as between Capital and Labour, but per capita, then you will find cases of inequality which display themselves at large in the condition of our slums, as mentioned in that Report of the Scottish Commission to which my noble friend Lord Buckmaster referred so forcibly yesterday, and in the indications on every hand that the contrast between rich and poor is one of a very extraordinary character.
The question has been referred to as new question. In one sense it is. It never became as acute as it has done during what may be called a period of industrial development. The enormous strides which have been made in industry and in manufacture during the last century, and the latter part of the century before, made the contrast more great, and the workman became more and more a machine. The
208
result was that by 1848 the question of to-day had begun to take shape in an acute form. That was a revolutionary time, and it was to those days that the origin and influence of Marx and Lassalle and the other great socialists who have been quoted may be traced. Thrones were shaken even then, but the convulsion of 1848 was not comparable to the convulsion that has taken place within the last five years.
This change has brought the question into a still more living form than it assumed in 1848. The contrast between rich and poor is more glaring. Thrones are shaken, institutions are affected all over the world. The spirit of revolution is penetrating, with the result that at this moment perhaps the only rather conservative country in the world is the United States of America, and in consequence the question with which we have to deal is not any local question. It is not a question which is peculiar to this, that, or the other country. It is a great question which is extending itself over the whole civilised world. We here may be thankful that we have it in such a mild form. Go to Russia and see the form it assumes there. Remember that the predecessor of the Government which now exists in Russia was a Government which, from the point of view of industry and of those social standards of which I am speaking, was a thoroughly bad Government. What has succeeded is the counter-revolution which takes place when there has been a Government that has ignored the rights of people to the extent that the old order of things in Russia did. This has spread West. Germany is in a revolutionary state, far in advance of anything which you have among the Allied Powers that have been victorious. But take the Allied Powers themselves, take even the United States—labour unrest is everywhere, because this great question, which became acute in 1848, has become acute ever so much more now, because its character is not one limited to disputes in this or that industry, and because of the great contrast between the lot of the rich and poor in the world.
I agree with Lord Buckmaster that this is not a question which is going to be put right very simply. I do not lose courage over it. It will require a great effort, but I think if you approach it and deal with it in the right way the world will come through it and will emerge a better world than it

209
was before—a world which, I do not disguise from myself, has undergone very great changes. One school speaks as if it was Labour that created wealth, and the other school speaks as if it was Capital that created wealth. I think it is perfectly obvious that neither Capital nor Labour creates wealth. Wealth, almost the whole of it, is created by mind. Labour, no doubt, plays a very valuable part., but taken by itself and apart from instruction and skill it plays a merely mechanical part. Capital, on the other hand, is something which nowadays you can hire in the market if you can give security and pay a sufficient rate of interest. It is the organiser that makes the money. Very often the person who really puts the money into his pocket is somebody who has contributed very little to the process by which the wealth has been produced. It is often my lot to sit in your Lordships' House earlier in the day when the judicial sittings are in progress and to have to decide patent cases. In two cases out of three they are cases in which some body, some company, which is contending for its monopoly during fourteen years, has bought the patent of the invention of some patentee with a very high degree of brain who has discovered a new secret in the conversion of the potential energy of the earth into the kinetic energy which goes to make wealth, and has bought it for a comparatively small sum so that the company and its shareholders can put the profits arising from the monopoly into their pockets. I am not complaining. That happens. But to say that that company is the source of the wealth that has been so created and distributed is to say what is not the fact. That is only an illustration of what we have nearly everywhere.
For myself, I do not think we shall be in sight of a solution of this question until the working classes realise that every man has his chance, that there is equality of opportunity for everybody in the competition which is essential in human life. There is a great deal of talk of leisure for the working class. I should not give anything for that leisure unless it was well-spent, and you can only make it thoroughly well-spent leisure if you take the workman and provide him with the means of using his leisure time to the greatest advantage. Therefore, to the minimum of his wages and his hours you must add a third minimum—the minimum of knowledge, without which he cannot make the Most of
210
his life for himself or his children who are to come after him.
The truth is that the industrial side of the question cannot be separated from what I may call, in a comprehensive sense, the spiritual side. The two must come together, and if we are to make a better world it is a world that must take all these timings into account. What is the attitude likely to be of a workman sharing the views which are common to-day when he hears such a proposition made as that there should be a conference and an adjustment on some labour question which is likely to end in a strike that seems to be impending? He will say, "You are only touching the fringe. You are not going to the root of it." He will probably say this—"There are arterial industries which affect the very life of the social organism, such as the railways on which there was a strike in London a few days ago, or the coal mines which represent a necessity of life for the people of the country." Perhaps I might add transport—because it, is almost equally an arterial industry—and the workmen will say, "I recognise to the full that these arterial industries are vital and ought to be protected. They should be protected. Striking ought to be made a crime as it has been made in Australia. "Whether altogether successfully or not, the fact remains that the principle lies been adopted.
But the workman will say something else. Before you dare make these things a crime against society you must perform the correlative duty, which is to take care that the workman gets the fullest and most just treatment in the work that he is practically compelled to do in these industries. I think the modern workman will say that there are certain things—railways and mines—in which there is no reason why he should earn profits for some outside capitalist. He objects to the person who is a profiteer. He says the profit should go to the State; pay your directors, and your men of science and skill, as high a salary as you like; we recognise the justice of the high salary. But that it should be left to accident and fortune how these great arterial industries are to be controlled, and who is to reap time fruits that are earned, is one of the propositions which I suspect we shall see the subject of very close questioning in the times that are immediately ahead. What applies to

211
these industries applies to others also, although there are many industries which it is almost impossible to deal with and avoid management by anybody but the individual who may perhaps have founded them and directs thorn, and who will expect to make his own out of them. But at least the State can lay down certain conditions below which the workmen must not sink in any industry, and in arterial industries to attempt possibly to establish such a control that you may expect the workmen to put out his best and fullest exertions.
I entirely agree with what has been said in this debate as to increased production. Our financial burden is so enormous that unless there is increased production we shall not be able to meet the situation which we have to face. I agree Altogether with what Lord Emmott said About the necessity of putting us in a position to resume our export trade, and I think it is most unfortunate that during the conduct of the last Election speeches were made about cutting off very valuable parts of the import trade without which that export trade cannot exist.
But it is more than that. You will have to get a larger product out of the workman, and you will have to get it not by treating him as a machine and overdriving him. You will have to give him better hours, better homes, better education, and better wages, and get more out of him under better conditions. That you will only do by better organisation and a better application of science to industry. For two years during the war I was Chairman of a Committee which sat to investigate the conservation of the nation's coal, and I only mention what is well known—that it was proved that at least two-thirds of the coal used in industry is wasted so far as the supply of energy which comes from it is concerned. Substitute electrical production for the present wasteful methods and you will get a much larger supply of tools at the disposal of the workman which will enable him to produce much more. This has been done in the United States and other parts of the world, and in some parts of England, but to an extent which is far too small to produce the result we require and enable us to cope with what we have here.
It has been said in the debate that we are very extravagant just now in our
212
expenditure, and very extravagant in our educational expenditure. Unless we take full advantage of the fine reservoir of undeveloped talent which there is in the sons and daughters of our working people and develop it by education we shall not be in a position to overtake that enormous mass of increased production which we must overtake if we are to get to the point we desire to reach. Therefore in dealing with questions of economy you must always bear in mind that there is a certain expenditure which is required in the interests of production, which is reproductive expenditure, and which you cannot cut off. But be that as it may, what the working I classes are demanding is that you should put their condition on a footing which more nearly approaches to what they call justice than is the case at the present time.
The Lord Chancellor, in a speech which we all enjoyed yesterday for the lucidity of its diction and the readiness with which he fell into the habit which will distinguish him in his high position, spoke of the fact, which I believe to be a real fact, that the Government is quite alive to the largeness of the question and the seriousness of the impending dispute. But he said, "Trust the Government. We are doing all we can. We have been away in Paris and are busy with many other things, but only trust us and we will bring the thing through." I hope they will, but I own I do not feel confident. In the course of the last Election a good many speeches were made on behalf of the Government which proceeded on the principle of promising before thinking whether you can perform. There were many things said which seemed to me to show that these questions have not been taken with the intense seriousness with which they must be taken.
The truth is that in dealing with the kind of problem which we have got now no knowledge except exact knowledge will serve the purpose, and, more than that, we have got to make the requisite study along with the working classes if they are to be convinced and carried with us. And the main point I have risen to make to-night is that the conferences which are talked of in connection with the general situation are doomed to failure if they are the old and the usual kind of conference. It is not enough to make the facts known. There must be a serious study of what are new problems such as

213
will satisfy the community that that study will result in exact knowledge.
I believe that what we are suffering from more than anything else is that the working classes do not believe what is said to them. Every kind of promise and undertaking is made, and made perfectly bona fide. Why is it that they do not receive credence. It is because it becomes evident that the things which have been said have been said without sufficient study and exact knowledge of the conditions of the problem. After ail, these great industrial changes, the problems of finance and commerce, are problems which require minute consideration before you embark upon a campaign for their solution, and require just as minute and close a consideration as great military problems. Before this war if anybody had a doubt as to the value of a General Staff as a preliminary to operations, his doubt has now been dispersed. Nothing has been better proved than that victory lies with these who have the best knowledge and are able to put their resources into operation.
It is so with industrial questions. You require your general staff just as much as in the case of military operations, and you must have close and exact study. You also want to impress the people you are dealing with that you are making that close and exact study. I do not know what the Government are going to do, but I. think there is much to be said for this course—to tell the public that the mind of the Government is perfectly open to very far-reaching proposals, it may be to take over complete control of the railways and mines and any other industries that are arterial and control the conditions of labour, and to say that if competition is carried on it must not be carried on so as to keep sweated industries in life. It is much better that they should perish than that the health of the community should be affected by them. Let other people produce cheap goods for them to purchase. And, to consider how best the numerous group of problems is to be solved which are connected with these things, let the Government set up an organisation that will be thoroughly and completely trusted.
For myself, I think that in the case of one or two of the disputes at the present time it might be well, possibly, to get representatives on whom labour would rely, armed with exact knowledge of the
214
comprehensive kind of which I Lave spoken, and get them to meet representatives of the other point of view with equally exact and comprehensive know ledge, and let them assemble under a neutral chairman who need not give a vote, but whose business it would be simply to guide the deliberations. I do not mean merely another conference. We have had plenty of conferences, and we shall no doubt have abundant promises of more conferences. I mean taking the matter in bitter earnest. I mean studying all these questions as Marshal Foch did his operations before he put them into force during the recent campaign. I mean a minute and careful sifting of the facts from every point of view, and with the very best expert assistance, because I think that is the only way in which you can really get the working classes to believe in you.
Do not imagine that it is going to be an easy matter. A long period of distress and disappointment has worked a good deal of mischief, but there is still time if, instead of leaving the investigation and the dealing with these questions to business men, the Government, will deal with them on a yet higher footing. I have every admiration for the work of business men in connection with their own business, but when they come to deal with the business of Government and to deal with other people's business it seems to me that they are not so good. I think the Government reaped a great advantage by the employment of business inert for speeding up the output of munitions, and so on, but these industrial problems are problems of enormous difficulty. Our machinery for dealing with them requires considerable improvement. It fell to my lot to preside over a Committee appointed to investigate the condition of the Executive Government, and I had as colleagues two very distinguished representatives of Labour, Mr. J. H. Thomas and Mr. Sidney Webb, and two very distinguished Civil Servants—one an ex-Civil Servant—Sir George Murray and Sir Robert Morant, and I also had the assistance of the Right Hon. E. S. Montagu, Secretary of State for India, and Sir Alan Sykes, M.P. We came to a unanimous conclusion that the manner, machinery, and instrument of Government, as it exists to-day, is one with which it is astonishing that we should ever be able to get on as we do—overlapping of subjects, overlapping of details at every turn, and the source of contention all round.

215
While the Government is making the comprehensive investigations of which I have spoken, there is plenty of work to be done in putting right the instrument which is to administer the better state of things when it comes into existence. if the policy which I have indicated were taken up with such earnestness and thoroughness as would carry with it the consent of people who are now suspicious and distrustful, then there would be a chance—I think a good chance—of our being able to bear the enormous financial burden which lies in front of us. I have not risen to reproach the Government for not doing the best that is possible. I know how enormous are their difficulties, and how great is the multitude, of their problems. I think they have been rash in holding out hopes which they would not have held out if they had exact knowledge of the difficulties of the situation. I think that now they will have to take very thorough and drastic means of the kind that I venture to suggest to deal with the situation. At the same time that situation is one upon which I think every party in the State will have to endeavour to co-operate if the present problem is to be solved.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the range of subjects covered in this debate shows how pretty nearly everything is concerned, directly or indirectly, with industrial problems. I feel quite sure myself that social reform must depend upon the solution of those industrial problems, not to mention the solvency of our country and the whole future of our Empire. The Government, conscious of this, is anxious to examine the matter fully in all its aspects and most sympathetically. The inquiries to be instituted by the Government are not, as Lord Haldane rather indicated, with a view to shelving the subject. They are genuine and comprehensive schemes for probing these issues to the full.
I need not at this stage try to analyse the causes of all these troubles, and how far they are measured by reaction from war conditions, but that much labour unrest arises from genuine and lofty ideals I entertain no doubt. Lord Leverhulme said that this in itself was a healthy sign, that more fruitful leisure was required, and better conditions of life and housing; and indeed that some bad prevailing conditions are themselves the source of
216
much labour disquiet. Housing for instance. The housing difficulty has been greatly exaggerated by the war. For four and a-half years practically no new artisan houses have been built. During that time there has been a suspension of nearly all repairs, and I would remind your Lordships that before the war there had been a good deal of neglect in this matter.
We entered the war with a serious shortage of cottages. For several years before the war, from one cause and another, the building trade had been scared from building cottages, and the accumulated deficit resulting both from that pre-war policy and from the actual results of the war have now reached a very serious stage. A large expenditure is forecasted, and indeed it will have to be gigantic in order to meet the requirements. This cost can only be met by industrial activity and by increased production. If this industrial activity is checked, housing reform in turn is going to suffer, and those for whom the building policy has been outlined will be the first themselves to feel the loss. We have to be very careful that in this particular matter we do not organise for ourselves another vicious circle which will produce graver trouble than I like to contemplate. Industrial peace is a large and a potent ingredient in prompt housing reform. Another cause of industrial trouble arises from very much less praiseworthy ideals—from what is called Bolshevism; the advocates of turmoil, the wrecker, the author of those "misunderstandings" of which we hear so much, and which in themselves are very often extremely difficult to understand.
That misunderstandings, doubts, hesitations, and so forth are deliberately propagated I have not a doubt in my mind, and I do not under-rate it. Several of your Lordships have spoken of this danger as if it were negligible. I neither under-rate its numbers nor its influence. Lord Buckmaster complained that propaganda on this question of Bolshevism was inadequate. That may be so. We once had a Department to deal with propaganda, but it was the subject of very hostile criticism, notably in your Lordships' House, and that Department has now been demobilised. In any case, propaganda in time of peace must be very discreet. The Government cannot take too partial a view of any controversy, and will have,

217
in any case, to content itself with bare statements of facts, without exhortation.
I fancy, however, that the broad facts of the Russian experiment are pretty well known to the public as a whole. Bolshevism began in disorder—perhaps in drunkenness. Dirt followed, and dirt in Russia means disease; and the chaos and confusion is now beyond belief in that country. Lots of artisans earn up to £10, but, of course, it is paid in paper. They are reverting to the conditions which prevailed late in the French Revolution, when, under the assignat system, one had to pay 500-francs for an orange or 10,000-francs for a cabfare. The money was available but it was paper money—it was bogus, in all senses of the word. And that is exactly what has happened in Russia. The only universal article in Russia is the paper rouble, which circulates in thousands of millions, representing on paper immense and fabulous stuns of money; and yet the people are starving. Disorder has dislocated their whole transport system; chaos has ensued, and Starvation.
From all the information which reaches me I think I am justified in saying that there is plenty of food in Russia to feed the inhabitants of that country, but it cannot be moved, through the disorganisation of industry, and through their typhus-stricken towns. Petrograd is shrinking into a small town, and the death-rate is tremendous. For every woman and child who lost their lives during the war through Prussian brutality at least a hundred must owe their deaths in Russia to the new system of Russian autocracy. For the artisan population as a whole Bolshevism simply means suicide.
These facts are pretty well known. But on the economic side of our industrial troubles steps are being taken to inform all the parties concerned of the issues at stake. One cannot, however, force the public to learn. The matters in themselves are not very simple, and there are a good many people who do not intend to learn. Your Lordships have seen that in the course of a few hours a very large conference on the general matter is going to assemble. It would only discuss, I take it, general principles, but sub-committees can be appointed, if necessary, representing all interests and all concerns.
Meanwhile reference has been made to the proposal to have a special Inquiry
218
into the coal side of the problem. This Inquiry will be set up shortly. I notice that the miners seem reluctant to participate in that Inquiry. That is regrettable, but the Inquiry must none the less be held. Lord Buckmaster asked for cost-sheets of coal—rather scolded us, I think, for not having them ready. Many of your Lordships know how difficult it is to produce a cost-sheet of so elementary an article as milk. To produce a cost-sheet of coal is one of the most complex and intricate actuarial problems in the whole business world. But this Inquiry will go into that. Cost-sheets of coal produced six months ago, of course, are quite irrelevant and useless for the present problem, because the whole relation of coal to the Ministry of Munitions and the Munitions Levy is now changing. But, as I say, this Inquiry can investigate all these subjects. It can show the ratio of wages to the total cost of production, and also the relation of Income Tax to interest on capital, to which Lord Leverhulme referred. There is no reason, as Lord Haldane, I thought, indicated, to fancy that the range of this Inquiry must be limited. It can, I imagine, inquire into any and every aspect of the whole question, not merely the economic but the social and the political side of the coal-mining industry.
I do not wish to go far into a question to which a good deal of reference has been made—the question of profiteering. Inquiry has been suggested into that. There is a good deal of misapprehension on the subject, as Lord Leverhulme pointed out; there is a good deal of misapprehension as well. But certainly in no belligerent country has so large a proportion of profit been intercepted by the State. I do not deny for a moment that profits and profiteering have existed. They always will exist in peace or in war, and in every class, section, or walk of the community. But one must remember, as Lord Emmott clearly pointed out, that, in assessing the high dividend, sterling value must be taken into account. It is a very material factor which is generally overlooked, and, per contra, it must be remembered that through Government agency and Government control the sterling value of wages has been very largely maintained; so that, while dividends have depreciated in sterling relatively, that depreciation has applied very much less to wages. For instance, one very common illustration is the loaf of bread. The loaf of bread costs 1s. 3d.

219
or more to the State, and 9d. to the individual. Lord Ribblesdale suggested further reductions in the price of food. I do not propose to anticipate the debate that is down for next week. I would merely say this word of caution, that the Government intend so far as is possible to reduce these prices, but no permanent reduction can be effected unless there is a permanent reduction in the countries of origin; neither is it wise to reduce prices before you are quite secure in your supplies. Until those conditions are fulfilled, and until we are quite certain that ample tonnage is available—which is far from being the case at the present time—it would be imprudent to take any active step in that direction. Inquiry can, of course, be held into profiteering if there is any real cause shown.
But I want to remind your Lordships that industry now is stagnant; it is alarmed, and it is nervous. I do not know that, if we had to inquire into each separate business of any particular industry, we should not, by harassing and by distracting the trade at the moment when one wants them to concentrate on reconstruction, do very much more harm than good to the industry of the country as a whole. One must consider that aspect of the case, and not hastily produce fresh anxieties unless the public necessity really demands it. We want trade to revive, and trade must have confidence or else it will not do so. As your Lordships have been reminded several times this afternoon, we are faced with very formidable competition. There are belligerents who have been undamaged by the war—notably Japan and the United States of America; and unless we can re-establish our industrial position those rivals, and many other countries too, will undercut our position in a most dangerous fashion. We must strain every effort to re-establish our export trade.
It is a lamentable thing that to-day there are scores if not hundreds of British ships outward bound in ballast because no coal was available when they sailed. In old days we used to have a very good market in the Plate for our coal, where I think from 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 tons were sent every year. That was useful for our mining industry, for our railway industry, for our dock industry, for our mercantile marine. It was useful also because that outward freight cheapened the return cargo of grain, or wool, or hides, brought from South
220
America for consumption in this country. We cannot afford to lose a market which took 10,000,000 tons a year of our coal; and unless we are cautious we shall find that the United States of America—which has good seams and new seams, and where there is a notable disposition on the part of the craftsman and the artisan to avail himself of labour-saving machinery—will exclude us from a market where we onsidered ourselves supreme.
Or take the case of India, to which Lord Emmott referred. If the cost of fuel rises unduly in this country we naturally injure our home consumer, but we may paralyse our export trade as well. Our valuable trade with India, where we send piece goods, Manchester goods, is already subject to very formidable local competition from Bombay and the neighbourhood; but Japanese competition is there, too; and before very long United States competition will also make itself felt. We cannot, therefore, consider the home conditions of an industry in isolation; they must be considered in relation to our export trade; because we are already, alas! a debtor country, and if we lose our export trade we shall, of course, be a third-class Power in fifteen years' time. The Government is blamed because there is trouble here or trouble there, or because everything does not work out—as Lord Haldane seems to think it can work out when you are dealing with trade unions—with purely mathematical precision, I aught almost say upon the basis of astronomical accuracy. There are human factors which make it impossible to guarantee that your forecast will be correct. As I have said, only a few weeks have elapsed since the condition of British industry was revolutionised from top to bottom, and it is not really quite right to blame the Government because contingencies arise which not only the Government but nobody else, whether in trade or out of it, foresaw. I think that some patience is required.
Trade is still dislocated; it is still trying to feel its way; and, as Lord Ribblesdale pointed out, the present is a most embarrassing moment at which extreme demands should be pressed. The immediate difficulty is unemployment, and we must be most anxious to do nothing which may stimulate unemployment. Reference has been made to the unemployment benefit. I should like to explain that this was placed on the high side for reasons which I

221
think were adequate. After the Armistice it was anticipated that, while demobilisation was in progress, the rate of unemployment would be pretty high. That has been the case. All sorts of factories, employing immense numbers of people, were abruptly closed when the Armistice came; work-people who had been receiving high wages were suddenly turned adrift; industry was not in a normal condition and could not absorb those unemployed. There is now no normal fluctuation of employment as there is during ordinary times—three, four, or six weeks of unemployment in old days generally would end the difficulty, but now it is much more serious because we have not only to absorb these persons into ordinary employment, but, before doing so, factories have to be remodelled, and in sonic cases entirely scrapped and new equipment installed. The benefit, therefore, was put on the high side. In Ireland that has been found liable to abuse. The incidence of the unemployment benefit in Ireland is now being revised, and the balance of the money which it was estimated would be spent upon this unemployment is being devoted to reconstruction work which in itself it is hoped will find fresh employment, and therefore (so to speak) produce again to the public from both sides of the balance-sheet. As regards Britain, the circumstances are a good deal different. The whole economic, basis of this unemployment benefit is now the subject of close examination.
May I shortly refer, in conclusion, to a general survey of the position? The desire of the Government is to ensure that, consistently with maintaining our economic stability, the best conditions and the highest wages shall be afforded to the artisan population of this country. Much has been done—much more, perhaps, than people know. Great reductions, for instance, in hours have already been arranged. Somebody asked yesterday why we do not make more agreements with people. I do not think your Lordships should ignore the agreements already made. The public is not aware of how much has been achieved. The public hears of failure to prevent some strike, but gives no credit for success. The public does not always read its newspapers either. Lord Buck-master blamed us for not publishing the text of that last agreement about the Tube strike. He did not know, although he is a traveller on the Tube, that it was published on that morning, but Lord
222
Buckmaster did not happen to notice the paragraph.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Earl misunderstood me. My complaint was that in the discussions between the Government and the representatives of the railway there was never published a consecutive account of what was going on, so that any person could understand what had occurred; and I said—and I think there are a great many people who agree with me—that up to this hour I do not know what is the exact position as between the Government and the railway.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There were two complaints. Perhaps a little more history should be published, and I have rather expressed my view in that sense.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble Earl tell us what is the position between the railways and the Government?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, not without notice.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It was the thing I wanted to know. The whole of London was thrown into confusion for nearly a week, and we have not been told what was the result.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord if I have provoked his asperity.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If the noble Earl tells me he is unable to give me the information, I say no more.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If the noble and learned Lord will put down a Question for Tuesday next, or for to-morrow, I can undertake to give him a complete answer. However, I will not pursue the matter. I think I am on perfectly good ground in the criticism I have made. I say the public are not aware, always, how much has been achieved. For instance, on this question of hours which is so fruitful a source of dispute, much is done without advertisement or publicity to-day. Excluding such industries as the coal-mining and railway industries, no fewer than 3,000,000 employees are under agreements covering the hours of their labour. Other trades are in process of getting reductions, but uni-

223
formity, which is so often demanded, cannot be granted without very close scrutiny, as trades differ so much and react in so many ways upon each other.
One condition is essential to lasting improvement, not only in railways or in mines, but indeed throughout industry as a whole. There must be improved production. Improved production is the basis of high wages and better conditions. That is the ideal to which the Government, and I doubt not everybody else, desires to attain. Every possible concession will be made; but on the other hand labour, I think, should not shrink from taking its share in responsibility. The responsible leaders must help promote this improved scale of production, and one hopes that they may be able to discourage unauthorised disputes and to enforce agreements when arranged. Such information as can be given always will be given. But apart from statistics and data, and so on, which can be communicated to the public, Capital, and Labour too, and of course the great public as well, must recognise the difficulties of the situation—the reaction from war conditions, the gradual revival of industry, the dangers of existing and of new competitions. I think, therefore, that one may ask not merely from critics but from labour and the business world that everybody should exercise as much patience as possible. I believe, myself, that with good will and with cool heads our problems are in process of solution.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has, as in duty bound, made it his business to defend the Government to which he belongs, and I certainly do not rise for the purpose of criticising the Government. Much of what the Government said—indeed, as far as I know, all the Government said—is admirable. The two representatives of the Government, the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack and my noble friend the noble Earl opposite, have spoken of firmness, of restraint, of consideration of all legitimate complaints, of patience, of education, of sanitary reform—all these things are excellent. They have testified to the need of publicity. Of that we are very glad. It is clear from what the noble Earl has just said that he is conscious that there has not been sufficient publicity up till now, and no doubt that was in the Lord Chancellor's mind. All these things
224
are of very great importance, and indeed one wishes that the public, who have got to judge of these matters, had been present during a great part of the debates of these two nights in your Lordships' House. Certainly, with great respect, I have never heard a debate in this House more full of matter, more full of important considerations, more full of educational efficiency, than the great speeches to which we have listened. I earnestly hope that they will find their way to the cars of the public.
But, my Lords, information is not sufficient by itself. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, who spoke just now, said that this was in part a spiritual question, and that is perfectly true. We must approach the wage-earning classes not merely from the point of view of Capital, not merely from the point of view of those who have got statistics and information to give them, but also from the point of view of missionaries, who are there to persuade and convert employers and employed to the necessity of working together. That is what is essential. That is, indeed, a spiritual process. It is not a spiritual process of a long date to which the noble and learned Lord referred—he was speaking of educational changes over a long period of years—but the necessity is at the door. If we can, we have got to prevent this great danger to our country and our Empire which is absolutely awaiting us, and we must persuade the employers and the wage-earning classes of the necessity of coming to terms. That is my only criticism, if I may make an exception to what I have said, in respect of the noble Earl's speech. I do not think he showed quite that the Government realise their responsibility in the matter. He realised the responsibility of doing what he could to improve the conditions of the working classes, but it is up to him (if I may use the phrase), and up to the Government, to persuade the working classes. They must do it. That is what is essential.
I am not going to take so gloomy a view of the situation as some of the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships. It appears to me that there is a good deal which gives us cause for hope in this controversy. In the first place, I think it can be made clear to the point of absolute demonstration to the working-class representatives at the conference which is approaching, that it is not merely a question between labour and "profiteers." From a

225
good deal of the talk which we hear you would imagine that there were only two parties to the controversy—labour on the one side and "profiteers" on the other. But there is the public. It can be shown that, unless peace can be preserved, it is the public which is going to suffer, and it can be shown by any one who listened to the speech of Lord Emmott and other speeches which we have heard to-night that those who will suffer most of all are the persons of very moderate means, of fixed incomes, who, on the top of the loss in the value of money and of the taxation that they have to endure, are going further to be burdened with all the consequences of a general strike. That is the sort of simple fact which I am certain can be, and no doubt will be, brought home to the representatives of labour at the coining conference.
But there is more than that. There is the speech—which has been referred to several times in the course of the debate—that was delivered by a distinguished representative of labour in the House of Commons, Mr. Thomas. That was a brave speech, and in most respects it was a speech which I humbly say I entirely agree with. I do not mean to say I agree with every word of it, of course, but its broad outlines. What was Mr. Thomas's first position? It was this. That representatives of labour must recognise that their position as citizens came first, and that they were not entitled to ignore their position as citizens and to make war upon society. I have not quoted his words, but that was the effect of what he said. If that is a representation of what labour thinks, it is a very important point. The whole conception of the general strike, which is to hold up all the industry of the country and to make war upon the country, is, according to Mr. Thomas, ruled out.
The principle, however, goes further. It is not merely that the workers are not entitled to hold up the rest of their countrymen, but that they are not entitled to live upon the earnings of the rest of their countrymen. Upon the Address a speech, which has been referred to, was made by the Prime Minister, who showed that whereas at the beginning of the war the railways in the hands of the Government were making a large profit, now that profit, in consequence of the cost of working the railways, was turned into a deficit
226
almost as great as the profit had been. This means, of course, that if that state of things is to continue the railways would be worked at a loss—a loss which has to be made good by the taxpayers—in other words, that that particular business would be supported not by the legitimate earnings of the men but by a subvention from the State. That is inconsistent with the interests of the State, and the principle that labour must recognise the position of its members as citizens before their position as organised labour, applies to that state of things. And we may say at once that none of these businesses, neither the railways nor the mines, can be carried on at a loss and at the cost of the taxpayers. If labour recognises that, that again is a point which tennis towards agreement.
Let us go further. There is the question—a great question for which labour has always fought—of recognition of the trade unions. There is really hardly any question between us about it. There is no question of principle between employers and employed on that subject now. There is certainly no question as between the Government and labour or as between your Lordships' House and labour on such a point. We all desire that labour should be recognised. The universal approval with which the Whitley Report was received testifies to that. It shows that we all are most anxious, if we can, to go every length in recognising organised labour. Mr. Thomas went a step further, and said in his speech that labour now considered that it had a right to have a share in the management and control of their daily affairs—that is to say, a share in the management of industry. For my part I am entirely in favour of their having a share in the management of industry, and I believe I am speaking the views of a great many others.
Your Lordships listened with approval to the very important speech of Lord Leverhulme to-night. He said he believed in joint management between employers and employed in business. I understand he has practised it in his own case. That is another point upon which it appears there is not very much which divides the parties; recognition, and then management. The noble Lord, Lord Islington, who made a most interesting speech last night, went a step further. He said that he would like to see trade unions, as I understood him, universal, all labour

227
organised: he would like to see them incorporated. That certainly would be a very important step. For my part I would not exclude it, provided labour would undertake all the obligations which such a recognition would involve, and would accept the necessity, which all other Englishmen are under, of answering for their actions before the ordinary Courts. In that case I am not sure whether we should not all of us be ready to see the organisation of labour universal, and I see no reason why we should not come to some agreement in that direction.
I will not speak of profits. Everybody agrees that formerly labour had not a sufficient share in the profits of industry. I do not want to adopt quite the language which Lord Buckmaster used last night. I admired his speech immensely, but I think the phrase he used towards the end of it, to the effect that he thought every concession ought to be made which was possible, is capable of misrepresentation. I do not think he meant quite so much as that. We do not want to concede anything to labour except what is fair. There is nothing to be gained by a sort of panic-stricken concession to labour at the expense of other people, and by so doing inflicting great injustice. I do not look for peace on such terms, but I believe that if you could once get to grips on these questions, if you could once get labour to hear and ponder and appreciate these points, you would find them to be as reasonable as Englishmen always are.
I listened with great interest and sympathy to a passage in Lord Leverhulme's speech when he spoke of hearing from his own sons, or the sons of friends of his, officers at the front, how easily they got on with the men who were the representatives of labour at home. Why should it be that in such a capacity it was easy enough for the two classes to get on, and yet that there should be all this misunderstanding and industrial unrest now before us? I do not believe such a state of things is natural. I do not believe it is at all necessary, and I am not in despair that such a conference as the Government are about to institute will be successful. Let us not go into the conference in that sort of spirit. Let us go into it in the sure and certain hope that we shall persuade both sides, employers and employed, to take the view which reason, sympathy—and may I say Christian charity?—prescribes, and in so doing, as
228
we have saved our country in the war, so we shall save it from the consequences of industrial unrest.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Marquess will forgive me if I correct him now. I did not wish to interrupt him in his speech. I do so because what I said has been misreported in the daily Press, and I think it is open to grave misrepresentation. What I said was that—
"Every concession that can be made to the very last limits should be made before a decision is taken that nothing further can be done, and when that line has been reached that it is never abandoned."
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I understand that there are several noble Lords who desire to take part in this debate, and that it would be convenient to the House if it were now adjourned. I beg, therefore, to move that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before the Question is put, perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could tell me whether or not it is proposed to take this debate as the first Order to-morrow. It may be to some extent a convenience were that done. There are not many noble Lords who desire to continue the debate, and it would be convenient if we could dispose of it as the first Order, if the Government would agree to that course.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If that is not possible, would the noble Earl consider putting the adjourned debate down for Tuesday next? We want to avoid taking the debate at a late hour, and if it cannot be taken as the first Order to-morrow can it be taken on Tuesday?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am entirely in your Lordships' hands in the matter. It is not a late hour now, and we might have had another speech or two. To-morrow we have a Question by Lord Burnham about Procedure, and the Lord President of the Council is anxious to address your Lordships on that subject. We have also an interesting Question from Viscount Bryce; and an important subject to be raised by the Marquess of Lansdowne. My impression is that we ought to take these subjects first, and I understand they will occupy about an hour. The learned Clerk reminds me that for Tuesday next

229
Lord Sydenham has tabled a Notice on an Indian subject, and Lord Gainford has a. Question on the Paper which I imagine would only take a short time. It is entirely as your Lordships desire. I do not think there Would be any serious objection to taking the adjourned debate to-morrow.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday.
EARL RUSSELL: I have no objection to moving Tuesday. I said "to-morrow," because I was told through the usual sources that it would be more convenient. I think there is a good deal to be said for Tuesday.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If the debate I put down for Tuesday, I hope that the Government will permit it to have precedence, because I do not think it is quite right that a debate of this importance should be put behind other matters which may occupy a considerable time. I respectfully suggest that it should have precedence over other business on Tuesday.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We really cannot complain that we are sitting late to-night, and I would point cut most emphatically to your Lordships that we are not sitting late. I am disinclined to invite your Lordships to sit on Friday. At the same time I am most reluctant to take away from unofficial members of your Lordships' House rights they have already secured by placing Notices on the Paper. I have not got the terms of Lord Sydenham's Notice for Tuesday, but I imagine it is a subject of some importance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Probably an arrangement could be come to with Lord Sydenham.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Certainly.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until Tuesday next.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of February 18.]
BANKERS' GUARANTEE TRUST (TRANSFER) BILL.[H.L.]
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION GAS BILL. [H.L.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL.[H.L.]
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
POOLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THAMES OCEAN-WHARF AND RAILWAY [H.L.]
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
BRITON FERRY BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
D. H. EVANS AND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
NEWARK GAS BILL. [H.L.]
PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, read la; and referred to the Examiners.
SHERINGHAM GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
STOURPORT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SUNDERLAND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
WEST SOMERSET MINERAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

BECCLES WATERWORKS.
Petition of the Beccles Waterworks Company under their Common Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to sanction and confirm the construction by the Beccles Waterworks Company of existing works and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.